WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/03 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Stowaways.
Date: 2003-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: International Maritime Organisation, area of freedom, security and justice, illegal migration, international cooperation, maritime transport, migration control, migration policy

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/59

Planistat was not signaled in the Commission’s Early Warning System until 23 July 2003. In addition, the
Secretariat General was not informed of OLAF’s findings until 3 April 2003, and this information was
given in general terms without mention of the name of Planistat, as OLAF’s investigations are subject to
rules of confidentiality provided for in Community legislation (2) and these investigations were external
investigations.

On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided, on the basis of information brought to its attention, to suspend
all contracts with Planistat pending the ongoing enquiries. Eurostat has already suspended payments to
Planistat with respect to activities in relation to Data Shops. Moreover, on 23 July 2003 the Commission
instructed its authorizing officers to terminate all contracts with Planistat.

A thorough examination of all contracts in force and the work carried out by the firm is ongoing. For
work effectively carried out, the Commission remains liable to pay the corresponding amounts. Should the
ongoing investigations of OLAF and the judicial authorities in France reveal a breach of the financial rules,
the Commission will take the appropriate action immediately. It should also be noted that the Commission
has lodged a complaint under the procedure initiated by the Paris Public Prosecutor in response to
information supplied by OLAF.

The total amount of payments made by Eurostat to the firm in question in the last ten years (from
01.01.1993 to 30.06.2003)
is EUR 41 096 217,43. The total amount of payments made by other
Commission departments to the firm in question in the last ten years (from 01.01.1993 to 30.06.2003) is
EUR 7 960 050,34. The total amount of payments made to the firm in question in the last ten years (from
01.01.1993 to 30.06.2003) with a breakdown by financial year and Commission department can be found
in the table sent direct to the Honourable Members and to Parliament’s secretariat.

The part of the question relating to the possible existence of a ‘slush fund’ is currently under investigation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 1.9.2002.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2004/C 70 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1717/03

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Stowaways

It is estimated that at any given time there are approximately 6 000 stowaways on board ships world wide.
Typically, stowaways are people from poor countries fleeing starvation, poverty, political persecution or
unemployment in the hope of a better existence. The journey as a stowaway often ends in tragedy as a
result of the duration of the voyage in unaccustomed surroundings and uncertainty, possibly with death as
the outcome through gas from the cargo or being enclosed in spaces which are not designed for
transporting people.

from the obviously tragic human consequences,

Apart
expenditure each year for the shipping industry (cid:1) money which could be better spent.

stowaways entail considerable additional

The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has issued resolution No A.871(2) laying down certain
guidelines for the treatment of stowaways. The IMO has also adopted further rules concerning stowaways
in IMO resolution No FAL. 7(29) supplementing the above.

However, since these are only guidelines, far from all countries comply. Will the Commission therefore
play a more active role in this area in the IMO and endeavour to persuade other countries to comply with
these rules?

C 70 E/60

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2003)

As the Honourable Member points out,
numerous documents on the situation of stowaways, as well as that of persons in distress at sea.

the International Maritime Organization (IMO) has issued

It has come up against two barriers in this connection: first, the fact that the IMO documents are rarely
binding, and second, the fact that issues following on from the situation stowaways and persons of distress
at sea are matters for the sovereign decisions of national governments.

The Commission would point out that the Community is not a member of the IMO and that the
Commission has only observer status there, while the Member States are full members.

Nevertheless, under Article 5(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 2099/2002 of the European
of 5 November 2002 establishing a Committee on Safe Seas and the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
(COSS) and amending the Regulations on maritime safety and the prevention of pollution from ships (1),
‘… with a view to reducing the risks of conflict between the Community maritime legislation and
international
instruments, Member States and the Commission shall cooperate, through coordination
meetings and/or any other appropriate means, in order to define, as appropriate, a common position or
approach in the competent international fora’. However, this cooperation reaches its limits, in relation to
the question raised by the Honourable Member, as soon as issues of justice and home affairs are involved.

In the context of the control of external borders, immigration and asylum policy, the issue of stowaways is
a subject of importance owing to its humanitarian and economic consequences as described by the
Honourable Member. It should be noted, however, that in quantitative terms illegal immigration by sea
takes place in most cases with chartered boats organised by criminal networks, as the recent landings in
Italy also indicate.

Nevertheless, regardless of the method of transport, illegal immigration by sea gets serious and continuous
attention within the Commission, as already emphasised in the Commission’s reply to written questions
E-3112/02 by Mr Tannock (2) and P-0291/03 by Mr Pisicchio (3).

(1) OJ L 324, 29.11.2002.
(2) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 92.
(3) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 46.

(2004/C 70 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/03

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 May 2003)

Subject: Bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland, question E-0543/03

In my question E-0543/03 (1) of 28 February 2003 I drew to the Commission’s attention the project to
construct a high-level bridge linking the island of Rügen with the mainland. The reason for my question
was my concern that protected areas forming part of Europe’s natural heritage could be permanently
encroached upon using ERDF money.

In its answer the Commission informed me that the financing of the bridge did not fall within the
Commission’s responsibility, as the German authorities had not requested assistance for the project under
EU funds. The implementation report on the OP in respect of the ERDF (infrastructure) shows expenditure