WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Abolition of visas for journeys by immigrants from third countries legally resident in Switzerland.
Date: 2003-07-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU visa policy, Switzerland, foreign national, free movement of persons

C 65 E/152

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

According to the information contained in the complaints, the project appears to be covered by Annex II,
point 4(e) to Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain
public and private projects on the environment (1), amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (2), which mentions ‘installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an
electrolytic or chemical process’. Under Article 4(2) of the said Directive, Member States determine,
through a case-by-case examination or on the basis of thresholds or criteria set by the Member State
concerned, whether the project should be made subject to an assessment in accordance with Articles 5 to
10. The selection criteria for case-by-case examinations or setting the said thresholds or criteria are listed
in Annex III to the Directive and include densely populated areas and areas protected under Council
Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (3) and 92/43/EEC of 21 May
1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (4).

According to the information contained in the complaints, the project appears likely to affect a site of
Community importance proposed by Portugal under Article 4 of Directive 92/43/EEC (cid:1) the Rio Lima site.
Article 6(3) of this Directive provides that ‘Any plan or project not directly connected with or necessary to
the management of the site but likely to have a significant effect thereon, either individually or in
combination with other plans or projects, shall be subject to appropriate assessment of its implications for
the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives’.

In addition, it appears that the project could be covered by point 2.6 of Annex I to Council Directive 96/
61/EC of 24 September 1996 on integrated pollution prevention and control (5), which mentions
‘installations for surface treatment of metals and plastic materials using an electrolytic or chemical process
where the volume of the treatment vats exceeds 30 m3’. As stated in Article 1, this Directive ‘lays down
measures designed to prevent or, where that is not practicable, to reduce emissions in the air, water and
land from the abovementioned activities, including measures concerning waste, in order to achieve a high
level of protection of the environment taken as a whole, without prejudice to Directive 85/337/EEC and
other relevant Community provisions’.

Consequently, having examined this information, the Commission decided it must draw the Portuguese
authorities’ attention to the proposed factory in question and request certain clarifications, in particular
whether an appropriate environmental impact assessment has been carried out and whether the preventive
measures specified in the said provisions have been taken.

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(4) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(5) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996.

(2004/C 65 E/168)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2438/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 July 2003)

Subject: Abolition of visas for journeys by immigrants from third countries legally resident in Switzerland

The Swiss Industry and Construction Union and the Swiss Forum for the integration of migrants stress the
need to abolish visas for immigrants from States not belonging to the European Union who are resident in
that country.

Around half a million residents of Switzerland who come from countries which are not EU Member States
are still required to obtain a visa whenever they wish to travel to their country or to a State in the
Schengen area, which entails costs in terms of both time and money.

Even though the situation has certainly improved, since the visas now have a longer duration, the
underlying problem remains.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/153

Can the Commission say what measures it will take, following on from the earlier issues which have now
been partially resolved, with a view to abolishing the visa requirement for residents of Switzerland who
come from countries which are not members of the European Union,
in the context of reciprocal
measures, given that in August 2000 Switzerland abolished the visa requirement for citizens of a third
country legally resident in the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2003)

The Commission’s attention has already been drawn (1) to the situation of third-country nationals residing
in Switzerland who, because of their nationality (2), must be in possession of a visa when travelling to a
Schengen State or when simply passing through a Schengen State on their way to their country of origin.

This matter has been examined by the competent group in the Council, the ‘visa’ group, which came to the
conclusion that the Schengen acquis does not prevent multiple-transit visas with a lengthy period of
validity from being issued to those residents. The consular departments of the Member States have been
informed of this possibility, which, as the Honourable Member acknowledges,
is a step in the right
direction in that it cuts down on the number of visits made to consulates to apply for visas.

That said, the Commission is still considering a solution that would exempt third-country nationals in
possession of residence documents for Switzerland from the visa requirement
for passing through
Schengen States or even for making short stays there. Such a solution would, in any event, necessitate
amendments to the Schengen acquis.

(1) Written Question No E-0557/02 by Mr Imbeni and Mr Pittella, OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001 of 15 March 2001 listing the third countries whose nationals must be in
from that

possession of visas when crossing the external borders and those whose nationals are exempt
requirement, OJ L 81, 21.3.2001.

(2004/C 65 E/169)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2439/03

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Health hazard posed by fuels in military use

(16 July 2003)

The aircraft fuel Jet-Propellant 8 (JP-8), which is suspected of posing a serious health hazard (cf. for
is present in large quantities in military installations and
example, New Scientist of 13 June 2001),
pipelines throughout the European Union.

The Commission:

1. Does it not agree that, in accordance with the environmental information directive, the public has a
right to receive information on possible hazards, particularly since no trade secrets need be divulged in
this case?

2. Does it know what additives are contained in JP-8 and what their exact chemical composition and

concentration is? Does JP-8 contain or release 1.2-dibromoethane in any form?

3. What health effects does JP-8 have, particularly as a result of exhaust fumes, aerosols and vapours?

What investigations and tests is knowledge of these effects based on?

4. Does JP-8 have components that are subject to more stringent limit values or widely banned in civil

use?

5. How are airfield employees and those living nearby protected from the dangers of JP-8? What

protective measures are in existence or planned?