WRITTEN QUESTION E-3625/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Standardisation of national identity documents.
Date: 2003-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European passport, United Kingdom, biometrics, database, harmonisation of standards, identity document

C 84 E/738

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2004)

After receiving the required information from the Managing Authorities of the national Operational
Programme (OP) 1999 IT 161 003, the Commission is now able to report as follows:

(cid:1) The decision on the part of the Ministry for Education, Research and University (MIUR) to suspend the
co-financing of project III 6/D-5387 (‘Content Specialist & designer (cid:1) Specont’) was taken because the
project managers (Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo) could not provide adequate financial guarantees. Indeed,
from that point of view, Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo were operating illegally, and in fact, 16 students
had complained already that they had not received the fellowships to which they were entitled.

(cid:1) Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo have repeatedly appealed the decision of MIUR before the administrative
tribunal (TAR) and the Consiglio di Stato. The latter, pending the final judgement by the TAR, has put
on hold the suspension decided by the MIUR, which would at least allow the MIUR to pay out
advance payments on the fellowships, but the Consiglio di Stato only did so under the condition that
Mr Palladino and Ms Ruvo are able to provide adequate financial guarantees, which as yet has not
happened.

(cid:1) The MIUR, as Managing Authority of the OP in question, can not act in substitution of the project
managers (cid:1) that is, award the advances on the fellowships- unless explicitly authorized to do so by
the TAR (or following the appointment of an ad-hoc administrator), which in either case could only
happen after the final judgement by the TAR itself.

(2004/C 84 E/0832)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3574/03

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 December 2003)

Subject: European Agreement on the transmission of applications for Legal Aid

What problems has the Commission uncovered as a result of Monaco not being a signatory to the 1977
Strasbourg Agreement on the transfer of Legal Aid applications? Will the Commission put pressure on
Monaco to sign the Agreement?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(21 January 2004)

Monaco is not a member of the Council of Europe, but has applied to join, and is not indeed a party to
the 1977 Agreement. It is not for the Commission to put pressure on Monaco.

(2004/C 84 E/0833)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3625/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Standardisation of national identity documents

(5 December 2003)

Recently, the United Kingdom Home Secretary David Blunkett announced plans for the introduction of
national identity cards with the setting up of a national biometric database which will include unique iris
and fingerprint data, incorporating smartchip technology into the cards. The setting up of this system in
the United Kingdom is expected to take course over the next five years.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/739

Are there plans to develop similar database in other EU Member States? Given that EU citizens can travel
freely on national identity cards even outside the Schengen area, what plans are there to standarize these
documents throughout the EU? For instance, allowing the information to be readable by machine and
recorded on the card in addition to the issuing authorities official
language also in an international
language, such as English and French, in order to facilitate their usage as EU-wide travel documents and
enable ready recognition by the immigration and police authority outside of the citizens’ Member State of
origin?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2004)

At European level, the Thessaloniki European Council (19/20 June 2003) called for a coherent approach in
the Union on biometric identifiers or biometric data which would result in harmonised solutions for
documents for third country nationals, Union citizens’ passports and information systems (VIS and SIS II),
and invited the Commission ‘to prepare the appropriate proposals, starting with the visa’.

As a first step, the Commission presented in September 2003 two proposals (1) on the integration of two
biometric identifiers, the facial
into the uniform format for visa and the
residence permit for third country nationals.

image and two fingerprints,

As a second stage, the Commission is considering the feasibility of a proposal on the harmonisation of the
security features of the European Passport including biometrics. Such an eventual proposal would relate
only to provisions which improve the security of the passport by harmonising, and rendering legally
binding, common security features which are currently set out in a non-binding Resolution of the
Representatives of Member States meeting within the Council. Furthermore, biometric identifiers would be
integrated. The exercise to be undertaken would not go beyond what is required for security reasons and
for the control of citizens crossing the external borders; a new harmonisation of the cover of the European
passport is not at all foreseen.

For the time being, apart from the above mentioned initiatives, the Commission does not intend to present
further proposals on the identity card or a European database related to the individual biometric data of
Union citizens.

Initiatives in view of setting up such a database for national citizens fall under the competence of Member
States.

(1) COM(2003) 558 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0834)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3748/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(10 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Life III programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-1057/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Life III programme, the Commission stated that one proposal had
been submitted but that the results of the assessment would be available in September 2003.

Can the Commission now say whether the project submitted was actually funded and, if not, why it was
not considered suitable?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 104.