WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Financing of, and agreements with the EU concerning, construction in future EU Member States of camps to accommodate refugees seeking admission to the present Member States.
Date: 2003-07-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, EU financing, Romania, Russia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, accession to the European Union, admission of aliens, international human rights law, social facilities

C 88 E/622

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In fact, on 17 June 2003 the International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed the allegations made by the
democratic opposition to the theocratic regime in Teheran, the National Council of Resistance of Iran,
which I referred to and which were widely known at
thus
demonstrating that the situation as it appeared to the Commission did not and does not correspond to the
actual situation.

the Commission’s reply,

the time of

How does the Commission explain the fact that, only a few months ago, it confined itself to repeating the
propaganda issued by the dictatorial regime in Iran, and that it did not consider it appropriate to take
account of reports, which have now been confirmed, of the war-mongering intentions of the repressive
Iranian regime?

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to pay closer attention in future to objective information
on the real situation in Iran, rather than contenting itself with uncritical acceptance of propaganda from
the regime?

(1) Written answer of 14.1.2003.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 August 2003)

The EU has repeatedly stated that the issue of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) constitutes one of the
major areas of concern in its relations with Iran. While recognising Iran’s right as a party to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, the Commission strongly
supports the view of the EU that Iran must be fully transparent and in compliance with this Treaty. The
Commission welcomed the June 2003 report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but noted
with concern that Iran had failed to fulfil certain of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) safeguards agreement. It trusts that Iran will address these shortcomings without delay and hopes
that Iran, will take steps to adhere to relevant international instruments (cid:1) such as the IAEA Additional
Protocol (cid:1) to ensure adequate transparency.

It goes without saying that the Commission does not, as the Honourable Member implies, confine itself to
‘repeating the propaganda’ from a ‘dictatorial regime’ with ‘war mongering intentions’. The Commission
along with the EU Member States has made every attempt to base itself on objective information. In this
context, the Commission would hesitate to refer to the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) as
‘the democratic opposition’ to the regime in Teheran.

(2004/C 88 E/0642)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2266/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Financing of, and agreements with the EU concerning, construction in future EU Member States of

camps to accommodate refugees seeking admission to the present Member States

1. Who is paying for the connection to electricity and water supplies and to drains of 13 huts on the
former army base in the village of Trstenik near the town of Dugo Selo, 50 km from the Croatian capital,
Zagreb? Is the money coming from the European Union, the United Kingdom or both jointly?

2. Was EU funding made available for such projects even before 20 June 2003 or will it be made
available after the Commission report on financial and legislative consequences in 2004?

3. Will the intended use of the camp in Trstenik remain confined to temporarily housing 800 asylum-
seekers who wish to settle in Britain, and will all of them be people from the Balkan States who are
transported there after making themselves known to the authorities at ports or airports in the United
Kingdom?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/623

4. Who reached agreement with the Croatian Government concerning this use of the site and on
bringing in refugees? Was this done on behalf of the United Kingdom or on behalf of any of the European
Union institutions? When was this agreement reached?

Do similar agreements also exist between the EU or its individual Member States concerning the

5.
construction of similar refugee camps in Russia, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Albania?

6. What will happen to such camps and their residents when Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia accede to
the EU? Will they then be removed from EU territory?

7. Why were such agreements not made public before 20 June 2003?

In order to implement these agreements, do the Council of Europe’s European Human Rights

8.
Convention and the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees need to be amended?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

This written question refers to a project ‘Reform of Asylum’, financed from the CARDS 2001
1.
the Croatian
programme for Croatia, which aims at strengthening the administrative capacity of
It should lead to an
institutions, mainly within the Interior Ministry, responsible for asylum issues.
improvement of
the refugee status determination procedures and the quality of decisions reaching
international standards. The first component of this project is a twinning programme for capacity and
institutional building in the field of asylum.

The second component of the project referred to, addresses Croatia’s need for an accommodation centre
for asylum seekers, which should facilitate the processing of asylum applications by providing suitable
accommodation. The total budget
the site identified for this purpose is
EUR 700 000 (works). Another EUR 300 000 is foreseen for the procurement of training equipment and
equipment for the documentation and resource centre (supply). The procurement of these parts of the
project is under preparation.

for the refurbishment of

The 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’ into use, for the needs of an accommodation centre for
asylum seekers, includes interventions at the following parts of the complex:

(cid:1) Fence of the complex, including the inner fence, which will separate the 1st step from the future 2nd

step;

(cid:1) outside lighting;

(cid:1) decoration of 4 buildings (from the total number of 8 buildings) for administrative, medical and

accommodation usage, including the equipment;

(cid:1) restaurant and kitchen;

(cid:1) boiler house;

(cid:1) access road;

(cid:1) infrastructure decoration of the 1st step (outside water supply system, sewage system including the
new bio regenerator, outside heating pipe, outside distribution of electricity including transformer
station, outside telephone installation, etc.) with the preparation of installation connection for the 2nd
step. For some period of time the complex has not been in function for usage.

The total of the net surface of the buildings for adaptation in the 1st step of getting the complex ‘Trstenik’
into use for the needs of accommodation centre for asylum seekers is 2 500 square meters (m2).

C 88 E/624

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Location ‘Trstenik’ is situated beside the existing gravel pit between Otok Nartski and Novaki Nartski, 35
kilometers (km) from the centre of Zagreb in south-east direction.

Only Community funds are involved and no co-financing of any kind is included. There is no link of the
project to any bilateral initiatives from the United Kingdom.

