WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/03 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Legalising immigration.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, admission of aliens, family migration, integration of migrants, residence permit

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/611

The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and to encourage further dialogue between Athens
and Tirana with the aim of achieving a fair resolution of pending issues …

(2004/C 78 E/0645)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3611/03

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Legalising immigration

The Commission for Justice and Home Affairs recently stated that legislation on legalising immigration (cid:1)
an area in which there has only been progress on the issues of family reunion and long-term resident
status (cid:1) always runs into ‘major problems in Council’.

Can the Commission state which issues cause these major problems, and which Member States are
responsible for the delays in so serious and crucial an area, at a time when dozens and dozens of
immigrants continue to drown on the Union’s southern shores?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2004)

In order to implement the Treaty of Amsterdam and the mandate given in Tampere, the Commission has
tabled several proposals for directives concerning the admission and the conditions of stay of third-country
nationals.

These proposals must be adopted by unanimity, whereas current national
particular third countries differs widely. These factors have to be taken into account.

legislation in relation to

However, the European Council meetings in Seville on 21/22 June 2002, in Thessaloniki on 19/20 June
2003 and in Brussels on 12 December 2003 emphasised the need to speed up the legislative work in
order to implement the programme approved at Tampere, in particular as concerns the development of a
common European policy on asylum and migration.

In this regard certain progress has already been achieved:

(cid:1) As far as legislation in the field of legal migration is concerned, the Council adopted on 22 September
2003 Council Directive 2003/86/EC of 22 September 2003 on the right to family reunification (1) and
on 25 November 2003 the Directive on the status of third-country nationals who are long term
residents (2).

(cid:1) A proposal for a Directive concerning the admission of students and volunteers was presented on
7 October 2002 (3) and it is hoped that this will be adopted in the first half of 2004. A proposal
concerning the admission of researchers will be put forward by the Commission in January 2004.

(cid:1) The Commission regrets that in spite of the above mentioned statements of the European Council, its
proposal for a Directive on the admission of economic migrants has not yet been adopted by the
Council, and the Commission will be launching a wide debate on this issue during 2004.

(cid:1) Concerning the present migratory pressure on the southern external borders of the Union, the
Commission refers to its reply to the written question E-2347/03 by Mr Noguiera Roman (4).
Furthermore, it should be noted that in September 2003, the Commission presented the final report
on the feasibility study on the control of
the Union’s maritime borders. The Council on
27/28 November 2003 adopted a programme of measures to combat illegal immigration across the
maritime borders of the Member States.

C 78 E/612

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(cid:1) The Commission is going to present a study in 2004 on the links between legal and illegal migration.
This study will examine the potential pull and push factors and will also duly take into consideration
Member States’ experiences and positions on regularization of illegal migration.

(1) OJ L 251, 3.10.2003.
(2) OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.
(3) OJ C 45, 25.2.2003.
(4) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 88.

(2004/C 78 E/0646)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: Use of a mathematical formula in awarding public contracts

In its answer to my previous question (H-0097/03 (1)) concerning the use of a mathematical formula in
the Commission stated that it had sent a letter to the Greek
awarding public contracts in Greece,
authorities to obtain information as to how they apply the formula concerned and its exact content.
However, according to recently published reports, although the Ministry of the Environment, Planning and
Public Works has abolished the formula for large-scale projects, it continues to apply it to small-scale
works. The outcome is that a virtual monopoly situation continues in the public works construction
sector; furthermore, there are indications of the existence of a cartel.

Can the Commission asnwer the following:

1. Have the Greek authorities informed the Commission of the previous and current application of the

mathematical formula?

2.

Is the use of this formula consistent with Community law?

3. Will the Commission reconsider the formula and what measures will it take in response to complaints

concerning its abuse?

4. What measures will the Commission take if the above reports concerning unfair competition prove to

be correct?

5. What measures will the Commission take in regard to the application of the current procedure in

Greece, which is leading to an oligopoly in the public works sector?

In addition to the abolition of the mathematical formula, will the Commission also ask for its replacement
with a transparent procedure which will prevent the violation of the principle of free and healthy
competition in the awarding and execution of public works contracts?

(1) Written answer of 11.3.2003.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2004)

As the Commission pointed out in its reply to oral question H-0097/03, which the honourable Member
asked at Question Time during the part-session of March 2003 (1), according to the case law of the Court
of Justice the use of a mathematical criterion for detecting abnormally low tenders is not in itself an
infringement of Community law (Cases C-285/99 and C-286/99). However, the same case law says that a
tenderer whose bid is considered abnormally low (cid:1) even if a mathematical method is used (cid:1) must be able
to submit all the explanations which he deems relevant to explain the content of his bid, and that the
awarding authority must examine all these explanations before deciding whether or not to reject the bid.