WRITTEN QUESTION E-1642/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Subjecting of EU citizens to an American points and bargaining system in place of procedures to establish the truth and normal administration of criminal justice.
Date: 2003-05-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, United States, extradition, judicial cooperation, legal system, right to justice, rights of the defence

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/149

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(19 August 2003)

According to estimates contained in the Commission’s document, ‘EU Support for Roma Communities in
Central and Eastern Europe’, published in May 2002, the Roma population of the European Union will
increase by some 1,5 million people following enlargement to 25 Member States. Subsequent enlargement
to include Bulgaria and Romania would add an estimated 3 million people to the Roma population of the
Union.

The Commission is determined to ensure that the fullest use is made of the different instruments available
at Community level by the authorities and other relevant actors in the Member States, the new Member
States and the candidate countries in relation to the situation of the Roma communities.

The Union is already heavily engaged in efforts aiming to improve the situation of Roma communities in
Europe. During the last three years alone, over EUR 77 million in funding has been provided through the
PHARE programme for projects in Hungary, the Czech and Slovak Republics, Bulgaria and Romania
directed at the Roma communities.

Similar initiatives are being funded in existing Member States such as Spain, Greece and France, through
the European Social Fund,
including the EQUAL Community Initiative, and European Regional
Development Fund interventions in support of investment. Projects for Roma are also supported through
other Community programmes such as Socrates, Youth for Europe and the Community Action Programme
to Combat Discrimination.

from European Union support under

Following the accession of new Member States which is scheduled for May 2004, Hungary and Slovakia
the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund. The
will benefit
programmes and projects supported by these funds can be used to contribute to projects in a variety of
fields of potential benefit to the Roma population such as those concerning education and training,
enterprise and infrastructure development.

Consistent with the principles of decentralised management of European programmes, it is the role of the
authorities in the Member States to select projects for support, once the broad strategic objectives of the
programmes have been agreed with the Commission. It is for these authorities to ensure that the projects
selected contribute to the needs of the whole of the population concerned in accordance with the strategic
objectives of the programme.

Following accession, new Member States will also have to ensure conformity with Council Directive 2000/
43/EC of 29 June 2000 on equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1) and
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation (2).

Similarly, Bulgaria and Romania will benefit from European Cohesion policies, and will have to conform
with Community law, in accordance with the provisions that exist at the time of accession.

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.
(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2004/C 33 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1642/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(16 May 2003)

Subject: Subjecting of EU citizens to an American points and bargaining system in place of procedures to

establish the truth and normal administration of criminal justice

1.
Are citizens of EU Member States increasingly being handed over to the USA for acts regarded as
punishable offences in that country without subsequently being given an opportunity to prove their

C 33 E/150

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

innocence in the course of normal criminal proceedings and instead being subjected to a plea agreement
procedure in which the sentence is determined according to a points system on the basis of willingness to
make a confession and to give information on possible other offenders?

Can the Commission confirm whether it is the case that persons who do not participate in the
2.
procedure are seen as uncooperative and accordingly run a serious risk, if a trial is held, of receiving a
significantly higher sentence than that imposed under a plea agreement, with the result that those
concerned are often intimidated into cooperating with the procedure and making a confession even when
rightly convinced of their innocence?

3.
Does this American procedure result in lawyers employed by suspects frequently not having an
opportunity to conduct a normal defence such as is usual in Europe and only being able to play a role in
conducting bargaining and in evaluating the risks?

4. What possibilities are there for Europeans regarded as suspects by the US to be tried, using American
evidence, in the EU, on the basis of the law of the country of which they are a citizen, rather than being
handed over to a country with very different legal norms?

5.
Could the handing over of citizens to the USA be stopped by individual Member States or by the EU
as a whole as long as the establishment of the truth is not the actual objective of American criminal
proceedings?

Source: TV Nederland 3, current affairs programme ‘Nova’, 3 May 2003

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

The Commission does not have at its disposal statistical information that would allow it to ascertain
1.
whether citizens of Member States are increasingly handed over to the United States and subjected to plea
bargaining procedures.

The Commission does not have enough information at its disposal about the United States legal
2.
system, encompassing both the law and its application in practice, to ascertain how high a risk those
deciding not to engage in plea bargaining run of receiving harsher sentences than would have been the
case under the plea bargain. In any event, it would seem extraordinarily difficult to answer this question in
a general manner, given that each case can be expected to be different.

