WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3441/97 by Nel van DIJK to the Commission. The 'Aznar protocol'
C 174/58 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 6. 98 (98/C 174/98) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3441/97 by Nel van Dijk (V) to the Commission (31 October 1997) Subject: The Aznar protocolí Does the Commission have an explanation for the discrepancy between the figures provided by it (1) on the number of requests for asylum by subjects of EU Member States in other Member States and the figures available to the UNHCR (2)? Can the Commission, after consultation with the UNHCR, provide the correct statistics? Which Member States, in addition to Belgium (3), the Netherlands (4) and Sweden (5), have now stated that, despite the Aznar protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam, they will give consideration to any request for asylum from a subject of another Member State? Is the Commission prepared to urge the other Member States to do the same so as to limit the damage caused by the Aznar protocolí to compliance with the Refugees Convention? (1) Answer by Commissioner Gradin to my Written Question E-1356/97 › OJ C 373, 9. 12. 1997, p. 110. (2) UNHCR, EU nationals seeking asylum in EU Member States: some statistical evidence, 1985-1995í. (3) Declaration by Belgium to the protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam on asylum for nationals of Member States of the European Union. (4) Answer by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Justice to Written Questions by the Member of Parliament Rosenmo¤ller (GroenLinks), Second Chamber, Questions, 26 September 1997. (5) Migration News Sheet, No. 173, August 1997, p. 13. Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission (8 December 1997) The figures given in the Commissionís reply to the Honourable Memberís written question E-1356/97 (1) were provided drawing on statistics from Member States themselves on the basis of asylum requests lodged and registered there. Statistics are collected by the Office of the United Nations high commissioner for refugees (UNHCR) local offices on a case by case basis whereas Eurostat depends on contributions by the Member State in question. The Commission is aware that figures from UNHCR are often higher than those provided by Member States, presumably reflecting a different collection basis and methodology. The Commission is therefore examining how collection methods might be improved to avoid the statistical discrepancies in the future. The Commission is not aware of any Member State other than Belgium having made a formal declaration of its intention to examine each request for asylum by nationals of Member States. The Commission does not, however, interpret the absence of such declarations to mean that Member States do not intend to honour their obligations in relation to the 1951 Geneva Convention. On the contrary, the Commission made clear in its answer to the oral question H-600/97 by Mr Sjo¤stedt during question time at Parliamentís September 1997 part-session (2) that, although it considered it unfortunate that this protocol had been included in the Amsterdam Treaty, it was pleased to note that the preamble of the protocol clearly stated that it respected the finality and objectives of the 1951 Geneva Convention relating to the status of refugees (3). (1) OJ C 373, 9. 12. 1997, p. 110. (2) Debates of the Parliament (September 1997). (3) European Parliament, Verbatim report of proceedings, 16. 9. 1997, page 69. (98/C 174/99) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3448/97 by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE), Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE) and Giorgos Dimitrakopoulos (PPE) to the Commission (31 October 1997) Subject: Revision of the Greek Community Support Framework The Greek Government recently called for the revision of the Greek Community Support Framework 1994-1999 (CSF) and in particular the transfer of appropriations from sectors in which implementation has been very slow to