WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/03 by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Scam e-mails requesting bank details from Africa, etc..
Date: 2003-11-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, computer crime, consumer protection, data processing, data protection, personal data, unsolicited electronic advertising

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/515

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Dutch legislation transposing Community law on the right of residence provides that Union citizens
who reside in the Netherlands on the basis of Community law may obtain a temporary residence card of
up to five years. The validity of the card depends on the capacity in which the Union citizen applies for it
(job seeker, worker, inactive person, student).

On the basis of the information provided in the written question, the German national has never worked
in the Netherlands and therefore she cannot have applied for a residence card on the basis of directive
68/360/CEE (1). However, it does not derive from the information provided in the parliamentary question
in which capacity she applied for a residence card in the Netherlands when she still had a job in Germany
and later for an extension when she became unemployed. She could have exercised her right to free
movement under directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (2) or there is also the
possibility that she applied for a residence permit on the grounds of national law on family reunification
with her Dutch partner.

Irrespective of the capacity in which a Union citizen applies for a residence card, Community law on free
movement provides that residence cards must be issued and renewed free of charge or on payment of an
amount not exceeding the dues and taxes charged for the issue of identity cards to nationals. According to
the Commission’s information, the cost of temporary residence cards issued to Union citizens in the
identity cards for nationals cost EUR 28,77 this
Netherlands has increased to EUR 28. Since national
increase is non-discriminatory with respect to the cost of national
in
conformity with Community law.

identity cards and is, therefore,

The Dutch legislation also provides for the possibility of obtaining a permanent residence card. The cost of
this document is EUR 226,89 according to the Commission’s information. However, Union citizens are
not obliged to apply for this more expensive type of document.

If the German national in question was charged EUR 430 for an extension of her residence card and
EUR 285 for each of her children the amounts charged would seem to exceed what is foreseen under the
above-mentioned Dutch legislation. However, in order to evaluate the case fully and eventually to take
contact with the Dutch authorities, the Commission would require more detailed information about the
case.

Finally, the Commission would like to note that Article 13 of the EC Treaty is not applicable in this case as
it only provides a legal basis for actions to combat discrimination based on sex, race or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.

(1) Council Directive 68/360/EEC of 15 October 1968 on the abolition of restrictions on movement and residence

within the Community for workers of Member States and their families, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.

(2004/C 78 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3300/03

by Robert Sturdy (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 November 2003)

Subject:

‘Scam’ e-mails requesting bank details from Africa, etc.

Bearing in mind that there have been continuous reports of these e-mails, and my parliamentary account
receives several every day, can the Commission tell me what it can do to try to stop these e-mails from
reaching e-mail accounts within Europe, before more people get conned into handing over bank account
details and being cheated out of large sums of money?

C 78 E/516

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Honourable Member asks what the Commission can do to try to stop ‘scam’ e-mails requesting bank
details, for example: from Africa.

‘Scam’ e-mails are also known as advance fee fraud e-mails, which are a specific form of unsolicited
commercial e-mail or ‘spam.’ These are particularly misleading and fraudulent, making money at the
expense of naïve e-mail users.

While the Commission cannot as such prevent users from passing on their bank details,
it is taking
measures to combat spam in general, and scams in particular. As regards spam, Directive 2002/58/EC (1)
on privacy and electronic communications has banned unsolicited communications throughout the Union
(except in limited circumstances). The deadline for transposing this Directive was the end of October 2003.
The Commission refers also the Honourable Member to answers given on the issue of spam to written
questions E-1997/03 by Mr Papayannakis (2), E-2085/03 by Mr Watson (2) and E-2254/03 by
Mrs Kauppi (3).

Building on this new regime, the Commission will identify in a forthcoming Communication a series of
additional actions that are needed to make it as effective as possible. Concrete action would focus not only
on effective enforcement by Member States and technical solutions like filtering and security, but also on
international cooperation and consumer awareness (4). The proposed measures have been discussed with
Member States and interested parties at a workshop held in Brussels on 16 October 2003 (5).

Regarding awareness in particular, it is important that e-mail users be informed about the following: what
is legal and illegal; the potential risks of being online or responding to such e-mails; what assistance they
can receive from their e-mail service providers or third parties such as filtering software makers; and to
whom they can report illegalities.

Regarding enforcement, prosecuting wrongdoers has to be a priority for Member States. International
cooperation on prosecution is indeed taking place in a number of transnational cases. While online
evidence is not always easy to gather,
in particular when ‘spammers’ or ‘scammers’ operate off-shore,
intermediaries will often be located much closer to places under the jurisdiction of Union public
authorities.

For scam e-mails which originate within the Union, it should be borne in mind that they often amount to
misleading advertising banned under Directive 84/450/EEC as amended by Directive 97/55/EC (6) on
misleading and comparative advertisements which protects both business and consumers from being
mislead. All Member States have transposed the Directive and it is therefore for the national courts and
authorities to ensure that it is fully applied. The Commission’s proposed directive on unfair commercial
practices (7) will incorporate the protections against misleading advertising harming consumers’ economic
interests, including misleading scam e-mails aimed at consumers, which are currently contained in the
Directive on misleading and comparative advertising.

(1) Directive 2002/58/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal
data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
communications), OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.

(2) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 178.
(3) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 232.
(4) See IP/03/1015.
(5) See IP/03/1373.
(6) Directive 97/55/EC of Parliament and of

the Council of 6 October 1997 amending Directive 84/450/EEC

concerning misleading advertising so as to include comparative advertising, OJ L 290, 23.10.1997.

(7) COM(2003) 356 final.