WRITTEN QUESTION P-0479/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council. Addressing the social and economic consequences for Member States of the heavy pressure of immigration on the basis of the principle of solidarity (Article 63 of the EC Treaty).
Date: 2003-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU migration policy, admission of aliens, economic consequence, illegal migration, political refugee, social impact

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/207

(2003/C 222 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0479/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Council

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Addressing the social and economic consequences for Member States of the heavy pressure of

immigration on the basis of the principle of solidarity (Article 63 of the EC Treaty)

Europe has been subjected to heavy pressure from immigration over the last few decades, and there has
been a corresponding increase in the number of asylum applications in EU Member States as well as an
explosive growth in illegal immigration involving the illegal entry of immigrants from third countries into,
and resident in, EU territory. It is estimated that 300 000 illegal immigrants entered Greece in 2002 alone,
and there is an obvious danger that the present international tension will create a huge wave of refugees
seeking to enter the EU which will have incalculable social and economic consequences.

In view of the fact that the limited measures adopted or proposed at various times, for example Directive
2001/55/EC (1), the service SCIFA+ which has just been set up on immigration, frontiers and asylum, the
proposal for the establishment of a European border guard etc., will not be able adequately to tackle the
problem of the mass influx of persons into the EU, will the Council say:

(cid:1) What provision has it made to tackle a mass influx of illegal immigrants or a huge wave of refugees
into the territory of an EU Member State and what is the capacity of Member States to receive large
waves of immigrants?

(cid:1) What social and economic cost is a Member State on the periphery of the EU likely to incur due to a
mass influx of refugees into its territory and what Community assistance and solidarity mechanisms
exist at EU level, based on Article 63, paragraph 2(b) of the EC Treaty or on the Treaties, to deal with
the arrival of waves of illegal immigrants in those Member States which serve as the entry points and
breakwaters on the periphery of the EU?

(cid:1) Does it consider that a special fund should be set up, based on the fair distribution of the social and
economic burden of addressing such emergencies, for the benefit of those Member States which are
subjected to heavy pressure from immigration and what new measures or mechanisms does it
consider are indispensable for addressing phenomena of
this kind in developing an integrated
immigration policy and managing the external frontiers of the EU?

(1) OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12.

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to Council Directive 2001/55/EC of 20 July 2001 on
minimum standards for giving temporary protection in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons and
on measures promoting a balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing
the consequences thereof (‘Directive on temporary protection’) (1).

The Directive provides that the existence of a mass influx of persons must be established by a Council
Decision adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission. The Decision must lay
down the date on which the temporary protection will take effect and include, among other things,
information received from Member States on their reception capacity. The European Parliament is to be
informed of the Council Decision.

In the interests of solidarity, Article 24 of the Directive on temporary protection lays down that the
measures provided for in the Directive shall benefit from the European Refugee Fund set up by Council
Decision 2000/596/EC of 28 September 2000 (2). Article 6 of that Decision provides for emergency funds,
separate from the resources allocated to Member States each year by the Fund, to help one or more or all
Member States in the event of a sudden mass influx of refugees or displaced persons, or if it is necessary to
evacuate them from a third country, in particular in response to an appeal by international organisations.
Such emergency funding is based on a Council Decision adopted by a qualified majority on a proposal
from the Commission.

C 222 E/208

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

the EU’s external borders,

is awaiting a study by the
As regards the management of
Commission on burden-sharing between the Member States and the Union which was requested in the
Conclusions of the Seville European Council. Secondly, the Council’s bodies will also examine this question
in the context of the follow-up to Part II of the Commission’s Communication to the Council and the
European Parliament:
relations with third
countries’ (3).
for
repatriation of immigrants and rejected asylum seekers, for management of external borders and for
asylum and migration projects in third countries’).

financial resources available at Community level

(‘Report on the effectiveness of

‘Integrating migration issues

in the European Union’s

the Council

(1) OJ L 212, 7.8.2001, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000, p. 12.
(3) COM(2000) 703 final.

(2003/C 222 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Inspection of Kouroupitos waste disposal site in Greece

(21 February 2003)

The Kouroupitos waste disposal site in Crete, concerning which Greece has already been condemned by
the European Court of Justice, was recently visited by EU inspectors.

Can the Commission provide the following information:

(cid:1) What were the findings of the inspectors?

(cid:1) Has Greece taken suitable action to remedy matters, following the most recent ruling by the European
Court of Justice and, if not, what steps will the Commission take to ensure full compliance with
Community law?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2003)

In its judgement (1) of 4 July 2000 (second judgement under Article 228 of the EC Treaty) the European
Court of Justice declared that Greece had failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that waste is
disposed of
in the area of Chania without endangering human health and without harming the
environment in accordance with Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste (2).
In addition, Greece had failed to draw up for that area plans for the disposal of waste pursuant to Article 6
of Directive 75/442/EEC, and the disposal of toxic and dangerous waste pursuant to Article 12 of Council
Directive 78/319/EEC of 20 March 1978 on toxic and dangerous waste (3). Accordingly,
it had not
implemented all the necessary measures to comply with the judgement of 7 April 1992 in Case C-45/91 (4)
(first
its obligations under
Article 171 of the EC Treaty.

the EC Treaty) and had failed to fulfil

judgement, under Article 226 of

The Court ordered Greece to pay to the Commission, into the account designated ‘EC own resources’, a
penalty payment. This penalty was set at EUR 20 000 for each day of delay in implementing the measures
necessary to comply with the judgement of 7 April 1992, from delivery of the second judgement until the
first judgement had been complied with. The Commission sent periodically letters to the Greek authorities
requesting the payment of the daily penalty of EUR 20 000 for the months of July 2000 (as from the 4th)
to February 2001 inclusive. Greece has paid within the deadlines set. This represents a total of
EUR 5 400 000 paid to the Commission by Greece.

By successive letters sent in July 2000, October 2000 and March 2001, the Greek authorities have
communicated to the Commission information regarding the adoption of management plans for solid and
dangerous waste in the district of Chania, the definitive closure of the illegal dump at Kouroupitos, the full
functioning of the new provisional installation in Messomouri, and the timetable for the construction of a
permanent waste landfill site and composting plant in Korakia. In order to verify technical and factual
aspects of this information, the Commission selected two independent experts, who after inspecting the