WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/04 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. National immigration plans.
Date: 2004-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Greece, action programme, immigration, open method of coordination

C 84 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

No one has yet been seriously injured by these letter bombs. The question arises, however, as to whether
in future officials can go on simply trusting to their luck when mail of this kind lands on their desks.
Can EU staff continue to open mail without fear of being blown up?

It is astonishing that items of mail can reach officials’ desks without being inspected by a real professional
in this sphere (cid:1) a dog trained to sniff out explosives. No x-ray machine or other technical apparatus can
beat the performance and precision of a trained dog, as exemplified by the dogs used to detect bombs and
mines.

I have studied this topic in detail and have been able to offer the Labrador-retriever Amanda, who was
used as a mine-detector dog in Bosnia-Herzegovina, a home in her retirement.

For that reason, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

(cid:1) Who is responsible for the security systems and their operation in the EU institutions?

(cid:1) Does the chain of security measures include the use of dogs trained to detect explosives?

(cid:1) Does the Commission intend to expand its range of detection measures to include this method, in

particular when it comes to checking items of mail?

(cid:1) Can I be sure that I am just as safe in my office in Parliament as I am at home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Each Institution is responsible for its own security systems and their operation. An inter Institutional
working group on security ensures the exchange of relevant information.

The Commission does not offer opinions on security practices employed by other
Institutions.
The Honourable Member should raise the issue of her personal safety with the Parliamentary authorities
if she has any reason to believe that she has cause for concern.

In the Commission, mail-handling security measures are based principally on technical detection systems
because they have been shown to be more effective for this type of control. While the Commission does
not make general use of dogs in its mail-checking procedures, the use of trained dogs can be helpful for
other checks such as explosives detection as part of the security process in buildings and offices. This
working method has periodically been used by the Commission in cooperation with Member States.

(2004/C 84 E/0209)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0179/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: National immigration plans

In its endeavour to implement the decisions taken at the Council meeting in Tampere in 1999 concerning
‘a common asylum and migration policy’, the Commission requested the Member States to draw up and
submit national migration plans.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Have the Member States submitted their national migration plans?

2. Has the Greek Government submitted the Greek migration plan? If so, does the Commission have any

comments to make in that respect?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/171

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 February 2004)

In its Communication to the Council and the Parliament on an Open Method of Co-ordination for the
Community Immigration Policy (1), the Commission set out its proposals for the adaptation of the open
method of co-ordination in the field of migration policy.

The Honourable Member
the instruments and methods proposed in this
Communication (section 4) include the preparation and review of national action plans on immigration,
on an annual basis.

rightly points out

that

Given that the Council has not yet endorsed the Commission’s proposal to set up an open method of co-
ordination for the Community immigration policy, the operational phase of this method has not yet been
launched and Member States have not been requested so far to submit national action plans on
immigration.

However, in the context of a reinforced information exchange on national integration policies, launched by
the Commission in 2003, Greece has submitted a national report on the integration of immigrants. This
piece of information was referred to and commented upon in the recent Commission Communication on
Immigration, Integration and Employment (2).

(1) COM(2001) 387 final.
(2) COM(2003) 336 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0210)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of Directive 2000/78 in Greece

(29 January 2004)

Article 18 of Directive 2000/78 (1) on equal treatment in employment and occupation states that the
Member States shall implement the Directive by 2 December 2003 at the latest except where ‘In order to
take account of particular conditions, Member States may, if necessary, have an additional period of 3 years
from 2 December 2003, that is to say a total of 6 years, to implement the provisions of this Directive on
age and disability discrimination.’

What does the Commission understand by ‘particular conditions’ and ‘if necessary’ in order to extend the
deadline for implementing the Directive? Which Member States have requested an extension to the
deadline for implementation? When are the Member States required to implement the other provisions of
the Directive not pertaining to age and disability discrimination?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

Under Article 18 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework
for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Member States may, if necessary, in order to take
account of particular conditions, have an additional three year period to implement the provisions of the
Directive relating to discrimination on grounds of age and disability. The Directive does not define what is
meant by ‘particular conditions’ nor ‘if necessary’.

Belgium, Denmark, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom have notified the
Commission that they will avail themselves of this provision. The reasons given vary, but include, for