WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/03 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Application of the principle of solidarity in dealing with the social and economic impact on Member States of the intense pressure exerted by migration (Article 63 of the EEC Treaty).
Date: 2003-02-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU migration policy, aid to refugees, border control, external border of the EU, illegal migration, migration control

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/89

(2004/C 11 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 February 2003)

Subject: Application of the principle of solidarity in dealing with the social and economic impact on
Member States of the intense pressure exerted by migration (Article 63 of the EEC Treaty)

In recent decades, Europe has come under intense pressure from migration, reflected in a corresponding
increase in applications for asylum in the Member States and a flood of illegal immigration into the EU.
The limited measures which have been adopted or occasionally proposed. e.g. Directive 2001/55/EC (1), the
‘SCIFA+’ service, a proposal to set up a European body for border control etc., are not sufficient to deal
with the problem in the EU. However, the situation remains unclear and of particular concern in the case
of pressure from third-country migration and, above all, the possible mass movement of populations
caused by local crises.

Given that the Treaties expressly provide for promoting a balance of effort between Member States in
receiving and bearing the consequences of receiving refugees and displaced persons (Article 63(2)(b) of the
EC Treaty), how will the waves of refugees from the forthcoming war be dealt with on the basis of current
rules and how precisely is the principle of solidarity expected to work and the balance of effort between
Member States in receiving refugees, as laid down in the Treaties, to be achieved?

In the light of current EU mechanisms for dealing with unforeseen economic crises and the tolerance levels
of each economy, what mechanisms are in place in the event of a mass movement of populations, which
may create an immediate serious crisis having a socially, politically and economically destabilising effect in
a region of the Union? What are the tolerance levels of the Member States or a region of the EU in such a
situation?

In a speech on 12 June 2002, the President of the Commission, Mr Prodi, focused on the concerns of
European citizens regarding illegal immigration and insisted on the need for the immediate strengthening
of external border controls. What progress has been made on the basis of the latest developments and does
the Commission intend to propose, by applying the principle of solidarity, that a special fund be set up for
emergency situations faced by Member States which are under severe pressure from immigration?

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

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2003)

As the Honourable Member rightly notes, Article 63(2)(b) of the EC Treaty provides for measures with a
view to promoting a balance of effort between Member States in receiving and bearing the consequences
of receiving refugees and displaced persons.

On that basis, the Union has adopted two instruments:

(cid:1) The first

is the European Refugee Fund (ERF) established by Council Decision 200/596/EC of
28 September 2000 (1). It is an instrument of financial solidarity whereby Community resources are
divided between the Member States in proportion to the number of asylum seekers they receive and
the number of refugees and displaced persons who stay in their territory.
It has a budget of
EUR 216 million over five years, including a reserve of EUR 10 million to cope with basic necessities
in the event of a mass influx of displaced persons.

C 11 E/90

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

(cid:1) The second is 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 measures promoting a
balance of efforts between Member States in receiving such persons and bearing the consequences
thereof, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question. The Directive lays down not only the
rules in connection with the implementation of temporary protection and the arrangements for
persons received but also a solidarity mechanism between the Member States based on the reception
capacity of each of them and a voluntary return programme. Among the solidarity measures planned,
it specifies that:
‘when the number of those who are eligible for temporary protection following a
sudden and massive influx exceeds the reception capacity …, the Council shall, as matter of urgency,
examine the situation and take appropriate action, including recommending additional support for the
Member States affected.’

The measures for implementing the Directive will be supported by the ERF, in particular by releasing
appropriations entered in the reserve. If that amount does not cover requirements in the event of a massive
influx, extra funds may be granted with the agreement of the budgetary authority.

The principle of balancing the efforts made by the Member States is not spelt out in the EC Treaty in
relation to immigration policy; but
immigration and illegal
residence, including the repatriation of persons residing illegally and management of the external borders.

it encourages studies relating to illegal

Here, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Communication from the Commission
to the Council on a common policy on illegal immigration (2) on 15 November 2001.

Council Directive 2001/40/EC of 28 May 2001 on the mutual recognition of decisions on the expulsion of
third country nationals (3) and the Commission proposal for a Council Decision setting out the criteria and
practical arrangements for the compensation of the financial imbalances resulting from the application of
that Directive (4), are an example of how solidarity is gradually growing in that area.

