WRITTEN QUESTION E-3934/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. US visa provisions which result in refusal to permit the return of Europeans who have a permanent residence and permanent job in the USA.
Date: 2003-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, EU visa policy, United States, admission of aliens, foreign national, migration policy, private international law, residence permit

C 84 E/120

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

of production potential in forestry and agriculture can be assisted using reprogrammed Structural Fund
appropriations or from the Cohesion Fund. It falls to the programme management authorities in the
affected zones to make proposals to this end. In addition, following mid-term evaluation of the national
Community support
framework the Portuguese authorities have confirmed their intention of using
approximately EUR 180 million of the performance reserve to make good damage caused by the fires and
reinforce preventive measures.

Negotiations with the Portuguese authorities are in progress. We cannot at present provide complete
information on the programmes and measures concerned.

We attach great importance to action to help avert natural disasters. In the case of fire prevention various
types of measure can be supported: increasing fire-fighting capacity, deployment of means of detecting and
preventing fires, anti-erosion work, afforestation observing fire prevention standards etc.

(2004/C 84 E/0156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3934/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: US visa provisions which result

in refusal

to permit

the return of Europeans who have a

permanent residence and permanent job in the USA

1.
Is the Commission aware that, while people who are nationals of an EU Member State are admitted
to the United States of America as visitors without visas, since 2003 this has no longer been the case for
Europeans who live and work in the USA because when they return from abroad they must have a
business visa, while (cid:1) just like other visitors (cid:1) they must waive the right to the assistance of a lawyer in
legal disputes with the authorities?

2.
Is the Commission furthermore aware that when Europeans who have already resided in the USA for
a long time or are married to a US citizen return to the USA, the US customs service may refuse them
admission as visitors, arguing that they are seeking to enter the USA under false pretences and illegally,
and that they may then be deported from the country and ordered not to return for the next five years?

Does the Commission have indications that such refusal of permission to return is, or is becoming,
3.
an instrument by means of which to compel Europeans in America to sell their homes and businesses as
cheaply as possible and to resign from their jobs, to the benefit of US nationals?

Do the EU Member States have comparable ways of denying US nationals who are resident within
4.
their territory the right to reside indefinitely, return or work? Is this right also exercised in practice, and are
Americans deported and kept out of Europe for long periods on this ground without having engaged in
any criminal activities?

How will Europeans in America and Americans in Europe be placed on an equal footing as regards

5.
their rights, obligations and exclusion, on the basis of reciprocity? When will this be done?

Source: TV Nederland 2, Twee Vandaag, 9 December 2003.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2004)

The Commission has no information that the United States authorities refuse the re-entry of EU citizens,
who are in the possession of valid United States residence permits and fulfil the requirements for a lawful

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/121

entry and residence. In addition, the Commission has no indication whatsoever that the United States
authorities have tried to establish such a practice as insinuated by the Honourable Member.

However, in view of recent incidents, which have attracted some media attention, the Commission would
like to note that most EU citizens, who are in the possession of a machine-readable passport, fall under the
visa waiver programme of the United States, if the purpose of their short-term stay is tourism or short-
term business. Any other purpose, such as family reunification, requires a visa, which has in principle to
be requested in advance at the responsible United States consular post abroad or by the family member,
who is a United States national. Persons, who have received a visa from a consular post, have the right of
appeal to an immigration judge, if problems occur during the immigration procedure at the point of entry.

A different matter concerns persons, whose visa application is not yet decided or who have not applied for
a visa in advance, e.g. because they believed that they would fall under the visa-waiver programme.
The United States authorities may reject these persons, if they try to obtain residence under false pretences
or if they previously breached immigration rules. They can be returned immediately by the immigration
authorities at the point of entry without the possibility of judicial remedy at this stage, even if another
immigration procedure or visa application is pending. Any dispute has to be settled from abroad with the
assistance of the consular services.

In principle, the Member States apply similar systems to ensure that applications for immigration or
residence are tabled abroad and decided by the consular services in advance of the entry. Border posts do
only under very exceptional circumstances issue entry visas. Member States have the possibility to refuse
entry or residence to any national of a third-country, if the provisions on entry and residence are not
fulfilled. This does also concern persons from third countries, such as the United States, whose nationals
are exempt from the requirement to possess a short-term visa when crossing the external borders. If, for
instance, the authorities discover that the purpose of entry is not compliant with the visa exemption, the
person can be rejected. The possibility to take legal action against such decisions differs among Member
States.

if somebody exceeds the duration of

Moreover,
three months (so-called
overstayers), removal procedures can be initiated. Finally, persons, who violated immigration laws, can be
banned from a legal re-entry according to national law. The duration of the re-entry ban depends also on
national law.

the visa-free residence of

The Commission has no concrete figures on United States nationals, who have been subject to removal
procedures in Member States.

(2004/C 84 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3939/03

by Elisabeth Jeggle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Failure by drivers of refuse and gritting lorries to comply with the rules on driving and rest periods

when carrying out public service tasks

Over the Christmas period and during the winter the workload facing drivers of refuse and gritting lorries,
whose duties in Germany include some public service tasks, is such that they are unable to comply with
the rules governing driving and rest periods for drivers of heavy goods vehicles.

This state of affairs prompts the following questions, which concern both public-sector employers and the
employees in question in Germany:

(cid:1) Can derogations be granted from the rules governing driving and rest periods when drivers are

performing public service tasks?

(cid:1) If so, by how many hours can maximum driving periods be exceeded in such cases?