WRITTEN QUESTION E-1298/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council. The Olivença issue (Portugal/Spain) and of the Ajuda Bridge.
Date: 2003-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, Spain, competence of the Member States, engineering structure, historical geography, history, internal border of the EU

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

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/127

coerced by the Treaty of Badajoz into ceding Olivença to Spain. The Spanish invasion of Portugal in
1807, in violation of the Treaty, led to its annulment. The Treaty of Paris of 30 May 1814 declared
the 1801 Treaty of Badajoz null and void. The Final Act of the Vienna Congress (9 June 1815),
Article 105, recognised the rights of Portugal. On 7 May 1817, Spain signed the Treaty of Vienna,
‘recognising the just claims made His Royal Highness, the Prince Regent of Portugal and Brazil, to the
town of Olivença and the other territories ceded to Spain by the Treaty of Badajoz of 1801’, and
thereby undertook to make ‘its best efforts to ensure that these territories were handed over (in the
shortest time possible) to Portugal’.

(cid:1) To this day, the frontier between Portugal and Spain from the mouth of the river Caia to the mouth of

the river Cuncos is still undefined, thanks to the Olivença issue.

(cid:1) To come to details, in 1709, following the War of the Spanish Succession, the Bridge of Olivença or

of Our Lady of Help (cid:1) the Ajuda bridge, was destroyed by Spanish forces.

(cid:1) On 11 March 2003, with a view to rebuilding the bridge, on the initiative of Spain, work began on
earth-moving operations on the left bank of the Guadiana, which is Portuguese territory administered
de facto by Spain. This led to the Portuguese Foreign Minister’s office requesting an explanation from
the Spanish Minister. More recently, the Spanish project reached the right bank of the Guadiana (Elvas
local authority), located on Portuguese territory de jure and de facto.

Can the Council answer the following:

(cid:1) Does it have a position on the Olivença issue?

(cid:1) If not, how does it assess the issue from a legal point of view?

(cid:1) What parallels does it draw with the Gibraltar issue, repeatedly raised by Spain?

(cid:1) Does it intend to take steps to help resolve the problem?

(cid:1) How does the Council view a Member State which fails to meet international

legal obligations

repeatedly given to another Member State?

(cid:1) With regard to the Ajuda Bridge, could the Council consider intervening with a view to putting a stop

to this Spanish initiative?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Honourable Member should note that the Council has never broached this subject, as it does not come
within the Council’s purview.

(2003/C 280 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1299/03

by Linda McAvan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Watered down chicken

Is the Commission aware of media reports concerning poultry processors from Holland and Brazil
pumping chickens with water, artificial chemicals, and even material from pig and cow skin? The objective
is apparently to increase the weight of the product and mislead consumers.

Is this legal, and if so what
requirements? If this is illegal, what is the Commission doing to address this problem?

tests have been done to ensure consumer safety? Are there labelling