WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. Reception conditions for asylum-seekers.
Date: 2003-03-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Convention on Human Rights, United Kingdom, admission of aliens, application of EU law

C 65 E/38

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

The Commission can confirm that in making the proposal for the Directive of the Parliament and of the
Council on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States
relating to the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products (1), it was not its intention to prevent the
continued use of brand names originally used for non-tobacco products, and still used in good faith for
advertising and sponsoring non-tobacco products, provided it is in a manner distinct from that used for
tobacco products of the same names.

(1) OJ C 270 E, 25.9.2001.

(2004/C 65 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0637/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Reception conditions for asylum-seekers

(4 March 2003)

The English High Court ruled on 19 February 2002 that the application of section 55(1) of the UK
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is in breach of the European Convention of Human
Rights. This provision allows the UK Government automatically to refuse food and shelter to an asylum-
seeker who has not made their asylum claim ‘as soon as reasonably practical’. The court ruled that refusing
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 Commission 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.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 Avril 2003)

Following a ruling by the English High Court, the Honourable Member has requested clarification from the
Commission about the implementation of Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC laying down
minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1).

The Commission has no competence to intervene in matters for which Community legislation has not yet
entered into force. The provisions of this Directive still need to be transposed by the Member States. The
deadline for transposition is 6 February 2005.

The Honourable Member is undoubtedly aware of the fact that the Home Secretary appealed the decision
of the High Court and that the Court of Appeals has rendered its judgement.

A preliminary reading would suggest that this ruling follows the same lines as the principles laid down in
the Directive.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/39

The Directive provides for the possibility to refuse conditions in cases where an asylum seeker has failed to
demonstrate that the asylum claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after arrival in a Member
State.
It also requires that decisions to refuse conditions shall be taken individually, objectively and
impartially and reasons shall be given. Moreover, the Directive provides that such decisions shall be based
on the particular situation of the person concerned, especially with regard to certain categories of
vulnerable persons and it ensures that such decisions may be the subject of an appeal.

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

(2004/C 65 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0649/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 March 2003)

Subject: Criticism by the Netherlands National Audit Office of the lack of transparency in the management

of EU funds by fund flow and by Member State

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands National Audit Office published its first annual ‘EU
trends report’ on 18 February 2003, the aim of which is to chart developments in the management of
Community funds and oversight and monitoring of their allocation, as well as legality and effectiveness in
the Netherlands and throughout the European Union?

their results are not published, so that

2.
Is the Commission aware that the 2003 report points out that, while the Commission exercises
the public is unable to establish any link between
checks,
shortcomings in financial management and certain countries or flows of funds, and that the report also
criticises the fact that since 1994 the European Court of Auditors, in its reports on the reliability of
income and expenditure, has made no specific reference by country or fund flow, and hence can make no
positive statements on the accounts of the European Union?

3.
Is there a law in all the Member States comparable to the Dutch law on supervision of European
subsidies, which was adopted following the discovery of errors in the management of the ESF in the period
from 1994-1999, and which requires ministers to exercise central oversight over decentralised spending?

Is oversight at national level limited in practice to the Member States Austria, the United Kingdom

4.
and the Netherlands, and the candidate countries Estonia, Latvia, Hungary and Romania?

5. Why are results broken down by fund flow not published, particularly as regards the Structural and
Cohesion Funds and agricultural subsidies?

6. Why are results broken down by Member State, including Member States which themselves practise
no or little oversight, not published?

7. What is the Commission doing, particularly in the light of the report in question, to present these
financial data to the public in a better form, thus reinforcing the possibility of public oversight of
movements of EU funds?

Supplementary answer
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

1.
The Commission has taken note of the first annual ‘EU-trendrapport 2003’ by the Dutch ‘Algemene
Rekenkamer’. Like similar reports produced by other national audit bodies, this is a good example of a
national audit institution supporting improvement in the management of Community funds by the
Member States.

The Commission will take account of the recommendations made by the ‘Rekenkamer’ where they can
improve such management and draw them to the Member States’ attention.