WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council. Progress on the Seville European Council proposals.
Date: 2003-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Council, border control, cooperation policy, external border of the EU, fight against crime, illegal migration, return migration, third country, trafficking in human beings, vocational training

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/125

Is it the case that as long ago as October 1999, in an unexpurgated version of his book ‘Blowing the
4.
Whistle’, i.e. one in which he identified the alleged guilty parties by name, Mr van Buitenen forwarded to
Romano Prodi, who had just taken office as President of the Commission, the relevant information
concerning the ‘Cellule’? Why did the Commission not instigate a full investigation of those allegations at
the time?

If the administrative inquiry concerning the ‘Cellule de Communication’ has already been completed,
if

5.
what disciplinary action has the Commission taken on the basis of
appropriate, against Mr Lamoureux?

in particular,

its outcome,

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

The Honourable Member may recall that, as I said to the President of the Budget Control Committee in
April 2002, the Appointing Authority took a decision on 8 April 2002 to open an administrative inquiry
into a number of alleged irregularities relating to the awarding of contracts allegedly deriving from the
the Appointing Authority mandated the
this decision,
‘Cellule de communication’. By virtue of
Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out the inquiry and to report
on potential individual responsibilities. This inquiry followed investigations conducted by the Commission’s
former anti-fraud unit, now OLAF, into numerous allegations made by Mr Van Buitenen, including those
related to the ‘Cellule de Communication’, even before the publication of his book.

The Administrative Inquiry report was produced in October 2002. The Honourable Member will
appreciate that, for any inquiry to be thorough and conclusive, the possibility of additional investigative
measures taken in the course of an inquiry should be allowed for. In this particular case, the sheer volume
of the material consulted, the number of persons heard and the thoroughness of the analysis conducted
has meant that it has proved impossible to maintain the time frame originally envisaged.

In addition, according to Article 5 of the Commission Decision of 19 February 2002 on the conduct of
Administrative Inquiries and Disciplinary Proceedings (1), each person implicated in any inquiry is given the
right to comment on the conclusions of the report before its finalisation. Obviously, fulfilment of that
necessary requirement has time implications.

On the basis of the conclusions of the Administrative Inquiry report, the Appointing Authority decided on
10 February 2003 to open disciplinary proceedings against nine officials or former officials of the
Commission. The Honourable Member will understand that the rights of the persons concerned to
confidentiality and due process imply that the Commission must refrain from disclosing their identity.
However, in view of the reference to a name in the Honourable Member’s question, it should be noted that
the above-mentioned report did not recommend any disciplinary action against Mr François Lamoureux.

(1) C (2002) 540.

(2003/C 280 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Progress on the Seville European Council proposals

Can the Council give its view of progress on the Seville European Council proposals on dealing with illegal
immigration and the formation of a European border guard or border police around the external EU
border?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council attaches great importance to the follow-up to the conclusions of the Seville European Council,
in particular with regard to combating illegal immigration and border control.

C 280 E/126

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

With regard to combating illegal immigration, a number of important instruments have been adopted by
the Council. It is worth mentioning in particular the Comprehensive Plan to combat illegal immigration
and trafficking of human beings in the European Union (1), adopted on 28 February 2002, and the Return
Action Programme, adopted on 28 November 2002. These instruments, which have a general scope, aim
at defining a common strategy at the level of the Union in the areas of fight against illegal immigration
and return of illegal immigrants, by identifying a number of actions and measures to be adopted and
implemented in this field. A number of such specific actions and measures are currently being considered
by the competent Council bodies.

It has also to be recalled that the Council has adopted mandates authorising the Commission to negotiate
readmission agreements between the European Community and 11 third-countries (Morocco, Russia,
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Albania, Algeria, China, Turkey, Hong Kong, Macao and Ukraine). The agreements
with Hong Kong, Macao and Sri Lanka have already been initialled by the Commission and the Council
should shortly adopt the relevant Decisions for their conclusion.

With regard to the gradual introduction of a coordinated and integrated management of external borders,
the Seville European Council referred to concrete measures which the Council, the Commission and the
Member States, within their respective spheres of responsibility, were invited to implement. The European
Council also asked the Council, in cooperation with the Commission, to submit a final report on the
implementation of these measures to the European Council in June 2003. The implementation of these
initiatives is linked to a concrete timetable.

The progress reports which were presented to the Council bodies show that important progress was
realised in implementing the above-mentioned measures with a view to strengthening border controls and
combating illegal immigration. Following the adoption of the Plan for the management of the external
borders by the Justice and Home Affairs Council in June 2002, Member States have initiated new projects,
operations and ad-hoc centres, 17 in total. Joint operations were carried out at the external land, sea and
air borders both in 2002 and 2003. Various pilot projects were initiated relating to inter alia rational
repatriation procedures, coordinated criminal investigation regarding cross-border crime, the creation of a
Centre of Excellence-Mobile Detection Unit and an international airports plan. Furthermore, a common
integrated risk analysis model (CIRAM) was adopted and a core curriculum for border guard training was
drafted. An immigration liaison officers network is expected to be fully operational by the end of 2003
together with the completion of a Belgian-led immigration liaison officers network in the Western Balkans.

However, the Council is not yet in the position to comment on the final results of these operations,
projects and ad-hoc centres. Once all reports are submitted and analysed, the Council will submit a full
evaluation report to the Thessaloniki European Council in June 2003, as requested by the Seville European
Council. This evaluation report is currently being prepared.

With regard to ideas on the formation of a European border guard, the Council is awaiting the results of a
Commission study on its advisability and feasibility. The Commission is currently carrying out a study
concerning burden-sharing between Member States and the Union for the management of external
borders. The results of this study will be presented to the Thessaloniki European Council. The Commission
is also preparing a proposal to recast the Common Manual on border control.

(1) OJ C 142, 14.6.2002, p. 23.

(2003/C 280 E/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(7 April 2003)

Subject: The Olivença issue (Portugal/Spain) and of the ‘Ajuda’ Bridge

The Olivença issue is, briefly, as follows:

(cid:1) By the Treaty of Alcanizes, signed in 1297 by Dom Dinis, King of Portugal, and Fernando IV, King of
Castille, Olivença was definitively integrated into Portuguese territory, and remained so following the
end of the ‘Dynastic Union’ between Portugal and Spain (1580-1640). On 20 May 1801, Spanish
troops occupied Olivença. On 6 June 1801, in the face of a threatened French invasion, Portugal was