It might be of interest to note that the Croatian Parliament adopted the Asylum Law on 12 June 2003.
The actual implementation of the law has been postponed until 1 July 2004, until the reception centre for
asylum seekers is operational. However, there should be no link between the enforcement of the law and
the functioning of the reception centre.

The Community funding is covered by CARDS programme 2001. No follow-up to this works project

2.
is foreseen but there shall be further support to the implementation to the newly adopted Asylum Law.

The programme aims exclusively at improving the refugee status determination procedures and

3.
accommodation of people seeking asylum upon entering Croatian Territory as country of first entry.

The works will allow this centre to host at the beginning a maximum of 200 persons-asylum seekers and
during the second phase of the project an additional 300 persons-asylum seekers. Therefore the maximum
capacity will be, at the end of the works, 500 persons.

4.
The decision on the location of the Centre was made by the Croatian Government on 30 January
2002. The Trstenik Dugo Selo location was given to the Ministry of Interior for the purpose of establishing
an asylum centre. Previously other locations were envisaged, however, many were too far from Zagreb or
were the property of Zagreb municipality or would have been too costly. In April 2003 Ministry of
Interior ordered a feasibility study that confirmed Trstenik as an acceptable location. The Commission will
ensure the proper design for establishing an Asylum home in Trstenik-Dugo Selo through a service
contract. Then the tendering of works and supply contracts will be launched.

The Commission helps these countries to bring their asylum systems in line with international

5.
standards and best practice.

Concerning Russia, Belarus and Ukraine the Tacis Regional Indicative Programmes 2002-2003 and 2004-
2006, as well as the Tacis National Indicative Programmes 2004-2006 for Russia and Ukraine refer to
cooperation on migration, asylum and refugee in order to improve the standards in these countries in line
with international norms and best practices. The Commission cooperates closely with the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) on this issue. If appropriate, as in the case of Croatia, assistance
could also be provided for the establishment of refugee/asylum seeker accommodation centres in these
countries.

Concerning Albania, the Cards programme is assisting this country with EUR 3million on asylum and
migration related projects between the period of 2001-2004. The main items being training, refurbishment
and renovation of reception centres.

It is also worth mentioning that at present the Commission is negotiating a readmission agreement with
Albania. Albania has already bilateral readmission agreements with several countries. The above assistance
is particularly important to help Albania to comply with the obligations that the future Union/Albania
readmission agreement will imply.

As regards Romania and Bulgaria, the Commission supports those countries through PHARE assistance
based upon annual programming. Implementing the ‘acquis’ in the field of asylum is one of the subjects of
this assistance.

6.
The enlargement process implies the adoption of the Union ‘acquis’ including in the field of asylum.
The Directive on reception conditions for asylum seekers adopted in January 2003 (1) is part of this
‘acquis’. Accommodation centres are one of the possible means for Member States to accommodate asylum
seekers according to this Directive. This mean is used by many current Member States. Assistance is given
to Acceding Countries to develop or reform their asylum systems to ensure their compliance with the
Geneva Convention. As the reception centre in Croatia will host people seeking asylum in Croatia, a future
accession of Croatia or other States to the Union will not affect
in principle the location of
accommodation centres.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/625

The CARDS annual programmes have been approved by the Member States and are available on the
7.
Commission’s Europa website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/europeaid/projects/cards/publications_en.htm#4).
A works contract forecast for the asylum centre in Trstenik has been available on the website of the
Commission Delegation in Zagreb since January 2003.

The Tacis indicative programmes referred above are also public and can be consulted on Europa website
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/ceeca/rsp/progs.htm).

8.
The reform of their asylum system should allow those countries to comply with the Geneva
Convention and relevant international Human Rights instruments including the European Convention on
Human Rights for countries which are party to this Convention. The Community cooperation programmes
on asylum aim at ensuring the full compliance with the Geneva Convention. Concerning the Candidate
Countries, the aim is to ensure compliance with both the 1951 Geneva Convention and the European
Convention of Human Rights.

The Honourable Member will also be aware of the ten conditions proposed by the Commission in its
Communication of June 2003 (2), which need to be fulfilled in designing new Union approaches to asylum
systems and in particular the need for full respect for international human rights standards.

A complementary background document is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(1) Council Directive 2003/9 EC of 27 January 2003 laying down minimum standards for the reception of asylum

seekers, OJ L 31, 6.2.2003.

(2) COM(2003) 315 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0643)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2527/03

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Rum

The EU has recognised the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social development of
some ACP countries. Special provisions for rum are contained in the EU-US Agreement on White Spirits
to back up this recognition. The terms of the Special Memorandum on rum attached to this zero for zero
agreement establishes a residual tariff that provides both ACP and EU rum producers in the French DOM a
small measure of continuing preference in the European market until such time as traditional suppliers
might move from the production of commodity rums to value-added branded products able to compete
with large and often subsidised producers in third countries.

Would the Commission, therefore, outline what measures it intends to take during the upcoming GSP
review to ensure its commitments to ACP rum producers are kept? Would the Commission confirm that
rum is excluded from the GSP review?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

The Joint Declaration on Rum (Declaration XXV) of the African, Caribbean and Pacific Countries (ACP) (cid:1)
Union Partnership Agreement recognises the importance of the rum sector for the economic and social
from the
development of several ACP countries and regions and the challenges it faces,
liberalisation of the European rum market.

inter alia,

In the aim of honouring the declaration and providing support to enable ACP rum exporters to increase
competitiveness and notably to assist the ACP rum industry to move out of bulk commodity production
into higher-value branded rum products, the Union has approved a EUR 70 million programme. This