WRITTEN QUESTION P-0621/04 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Revision of TEN-T.
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, State aid, common transport policy, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, maritime transport, restriction on competition, trans-European network, transport company, transport infrastructure, transport network

C 84 E/822

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0916)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0618/04

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(1 March 2004)

Subject: Decision by the Dutch parliament to expel thousands of immigrants

On 17 February 2004 the Dutch parliament adopted a government bill to expel some 26 000 immigrants
and refugees who have been living in the country for years, including many young people born in the
Netherlands. The bill also provides for new, more stringent conditions for granting asylum to immigrants,
in line with the tough immigration policy pursued by the Dutch Government over the last few years. The
majority of Dutch society, together with scores of non-governmental organisations, have declared their
opposition to this inhumane and racist decision. The UN High Commission for Refugees has also
expressed its opposition to the plan, since many immigrants in the Netherlands face serious problems, and
there is no prospect of repatriating them safely to their countries of origin.

Will the Commission say whether it considers that the specific measures to expel immigrants from the
Netherlands by force are compatible with the 1951 Geneva Convention and the Tampere commitments to
draw up an integrated European asylum and immigration policy with transparent rules based on European
humanitarian values and respect for the dignity of the human person?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 April 2004)

The Commission was not sent the Government Bill adopted by the Dutch Parliament on 17 February
2004.

As far as the Commission is aware, the national measures at stake concern only rejected asylum seekers.
The Dutch Aliens law provides for a general possibility of review by Courts of negative decisions. Courts
are competent to decide, on a case by case basis, whether the removals would be in accordance with
obligations under international law, in particular under the 1951 Geneva Convention on the status of
refugees and Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Commission would like to underline that,
in general, the possibility of return of rejected asylum
seekers could be the logical consequence where the outcome of an asylum procedure is negative for the
applicant, when the procedure was fair and allowed for all needs for international protection to be
examined. A final negative decision implies that the person at stake was not found to be in need of
international protection. If there are no other grounds for legal stay, return can be implemented.

(2004/C 84 E/0917)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0621/04

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Revision of TEN-T

A revision of the EU’s Trans-European Networks (cid:1) Transport (TEN-T) is currently under discussion. A new
concept, ‘Motorways of the Sea’, is being introduced in this connection, which can be endorsed in theory
but, in practice, there is a great risk of distortion of competition depending on the implementation. In the
light of this situation.

Would the Commission provide clarification on the following points:

(cid:1) can ships be regarded as infrastructure in the context of TEN-T and, therefore, be built and purchased

using TEN-T finance;

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/823

(cid:1) must support for ‘Motorways of the Sea’ projects always be provided by way of a tendering procedure

in the Member State concerned;

(cid:1) will discounts on port dues, stevedoring, pilot services etc. in specific ports in connection with the
opening of new routes be taken into account within the ceiling for state aid for the opening of such
new routes?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2004)

The Commission proposal of 1 October 2003 on the revision of the Community Guidelines on the
development of the TEN-T network (1), proposes amongst other priority projects the ‘Motorways of the
Sea’. This concept was already announced by the White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to
decide’ (2) which was presented by the Commission in 2001. The Commission is of the opinion, that this
concept has to be applied in a way adapted to the different areas. Whilst Community financial support to
the construction of infrastructures as part of the Motorways of the Sea projects is sometimes enough for
the successful implementation, sometimes financial incentives beyond the purely infrastructure part may be
necessary. This is why the Commission has proposed the possibility of EU co-financing of start-up aid for
shipping companies of the motorways of the sea limited to two years, based upon a thorough tendering
procedure. Such a support would be applied in accordance with the Community guidelines on state aids
with maritime transport published in the Official Journal of the European Union (3) on the 17 January
2004 which allow start-up aids for a maximum period of three years.

This proposal is now under discussion in the Council and the Parliament.

(1) COM(2003) 564 final.
(2) COM(2001) 370 final.
(3) OJ C 13, 17.1.2004.

(2004/C 84 E/0918)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Schedules of airlines from third countries

(1 March 2004)

Following the recent tragic crash of the Flash Airlines plane from Sharm el-Sheik in Egypt, the United
Kingdom published a list of third countries airlines which are banned from using its airspace since they fail
to comply with the international safety rules laid down by the International Civil Aviation Organization.
One of the airlines blacklisted in this way is Albanian Airlines, which operates a flight three or four times
a week between Athens and Tirana.

Will the Commission say:

1. Why has the United Kingdom included Albanian Airlines on its blacklist? Have the services of a
Member State to which this airline flies verified the reliability of this airline? If so, what are the
findings? Have the competent authorities carried out a runway inspection, as provided for under the
Chicago Convention?

2. Are such inspections covered by the recent agreement between the European Parliament and the
Council on a system of controls and verification of the safety of aircraft of third countries airlines
using Community airports?