Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

C 222 E/222 Official Journal of the European Union EN 18.9.


(2003/C 222 E/251) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0628/03

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Subject: Follow-up action in respect of Directive 1999/96/EC

According to the provisions of Directive 1999/96/EC (1), the Commission should have submitted a
proposal to the European Parliament and the Council on the following points before 31 December 2000:

 rules laying down the introduction of an on-board diagnostic system (OBD) to monitor the operation
of emission control devices;

 provisions on the reliability and durability requirements of emission control devices; and

 provisions to ensure the conformity of vehicles as regards emissions.

Are these proposals on the Commission’s agenda?

If not, what action does the Commission intend to take in this field, and how would it give manufacturers
the time necessary to apply the new legislation regulating emissions of industrial vehicles which will enter
into force in 2005?

(1) OJ L 44, 16.2.2000, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2003)

The Commission’s proposal dealing with the three issues raised in the question is in the final stages of
preparation and adoption. It is unfortunate that it has been delayed but that is a consequence of the need
to reconstruct the way in which proposals in the field of automotive construction are made to improve the
efficiency of the decision making process, to take account of the need to update and simplify the
Community acquis (1) and to take account of recent inter-institutional agreements.

As such, the existing annexes laid down in Directive 88/77/EEC and the amendments necessary to
introduce the new technical requirements required by Directive 1999/96/EC are being recast according to
the Inter-Institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 between the European Parliament, Council and
Commission on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal acts (2).

The Commission proposal will respect the dates laid down in Articles 4-7 of Directive 1999/96/EC for the
application of the measures, i.e. from 1 October 2005 for new types of vehicles and from 1 October 2006
for all types of vehicles.

(1) COM(2003) 71 final, 11.2.2003.

(2) Inter-institutional Agreement of 28 November 2001 on a more structured use of the recasting technique for legal
acts  OJ C 77, 28.3.2002, p. 1.

(2003/C 222 E/252) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0636/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Reception conditions for asylum-seekers

The English High Court ruled on 19 February 2002 that the application of section 55(1) of the UK
Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 is in breach of the European Convention of Human
Rights. This provision allows the UK Government automatically to refuse food and shelter to an asylum-
seeker who has not made their asylum claim ‘as soon as reasonably practical’. The court ruled that refusing
18.9.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 222 E/223

food and shelter is a breach of the applicant’s human rights and the ban on inhumane and degrading
treatment if it poses a real risk of destitution and injury to the asylum-seeker’s health.

Since the wording in the UK Act is the same as in Article 16(2) of Council Directive 2003/9/EC (1) laying
down minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers, the risk may be that other Member States
might fall foul of the ECHR if they also impose an automatic denial of benefit on delayed claims. Given the
interest in a uniform application of EU law, will the Council Presidency ensure that all Member States
follow the guidance that this English judgment offers so that asylum-seekers are not left destitute?

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.


(13 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member mentions in her question, on 27 January 2003 the Council adopted Directive
2003/9/EC on minimum standards for the reception of asylum seekers (1).

Article 26 provides that Member States must bring into force the provisions necessary to comply with the
Directive by 6 February 2003.

The Council understands that the UK Government has lodged an appeal against the High Court ruling of
19 February 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers.

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in accordance with Article 211 TEC, it is for the
Commission to ensure that the measures taken pursuant to the Treaty are applied, and that in accordance
with Article 67(5) TEC, as established by the Treaty of Nice, any amendments to Directive 2003/9/EC will
be adopted pursuant to the procedure provided for in Article 251, thus only on a proposal from the

(1) OJ L 31, 6.2.2003, p. 18.

(2003/C 222 E/253) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0644/03

by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Council

(4 March 2003)

Subject: 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice

On February the 12th, during the 2002 annual debate on an area of freedom, security and justice, I asked
the Council Office and Commissioner Vitorino the following questions, without receiving any response
from them.

In the Kingdom of Spain on 13 February 1981, that is to say 22 years ago, Joseba Arregi, a Basque
political prisoner, died under torture while he was in police custody.

In 2002, 634 politically motivated people were arrested. 127 of them subsequently claimed in court that
they had suffered ill treatment or torture.

Has the Council received clear information about this issue from the Spanish Government?

Does the Council consider that the transparency principle has been respected by the Spanish Government?

Last year the Spanish Government proposed banning several social organisations  media and cultural
associations  that had denounced the political repression suffered by Basque dissidents. As a result of a
Spanish initiative, the European Union has drawn up a black list of associations and individuals accused of
specific or tacit support for terrorism. The accused have neither legal means of defence nor effective access
to the courts.