WRITTEN QUESTION E-1641/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Failure to grant Slovene nationality to persons who in 1991 were residents of the then Yugoslav republic of Slovenia and had Yugoslav nationality.
Date: 2003-05-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Slovenia, national minority, nationality, naturalisation, stateless person

C 88 E/362

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0367)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1641/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Failure to grant Slovene nationality to persons who in 1991 were residents of the then Yugoslav

republic of Slovenia and had Yugoslav nationality

1.
Can the Commission confirm that the future EU Member State Slovenia removed large numbers of
residents from its population register following its declaration of independence in 1991, with the result
that the persons concerned no longer enjoy the right in that country to education, employment, housing,
healthcare and pensions?

2.
Can the Commission also confirm that residents of Slovenia formerly of Yugoslav nationality who,
for whatever reason, failed during the first six months after independence to apply for Slovene nationality,
have been unable to obtain it since, unless, as permanent residents, they briefly had the right in 1998 to
submit a new application?

3.
Has the creation of the new state of Slovenia led to an increase in the number of people without
nationality? Which population groups are most affected? Does this concern in particular people whose
parents belonged to Italian, Hungarian, German, Bosnian, Macedonian and Roma minorities?

4.
Do the new Member States have an obligation to give residents and former residents who had the
nationality of a former state the opportunity to acquire the new nationality, with no one running the risk
of being unable to exercise that right in practice as a result of temporary absence, ignorance, illness or
other circumstances? Do those affected have the possibility to apply again?

5.
Has the Commission to date pursued a policy directed against loss of nationality and the removal of
normal rights for permanent residents? What measures is the Commission taking to prevent new problems
from arising as a result of the creation of a group of stateless, second-class citizens without rights?

Source: TV Nederland-2, current affairs programme 2-Vaandag, 2 May 2003.

Answer given by M. Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

When Slovenia declared its independence in 1991, citizens of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
(SFRY) residing in Slovenia were given the possibility to apply for Slovenian citizenship. A deadline was set
for submitting applications and a large number of people submitted an application and were granted
Slovenian citizenship. Others opted for citizenship of one of the other successor states of SFRY, a number
of people left Slovenia to live in the other successor states of SFRY and others stayed in Slovenia without
applying for citizenship. The people who did not apply for citizenship, were erased from the population
register. According to the Slovenian Ministry of the Interior, the number of people concerned is 18 300.
However, the Commission does not have any statistical information on the population groups affected.

A law adopted in 1999 attempted to regulate the status of these former citizens of SFRY living in Slovenia
(the so-called ‘erased’) by providing them a possibility to apply for permanent residence within three
months. According to Slovenian authorities, about 13 000 applications for permanent residence were
received. In September 2002, 10 200 decisions had been taken, 9 800 of them being positive. Furthermore,
a number of the people who had applied for permanent residence were in the meantime granted Slovenian
citizenship.

In April 2003, the Constitutional Court ruled that the deadline for submitting applications in the law of
1999 was too short and therefore not in line with the Constitution. It requested the Parliament to bring
the legislation on this matter into line with the Constitution within six months.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/363

The amendments to the Law on Citizenship of October 2002 also aim at contributing to the resolution of
the problem of the ‘erased’ by stipulating easier procedures for obtaining Slovenian citizenship for stateless
people.

The question of citizenship of newly emerged states is a particularly complex one. A nationality of a
Member State is entirely a matter for the Member States concerned, as the Declaration on nationality of a
Member State appended to the Treaty of Maastricht confirms (1). It is therefore for each Member State,
having due regard to Community law, to lay down the conditions for acquisition and loss of nationality (2).
However, the Commission has encouraged the Slovenian authorities to resolve this issue and has followed
up progress made in its yearly Regular Reports under the political criteria section.

(1) Declaration no 2 on nationality of a Member State, OJ C 191, 29.7.1992.
(2) See judgement of the Court of Justice in case C-369/90 Micheletti of 7.7.1992, ECR 1992.

(2004/C 88 E/0368)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1646/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of imports into the EU of tinned mandarin-orange

segments from China

Last October I submitted a priority written question (P-2956/02 (1)) to the Commission on the application
of the safeguard clause in respect of the overwhelming increase in imports of tinned mandarin-orange
segments from China.

In its answer the Commission indicated that it was waiting for the Spanish authorities to provide the
necessary documentation since the information previously submitted did not meet the WTO’s strict
regulations.

Can the Commission confirm whether the Spanish authorities have already submitted all the relevant
information requested?

If this is the case, what are the reasons preventing the Commission from taking the steps set out for such
cases in Regulation (EC) 2201/96 (2)?

(1) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.
(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.

(2004/C 88 E/0369)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Imports of preserved mandarin segments from China

(12 June 2003)

On 5 June 2002, because of massive imports of preserved mandarin segments from the People’s Republic
of China, Spain urgently requested application of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 (1), in particular Article 22
thereof concerning the safeguard clause in the event of the Community market being disturbed by imports.

If the Commission considered its application dubious, because of China’s entry into the WTO or for some
other reason, can it say:

(cid:1) why it did not apply the measures laid down in Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 (2) establishing common
rules for imports, after receiving all the relevant reports from the Spanish Government, the latest in
March 2003;