WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. Eurojust.
Date: 2003-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU activity, Eurojust, European Parliament, exchange of information, interinstitutional cooperation (EU)

C 58 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

objectives for a possible new approach towards more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems.
Such new approach should respect a number of basic premises, set out in this Communication, one of
them being the complementarity with the Common European Asylum System, called for at Tampere.

In line with previous Communications, this Communication confirms the importance the Commission
attaches to the three identified objectives of:

(i) managed arrival in the Union,

(ii) burden-and responsibility sharing with regions of origin and

(iii) streamlined, efficient and enforceable asylum decision- making and return.

The European Council invited the Commission to explore all parameters in order to ensure more orderly
and managed entry in the Union of persons in need if international protection, and to examine ways and
means to enhance the protection capacity of regions of origin, as well as the possibilities to reinforce the
asylum procedures in order to make them more efficient.

The Commission believes that
the Thessaloniki European Council marks an important step in the
consolidation of the Union’s actions in the field of immigration and asylum. It has given a strong signal
marking the Union’s commitment to the development of the common immigration and asylum policy
called for in Tampere (15/16 October 1999).

(1) Communication on the development of a common policy on illegal immigration, smuggling and trafficking of
human beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents, COM(2003) 323 final, Communication towards
more accessible, equitable and managed asylum systems, COM(2003) 315 final, Communication on immigration,
integration and employment, COM(2003) 336 final.

(2004/C 58 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1790/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Eurojust

How does the Commission propose that MEPs will be consulted on the activities of Eurojust?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 July 2003)

Eurojust is a body with legal personality, established by the Council under the provisions of the EU-Treaty
on judicial co-operation in criminal matters. Being composed of judicial officials and judges of the Member
States, Eurojust’s position towards the Commission is independent. Therefore,
is mainly in the
responsibility and the interest of Eurojust to establish an exchange of views with the Members of the
Parliament.

it

The Council Decision 2002/187/JHA establishing Eurojust of 28 February 2002 (1) provides for direct
contacts with the Parliament only in budget matters. According to Article 36(2) of the Council Decision,
the Eurojust President shall submit to the Parliament detailed accounts for the previous financial year no
later than 31 March. paragraph (3) of this Article provides for discharge to Eurojust by Parliament.
Furthermore, direct contacts may be established and ‘experiences of a non-operational nature’ be
exchanged (Article 26(5) of the Council Decision). The Rules of Procedure provide that Eurojust maintain
‘the necessary channels of communication’ with the Parliament in accordance with the Decision. However,
an exchange of information on operational matters, particularly on personal files, is not foreseen (2).

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/97

Right from its starting phase on beginning, Eurojust has made use of those provisions by establishing
various contacts with Members of Parliament. For instance, the Commission has been informed that
Members of the Parliament’s Committees on Citizens’ Freedoms and Rights and Justice/Home Affairs and
on Budgetary Matters have been invited to Eurojust. The Commission appreciates this.

Furthermore, Eurojust has published its first annual report (3) and provided copies to Parliament. According
to the Council Decision (Article 32), Eurojust so far only had to report to the Council and the Commission
(the Joint Supervisory Body on data protection only to the Council, Article 23(12)) (4). On proposal of the
Commission (5), the Council Decision is going to be adapted to the new Financial Regulation. In this
context, the Commission proposed among other things that the report be sent directly to the Parliament;
amendment is likely to be adopted by the Council soon (6).

In this context,
particularly if either the Parliament or Eurojust considers this necessary.

the Commission is ready to provide support

for further arrangements if need be,

(1) OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 5.
(2) As concerns the Commission, the Rules of Procedure (OJ C 286, 22.11.2002, Article 21(5)) expressly exclude access
to operational data, although the Commission is fully associated with the work of Eurojust, Article 11(1) of the
Council Decision.

(3) Council doc. 9124/03 Eurojust 11.
(4) The Council Decision provides only for a report by the Presidency of the Council to the Parliament, but no direct

report, Article 32(2).

(5) OJ C 331 E, 31.12.2002, p. 67.
(6) See Interinstitutional File 2002/0173, Council doc. 9015/03 of 19.5.2003.

(2004/C 58 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1799/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Subject: Delays affecting the construction of the northern Ionian highway and the viability of the Rion-

Antirion link

The northern section of the western (Ionian) highway in Greece for which concession contracts are to be
awarded is being delayed considerably. Furthermore, the financial viability of the new Rion-Antirion
bridge, scheduled for completion in December 2004, will obviously be affected by the late opening of the
Antirion-Ioannina motorway owing to the disruption of traffic flows to and from the bridge.

1. Where exactly does the problem lie regarding the awarding of concession contracts which appears to
be holding up the project?

2. What stage has been reached by work on the sections under construction, when are they scheduled
for completion and when is it anticipated that the northern Ionian highway will function to full capacity?

3. What is the level of Community funding for construction of the northern Ionian highway? Is the
project remaining within its original budget and if not where have the changes occurred?

4. What indications does the Commission have regarding:

(cid:1) the delays affecting completion of the northern Ionian highway and the timetable for redemption of

public and private investment capital;

(cid:1) the financial viability of the Rion-Antirion bridge as affected by the construction of the northern

Ionian highway?