WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/03 by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE)and Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Funding of enforced return measures.
Date: 2003-07-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU migration policy, illegal migration, removal

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/97

Can the Commission answer the following:

1.

2.

In the situation outlined above, what should citizens and Member States do in order to comply with
what the Commission sees as the clear requirement laid down in Directive 91/439/EEC (2)?

If a question consists of three parts, would it not be better for the Commission to answer each part
separately, so as to ensure that none is forgotten?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 171.
(2) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

As the Commission has already indicated to the Honourable Member, the description of normal residence
given in Article 9 of Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences constitutes a
detailed definition of where a person has his or her normal residence. It also points to the solution to be
adopted in specific cases, including where a person does not live for at least 185 days a year in any
Member State. In this case, ‘the normal residence … shall be regarded as being the place of his personal
ties.’ Each person thus has a normal residence in one of the Member States and will need to approach the
authorities of that Member State in order to obtain a driving licence. Since the notion of normal residence
is also useful in respect of other dealings with the authorities, e.g. in relation to tax matters, members of
the public should in principle be in possession of such information.

(2004/C 78 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/03

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE)
and Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Funding of enforced return measures

In its communication (1), entitled ‘Integrating migration issues in the European Union’s relations with third
countries’, the European Commission refers to the possibility of establishing ‘financial instruments designed
to provide back-up to a return policy’ and states that such a move ‘would necessarily have to involve a
the European Refugee Fund’s appropriations given the reduced margin of
reallocation of some of
manoeuvre in the financial perspective for internal policies’. This would ‘result
in a corresponding
reduction of
finance available for the genuine solidarity effort which shaped the
establishment of the Fund’.

the amount of

In its communication of 11 June 2003 (2) the European Commission proposes, as a replacement for budget
Article B7-667, a programme of financial assistance for third countries in the sphere of migration and
asylum. According to the proposal, the measures which the Commission is seeking to support by means of
this programme do not include enforced returns.

In Conclusion 23 of the Thessaloniki Summit of 20 June 2003 the European Commission is invited to
examine the possibility of appropriating funds under Heading 3 of the financial perspective (internal
policies) with a view to financing an enforced return policy for third-country nationals illegally resident in
the EU.

1.
Does the Commission regard the financing of an enforced return policy as consistent with the
subsidiarity principle, given that as yet no European minimum standards have been laid down stipulating
who may legally reside in a Member State (as a refugee or migrant) and who may not?

C 78 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Given that the release of resources to finance an enforced return policy must not be carried out at
2.
the expense of solidarity in connection with the reception, integration and voluntary return of refugees
(the aims of the European Refugee Fund), where in Chapter B5-8/under Heading 3 does the Commission
propose to find appropriations to finance an enforced return policy?

(1) COM(2002) 703.
(2) COM(2003) 355.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on a Community return policy on illegal residents of 10 October 2002 (1), which
was tabled to prepare a Return Action Programme as requested by the Seville European Council in June
2002, the Commission highlighted the need for a common approach to return of illegal residents. In order
to be effective, a common return policy must fit smoothly into a genuine management of migration issues,
requiring clear consolidation of legal immigration channels and of the situation of legal immigrants, an
effective and humane asylum system based on rapid procedures offering access to true protection for those
needing it and enhanced dialogue with third countries. The development of a common return policy of
illegal immigrants should be built upon a number of actions in the short and medium terms, such as
enhanced operational co-operation between Member States based on common co-ordination and (cid:1) where
necessary (cid:1) legislative adjustments. As recently confirmed in the 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 of 3 June 2003 (2), the Commission intends to take the initiative to prepare a
proposal for a Council Directive on minimum standards for return procedures and mutual recognition of
return decisions. The Commission further suggests that consideration could be given to a financial
instrument, which might cover voluntary return, forced return and support for return of irregular migrants
in transit countries.

As regards forced returns, it was suggested that a financial assistance scheme (cid:1) strictly limited to illegal
residents (cid:1) could include, amongst measures aimed at improving cooperation among Member States,
financial support for enforcement measures linked to such cooperation operations. This element could
contribute to enhancing greater solidarity and burden-sharing between Member States on return, with
regard, for example, to travel costs for returnees and escorts.

The Commission clearly presented in its Communication of 3 June 2003 the financial implications linked
immigration, smuggling and trafficking of human
to the development of a common policy on illegal
beings, external borders and the return of illegal residents. The Commission also outlined the difficulties of
finding an appropriate level of resources under the current financial perspectives. The Commission,
however, stated its willingness to examine, in agreement with the budgetary authority and in accordance
with the principles governing the use of the budget, the possibility of using part of the margin available for
internal policies under heading 3 of the Financial Perspective to cover part of the resources necessary to
the development of the Visa Information System (VIS), a burden-sharing mechanism on the management
of external borders as well as an integrated return programme. This process could also include the
examination of possible reallocations from instruments which already partly cover operations relating to
return, such as the European Refugee Fund. However, given the uncertainty which affects the budgetary
margin, in particular should current forecasts of growth levels and inflation prove not to be correct, the
level of resources available may not allow the implementation of all these initiatives in the short term. It
cannot be ruled out that, for these reasons, the introduction of an integrated return programme may have
to be deferred until the adoption of the post-2006 new financial perspectives.

The Commission is currently in the process of determining what specific concrete follow-up it will suggest
as a consequence of the Thessaloniki European Council conclusions, of 19 and 20 June 2003 in particular
Nos 17 and 18. The Commission will report back on this subject by the end of 2003 as requested by the
European Council.

(1) COM(2002) 564 final.
(2) COM(2003) 323 final.