WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/04 by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families.
Date: 2004-01-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU migration policy, UN convention, family migration, illegal migration, migrant worker, signature of an agreement

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/757

incentives for companies that generate or use clean energies, a shift from coal to gas-fired electricity
generation, the promotion of biofuels, the promotion of renovation of private vehicles, installation of solar
energy in public buildings and the promotion of public transport in companies and public administrations.

A Decision for a monitoring the mechanism of Community greenhouse gas emissions and for
implementing the Kyoto Protocol was formally adopted by Council on 26 January 2004. This Decision
requires Member States to notify national programmes to the Commission within three months of their
adoption. In accordance with this Decision, the Commission will assess the progress of the Community
and its Member States towards fulfilling their commitments under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol as set out in Decision 2002/358/EC later in 2004.
A report compiled on the basis of this assessment will be submitted to the Parliament and to the Council.

(1) COM(2003) 735 final.
(2) Directive 2003/87/EC of the Parliament and of the council of 13 October 2003 establishing a scheme for
greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/EC,
OJ L 275, 25.10.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0852)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0068/04

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 January 2004)

Subject: International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant workers and their families

To date, not a single one of the 15 current Member States nor any of the ten future Member States of the
European Union has signed the International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant
workers and their families, which was adopted at the 45th session of the UN General Assembly on
18 December 1990 and entered into force on 1 July 2003.

What is the Commission position on the Convention referred to above?

To what extent is the Convention in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy objectives

1.
established?

On what issues is the Convention not in line with the policy pursued by the EU and the policy

2.
objectives established?

From the European point of view, are there any serious objections to the signing of the Convention

3.
by a Member State of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2004)

The Member States are [probably] better placed than the Commission to explain their reasons for not
ratifying the United Nations International Convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant
workers and members of their families.

Nevertheless, one of the main obstacles to ratification seems to be that the Convention recognises rights in
respect of all migrant workers regardless of whether they are in the host country legally or illegally.

Furthermore, it seems that many of the rights listed in the Convention are also guaranteed at EU level for
citizens and third-country nationals alike in other instruments (Charter of Fundamental Rights of the
European Union, European Convention on Human Rights). However,
the wide range of provisions
guaranteeing the same rights leads to varying interpretations which could prove damaging to legal
certainty for individuals.

C 84 E/758

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Because of the complexity of the provisions of this Convention, the Commission intends to launch a study
on the points in common with (cid:1) and those on which it differs from (cid:1) common immigration policy as it
has developed at EU level since the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

(2004/C 84 E/0853)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0071/04

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

(20 January 2004)

Subject: The Spanish National Hydrological Plan dam on the River Narla in Lugo (Galicia) a scheduled Site

of Community Importance within the Natura 2000 network

The Spanish National Hydrological Plan includes a dam on the River Narla at Lugo in Galicia, supposedly
intended to supply water to the Lugo Municipal area and also to the municipalities of Outeiro de Rei and
Rábade.

This scheme has led to various political and social organisations taking the initiative of drawing up
proposals for better, more ecological and more appropriate solutions to the problem.

The Association for the Ecological Defence of Galicia (ADEGA) believes the dam to be unnecessary and
harmful, and has submitted its claims to the Spanish Environment Ministry’s Directorate-General for
Quality and Environmental Assessment. ADEGA claims,
in particular that (a) the area affected by the
dammed water is a Site of Community importance in accordance with the terms of Annex III of Directive
92/43/EEC (1) (cid:1) and is included in the Natura 2000 network, covering an area allocated both upstream
and downstream of the rive Minho; (b) it has not been proven that there is a serious need that the planned
infrastructure should take precedence over the objectives of the Natura 2000 network; (c) that the waters
of the River Minho, Galicia’s largest, would (cid:1) if they were, as they need to be appropriately cleaned up (cid:1)
are the most appropriate source for supplying Lugo and the other municipalities; (d) the environmental
impact study submitted does not consider any alternative to the Narla dam with regard to supplying Lugo;
(e) the reasons underpinning the designation of the area as a place of Site of Community importance
included in Natura 2000 have been ignored or treated with contempt. The BNG has made similar
proposals, voiced by its representatives on the Lugo City Council.

Is the Commission aware of this scheme? Does it know that in the claims submitted to the Spanish
Ministry by ADEGA, the scheme is viewed as incompatible, (cid:1) generally, permanently, irreversibly and
irredeemably (cid:1) with any respect for the biodiversity and conservation features of the place of Community
interest, and that ADEGA has requested that the site be declared a biosphere reserve? Is the Commission
aware that there are requests that the dam scheme be abandoned, and the earmarked investment be used
to double the Lugo city supply network from the River Minho? Is the Commission prepared to ensure that
this scheme respects Community law? Will the Commission be approaching the Spanish, Galician and
Lugo provincial and municipal authorities in this connection?

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The Commission has not received any information on the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

Irrespective of whether or not the Commission receives any document concerning the project of this dam
in the river Narla, European environmental legislation and especially the Habitats Directive (Directive 92/
43/EC) (1), the Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/EC) (2) and the Directive on the assessment
of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment (Directive 85/337/CEE) (3) must be
respected. In particular, if the area affected by the dammed water is a Site of Community interest, Article 6
of the Habitats Directive has to be fulfilled. Moreover, Directive 85/337/CEE aims to ensure that projects
belonging to certain types that have significant effects on the environment must, as a rule, be subjected to
an environmental impact assessment.