WRITTEN QUESTION E-0644/03 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Council. 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice.
Date: 2003-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Basque Country, EU police cooperation, Spain, arrest, competence of the Member States, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, legal action, public order, terrorism, torture

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/223

food and shelter is a breach of the applicant’s human rights and the ban on inhumane and degrading
treatment if it poses a real risk of destitution and injury to the asylum-seeker’s health.

Since the wording in the UK Act is the same as in Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) laying
down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the risk may be that other Member States
might fall foul of the ECHR if they also impose an automatic denial of benefit on delayed claims. Given the
interest in a uniform application of EU law, will the Council Presidency ensure that all Member States
follow the guidance that this English judgment offers so that asylum-seekers are not left destitute?

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

Reply

(13 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member mentions in her question, on 27 January 2003 the Council adopted Directive
2003/9/EC on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1).

Article 26 provides that Member States must bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive by 6 February 2003.

The Council understands that the UK Government has lodged an appeal against the High Court ruling of
19 February 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 211 TEC, it is for the
Commission to ensure that the measures taken pursuant to the Treaty are applied, and that in accordance
with Article 67(5) TEC, as established by the Treaty of Nice, any amendments to Directive 2003/9/EC will
be adopted pursuant to the procedure provided for in Article 251, thus only on a proposal from the
Commission.

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

(2003/C 222 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0644/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Council

(4 March 2003)

Subject: 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice

On February the 12th, during the 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice, I asked
the Council Office and Commissioner Vitorino the following questions, without receiving any response
from them.

In the Kingdom of Spain on 13 February 1981, that is to say 22 years ago, Joseba Arregi, a Basque
political prisoner, died under torture while he was in police custody.

In 2002, 634 politically motivated people were arrested. 127 of them subsequently claimed in court that
they had suffered ill treatment or torture.

Has the Council received clear information about this issue from the Spanish Government?

Does the Council consider that the transparency principle has been respected by the Spanish Government?

Last year the Spanish Government proposed banning several social organisations (cid:1) media and cultural
associations (cid:1) that had denounced the political repression suffered by Basque dissidents. As a result of a
Spanish initiative, the European Union has drawn up a black list of associations and individuals accused of
specific or tacit support for terrorism. The accused have neither legal means of defence nor effective access
to the courts.

C 222 E/224

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

Does the Council consider there has been real enforcement of the democratic control principle with regard
to Spain?

Will the Council put forward a judicial instrument, in the new texts being drafted, for those included on
the European Union’s black list?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council is not able to take any position as far as individual criminal cases as well as the maintaining of
public order in the Member States are concerned.

As for the last question raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Council invites the Honourable
Member of the European Parliament to note that the Council has adopted the ‘Council Decision 2003/48/
JHA of 19 December 2002 on the implementation of specific measures for police and judicial cooperation
to combat terrorism in accordance with Article 4 of Common Position 2001/931/CFSP’ which is published
in the Official Journal L 16 of 22 January 2003, p.68.

(2003/C 222 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0666/03

by Jan Dhaene (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 March 2003)

Subject: Equipping of vehicles with automatic rear fog flashlights (ARFF)

Automatic rear fog flashlights were on the agenda of the Working Party on Lighting and Light-Signalling
(GRE), and were thus being discussed by lighting specialists, as long ago as 1991 and 1992.

Practical research carried out in the French Government’s Fog Laboratory in Clermont-Ferrand and part-
funded by the European Commission led to the finding that, after a series of tests, undertaken totally
independently, of all the possible rear-light configurations currently authorised under European legislation,
all the international test persons involved agreed that automatic rear fog flashlights were always the easiest
to detect and were selected as the best additional warning signal. As long ago as 1994, the Advocate
General at the Amsterdam Court ruled that automatic rear fog flashlights were not prohibited.

In 1999, the European Commission’s High-Level Group on Traffic Safety deemed that such lights did not
constitute a danger for international traffic and referred to the Vienna Convention which lays down that
warnings may be given by means of flashing lights while the danger lasts. The use of such additional
warning signals may well prevent serious accidents.

Is the Commission aware that ARFF constitute the only system which meets all the requirements laid

1.
down by the German Federal Road Research Institute?

Is the Commission aware that multiphase lighting was introduced some time ago but that it was then

2.
withdrawn again, once it became obvious that it resulted in no more than limited improvement?

Is the Commission aware that all types and sorts of vehicles may be involved in serious accidents and
3.
that, accordingly, all types of vehicles must be able to use a clear and directly recognisable additional signal
in order to prevent very serious accidents?

Is the Commission aware that all previous shortcomings and irritations involved in rear-light

4.
configurations may be solved by second-generation ARFF at a stroke?