WRITTEN QUESTION E-4066/03 by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Biometric passports.
Date: 2004-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, admission of aliens, biometrics, passport, technical specification

C 84 E/748

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

According to the latest figures for 31 December 2003, the picture is rather different. There are currently
only five infringement cases for non-communication open against the United Kingdom in comparison with
79 for all Member States (i.e. 6,3 % of all cases for the United Kingdom, which puts it within the average
for all Member States). An important factor in this change in statistics is the recent judgment of the
European Court of Justice in Case C-30/01, according to which there is no requirement to transpose some
internal market directives with ancillary environmental objectives into the legislation for the territory of
Gibraltar. As a consequence, an investigation of several non-communication cases against the United
Kingdom could have been terminated.

It is not possible to say to what extent the transposition difficulties are caused by the Scottish Executive.
The Commission investigates
regional
infringements by the Member States,
distribution. It is for the Member States to decide on means for transposing the directives, as well as on
the number of national legislative acts involved in transposition.

irrespective of

their

legislation,

environmental

The Commission is undertaking numerous steps to support better implementation and enforcement of
Community
in accordance with Commission Communication (1) of
11 December 2002 on the better monitoring of the application of community law. This is done not only
through complaint and infringement procedures, but also through a number of proactive measures, ‘inter
alia’ through package meetings with the Member State authorities, through the provision of the best
examples in implementation, through the dissemination of guidelines on implementation, by publishing
reports on implementation (like the Fourth Annual Survey),
through early warning about the new
Community directives following their adoption and prior to the expiry of the transposition deadline.

The Honourable Member is also concerned whether additional powers are needed by the Commission for
the enforcement of Community environmental legislation. It is the Commission’s view that its powers
established by the EC Treaty to monitor and enforce compliance with Community environmental
legislation are adequate.

(1) COM(2002) 725 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0843)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4066/03

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Biometric passports

Among the measures included by the Commission for 2004 in its work programme (1) is a proposal for a
regulation to define the characteristics of the information system for visas.

Meanwhile, as of 5 January 2004 all citizens of certain countries wishing to enter the US have to pass
through a scanner identifying a set of biometric characteristics which are used to exercise checks on their
stay there. The US will start issuing biometric passports from next year.

Biometric technology offers a number of different options: it can be applied to the face, the hands, and
even the eyes. The technologies concerned are, however, still very expensive, and cannot at present be
considered completely reliable.

is the Commission’s time-frame for the EU-wide introduction of passports using biometric

What
technology? Does it consider their introduction to be viable in the medium term?

(1) COM(2003) 645 final.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/749

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

At European level, in order to enhance the level of security in the area of freedom, security and justice, the
Thessaloniki European Council (19/20 June 2003) called for ‘a coherent approach in the EU on biometric
identifiers or biometric data which would result in harmonised solutions for documents for third country
nationals, EU 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,

In a second step, the Commission will soon present a proposal on the harmonisation of the security
features of the European Passport including biometrics. This proposal will only relate 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, biometrics shall be integrated. The exercise to be undertaken
should not go beyond what is required for security reasons and the control of citizens crossing the external
borders.

the integration of biometric identifiers

The proposals on visa and residence permits for third country nationals (1) set out the legislative framework
in such documents. The development of practical
for
implementation measures as regards the technical specifications for the chosen biometric identifiers and
their rendering secure is the task of the Committee created by Article 6 of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1683/95 of 29 May 1995 on a uniform format for visas (2). The implementation delay, which will be
two years for the facial image and three years for the fingerprints, can only start when those technical
specifications have been adopted by the Commission.

In relation to the passport, a similar system will be proposed in the above-mentioned proposal for a
Regulation.

(1) COM(2003) 558 final.
(2) OJ L 164, 14.7.1995.

(2004/C 84 E/0844)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4068/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Unlawful toll demanded for the Turin-Milan motorway

As a result of the work being carried out on a new high-speed rail link, around 100 kilometres of the
123-kilometre-long Turin to Milan motorway are subject to restrictions and diversions, squeezed between
dangerous concrete lane separators and completely devoid of any emergency lanes. This clearly entails
serious risks for the safety of its users.

In these circumstances, since it is evident that, in many respects, the Turin-Milan section no longer exhibits
the characteristics of a motorway, does the Commission not view as unlawful the concessionary company’s
demand for payment of a toll and its refusal to at least make a reduction in that toll for Italian and
European drivers?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

It is a matter of fact that motorways are sometimes temporarily affected by construction works restricting
their use. However, in these cases, as well as in the one the Honourable Member mentions, the motorway