Once again, the Commission does not have enough information at its disposal about the United

3.
States legal system to provide an answer to the Honourable Member’s question.

4.
It would seem that three possibilities should be distinguished: (a) The European in question is located
on the territory of a Member State that he or she is a citizen of. Most Member States do not extradite their
own citizens to the United States, and among those that do, to the Commission’s knowledge, one only
does so under the condition that the person be returned after sentencing, for enforcement of the penalty at
home. In addition, where necessary, the penalty is adjusted to the standards of that Member State; (b) The
European in question is located on the territory of a Member State that he or she is not a citizen of, or in a
third country. In this case, there would be no obstacle to extradition to the United States on the basis of
citizenship, but other grounds for refusal might apply, notably those provided for by the applicable
bilateral extradition treaty. In the future, if the Union-United States agreement on extradition enters into
the grounds for refusal provided for in this agreement would also have to be taken into
force,
consideration; (c) The European in question is located on the territory of the United States. In this case, it
seems highly unlikely that he or she would be returned to the Member State he or she is a citizen of, in
order to stand trial there.

5.
Depending on the content of the applicable bilateral extradition treaty, individual Member States
might be in a position to stop extradition towards the United States under the circumstances described in
the written question. Currently, the Union as such does not have the means to do so. The Union-United
States agreement on extradition, when and if enters into force, will contain an alinea in its preamble that
stresses that the Union and the United States are ‘mindful of the guarantees under their respective legal

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/151

to
systems which provide for the right to a fair trial to an extradited person,
adjudication by an impartial
to law’. One might consider that severe
shortcomings in the provision of this right in the legal system of one party could authorise the other party
to deem that the basis for the agreement has been lost and that there is no obligation to extradite.

tribunal established pursuant

including the right

A general debate took place in Parliament on 3 June 2003, and the Honourable Member is further referred
to the replies provided at this occasion. The Council decided on 6 June 2003 to authorize the Presidency
to sign the Agreements, which will be done in Washington on 25 June 2003.

(2004/C 33 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1662/03

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: Tailored toll system

In paragraph 54 of the Presidency conclusions of the European Council meeting held on 20 and 21 March
2003 the Member States are called on to reach a final agreement on the emissions trading directive.

The ecopoints system, which entered into force in 1993, will come to an end in December 2003. Studies
carried out thus far have shown that the objectives laid down in Austria’s accession treaty, namely a 60 %
reduction in NOX emissions and the imposition of restrictions on the number of journeys made by heavy
goods vehicles (108 % clause), have not been achieved over the period in question: instead of a 60 %
reduction, only a 52 % cut in pollutant emissions has been recorded. The 108 % clause was criticised by
the European Commission and the Member States on the grounds that it laid down a qualitative objective,
involving a general reduction in pollutant emissions, rather than seeking to impose quantitative restrictions
on the number of transit journeys. This shortcoming could be offset by means of a tailored toll system
penalising road hauliers on the basis of their individual pollutant emissions.

Should the 108 % clause be abolished, what economically and ecologically acceptable alternative can the
European Commission offer?

Does the European Commission share the view that emissions might usefully be regulated through the
introduction of a tailored toll system?

In that connection, what support can the European Commission offer the Member States and, in particular,
the sensitive areas in the central Alps?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The upper limit on the number of transit trips that may be made in any year (cid:1) the so-called ‘108 % clause’
has been considered as a major inconsistency of the ecopoint system and this opinion is confirmed by the
Parliament agreement
to withdraw it from the system (1). This clause can only apply if the overall
environmental performance of lorries improves by more than 8 % per annum. However, since the aim of
the ecopoint system is to encourage hauliers to use more environmentally friendly lorries when transiting
Austria it is hard to justify a sanction that actually arises from lorries being ‘too green’.

Concerning the objective of the ecopoint system laid down in Article 11 of Protocol No 9, the total
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions shall be reduced by 60 % in the period between 1 January 1992 and
31 December 2003. On 1 January 1992, there were in theory, 23 556 220 ecopoints available for EU-15.
Since every ecopoint has been agreed to be equivalent to one unit of NOX, the objective of the ecopoint
system will therefore be achieved, according to the provisions of Protocol No 9, when 40 % of this total
(i.e. 9 422 488 ecopoints) have been used in one calendar year and this will be the case in 2003.