With regard to the management of external borders, the Commission Communication of 7 May 2002 (5),
proposed to gradually establish a common policy for the integrated management of external borders based
on Title IV of the EC Treaty and to the development of the Schengen acquis. The Commission’s objective is
to organise measures in order to ensure continuity in a policy consisting of five main components: a
common corpus of legislation, a common and operational coordination and cooperation mechanism
between the heads of sources responsible for external frontiers; common integrated risk analysis at Union
level; inter-operational personnel and equipment; lastly, in the longer term, burden-sharing between the
Member States and the Union with a view to establishing a European Corps of Border Guards.

On 13 June 2002 the Council (Justice and Home Affairs (JHA)), taking the Commission proposals as a
broad basis, adopted a Plan for the management of the external borders of the European Union (6)
including a list of measures to be carried out according to a timetable extending from June 2002 to June
2007. The Seville European Council (21 and 22 June 2002) welcomed the Commission proposals and the
Plan adopted by the Council (JHA) and called for the speedy attainment of certain objectives such as the
organisation of joint action at external borders, the finalisation of a risk analysis procedure and the
introduction of a common training course for those responsible for the control and surveillance of external
borders.

So far, Member States have not reached a consensus on the establishment of a European Corps of Border
Guards. Multinational teams have recently taken part in innovative control and surveillance exercises at
external borders, at maritime borders in the Mediterranean and at land borders of the Union. Several
Member States made staff and equipment available for a specific period. The Commission feels that this
kind of joint action could be a forerunner to burden-sharing operations in the spirit of the proposals in its
Communication of 7 May 2002.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/91

Lastly, the Honourable Member will note that action carried outside the Community can contribute,
directly or indirectly, to relieving the pressure of migratory flows by supporting the reception of refugees
and displaced persons in the region.

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000.
(2) COM(2001) 672 final.
(3) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001.
(4) COM(2003) 49 final.
(5) COM(2002) 233 final.
(6) Council Doc 10019/02 Limite FRONT 58 COMIX 398, 14 June 2002.

(2004/C 11 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Judgment in connection with the PerryLux affair

(21 February 2003)

From a reading of the judgment handed down by the Court of First Instance on 11 September 2002 in
Case T-89/01, I gather that the Private Office of the President of the Commission was in contact with
PerryLux, the company involved in bribery and fraudulent activities.

That emerges from statements quoted in the judgment and made by the Deputy Director of
Commission’s Security Office, who claims that he was instructed to establish those contacts.

the

According to previous information, only Commissioner Cresson had contacts with that company.

Can the Commission indicate why and on whose authority the Private Office of the President was in
contact with PerryLux?

Can the Commission indicate what steps it has taken as a result of the judgment referred to above in order
to reopen the proceedings against the Deputy Director of the Commission’s Security Office?

Can the Commission confirm that the payments received by the wife of the Deputy Director of the
Commission’s Security Office from PerryLux in return for no services of any significance were made from
the Community budget earmarked for humanitarian aid operations and were, therefore, not used for the
purpose for which they were intended?

Has the Commission demanded repayment of the monies from the wife of the Deputy Director of the
Commission’s Security Office?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

1.
The first paragraph of the question infers that the Cabinet of the then President of the Commission
was involved in corrupt dealings with Perry Lux and claims that the basis for that suggestion is provided
by the judgement in Case T-89/01.

There is, however, no basis whatever for the insinuation made by the Honourable Member in the
judgement to which she refers and the Commission therefore strongly refutes that insinuation.

The Commission has thoroughly examined the judgement to which the Honourable Member refers. That
judgement does not say that ‘the Private Office of the President of the Commission was in contact with
PerryLux, the company involved in bribery and fraudulent activities’. The only passage of the judgement
which has any relation to this alleged matter is Ground 14, which forms part of the statement of facts but
is not part of the Court’s findings. The text of Ground 14 is as follows:

On 12 January 1999, the applicant was heard pursuant to Article 87 of the Staff Regulations. During
that hearing,
‘I understand the Commission to be
suggesting that Mr Perry gave this contract to my wife because of my duties at the Commission. I am

the applicant made the following statement: