WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/99 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission. JHA cooperation programmes: reports, evaluation and rights of the defence.
3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/125 any UNDCP alternative crop development programmes in Afghanistan either prior to, or since, the emergence of the Taliban movement. í The European Union supports the UNDCP, however, through an annual lump-sum contribution entered against the budget line North-south cooperation schemes in the context of the campaign against drug abuseí. While the Union does not fund the UNDCP programmes in Afghanistan directly, it supports their implementation indirectly, through its lump-sum contribution. Does the Commission know how the UNDCP uses that Community lump-sum funding? Since it deems direct funding of opium eradication and substitution programmes in Afghanistan inappropriate and ineffective, has the Commission asked the UNDCP not to use the Community funding that it receives annually for such programmes? Has the Commission asked the UNDCP to suspend the programmes in question? If so, when and how? If not, does it intend to do so in future? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2000) Although the Commission was the third largest donor to the United Nations drug control programme (UNDCP) in 1999, the Commission does not provide it with general purpose funding as suggested by the Honourable Member. The financial regulations of the Community prohibit the provision of general funds and purpose funding and restrict programmes to activities related to concrete projects. As stated in the Commissionís response to the Honourable Memberís Oral Question on this at Parliamentís November 1999 part-session (1) during the period in question the Commission did not fund any UNDCP projects for eradication of illicit cultures or alternative development in Afghanistan. the funding of activities of United Nations organisations, subject H-558/99n during question time (1) Debates of the European Parliament (November 1999). (2000/C 280 E/134) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2764/99 by Marco Cappato (TDI) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: JHA cooperation programmes: reports, evaluation and rights of the defence Through the Community budget the European Union funds a range of programmes relating to cooperation in the field of justice and home affairs. The Grotius programme, in particular, which was established by Joint Action 96/636/JHA of 28 October 1996, provides for exchanges and incentives relating to research, seminars, conferences and training, and is aimed at legal practitioners (magistrates, lawyers, notaries, etc. ). What specific projects has the Commission financed? In addition, does the Commission have an analytical description of the projects and an evaluation of the initiatives funded and of the documents and studies produced? Finally, which projects have been financed with the aim of exploring the issue of the rights of the defence in a European area of justice in which, as is envisaged by the Council agreement on mutual assistance in judicial matters, there will be closer judicial cooperation in criminal matters? Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (17 February 2000) The Commission has run the Grotius programme since 1996 and has presented the information sought by the Honourable Member in two reports (1). C 280 E/126 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 The Commission aims to support projects in avenues related to the mandate of the programme (to improve judicial cooperation and mutual knowledge of the legal systems), including projects dealing with the defendantís point of view, the victimís point of view as well as the stateís view on judicial cooperation. As outlined in the reports, approximately 70 % of all the projects are organised by non-governmental authorities. (1) First Report of the Commission to the Parliament and the Council on the implementation of the Grotius, Sherlock, Stop and Oisin programmes (1996-1997) ü SEC(98) 1048 and the second report (1998) ü SEC(1999) 1955. (2000/C 280 E/135) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2770/99 by Alima Boumediene-Thiery (Verts/ALE) to the Council (10 January 2000) Subject: Readmission clauses At its meeting of 3 December the Justice and Home Affairs Council adopted by the procedure without debate ( Aí items) a decision on readmission clauses in Community agreements or joint agreements. Under this decision, such clauses would in future be compulsorily included in all Community agreements and agreements between the EC, its Member States and third countries. Can the Council give details of the scope of this decision, which was taken without consultation of the European Parliament? Does the decision apply to agreements currently in force? Does it concern all agreements of a commercial nature, including those with countries offering insufficient guarantees regarding respect for democracy and fundamental rights? Are we to understand that all the countries with which the EC is negotiating or has already concluded agreements are regarded as safe? How are the standard readmission clause and the obligations of the EU and its Member States under the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugees to be reconciled, particularly as regards access to the asylum procedure and the principle of not turning away asylum seekers? Reply (13 March 2000) 1. The Council decision mentioned by the Honourable Member makes reference to the Council conclusions of 4 March 1996, in which the Council agreed that the insertion of standard readmission clauses in mixed agreements was to be considered on a case-by-case basis when adopting the directives for the negotiation of such agreements. The Council decision adapts these conclusions to the new situation arising from the entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty. It was necessary to revise the standard clauses agreed in 1996 to take account of the fact that the European Community is now empowered to conclude readmission agreements with third countries. Under this decision, the revised standard clauses should in future be included in Community agreements and in association agreements or cooperation agreements between the European Community, its Member States and third countries. From the legal point of view, these are negotiating directives adopted by the Council on the basis of Article 300(1) TEC, which does not provide for consultation of the European Parliament. These new directives are applicable as from adoption to current as well as future negotiations. The clauses do not lay down any obligation to expel illegal migrants. They are only intended to 2. commit the contracting parties to readmit own nationals and to conclude readmission agreements including obligations for the readmission of third-country nationals and stateless persons. As far as the expulsion of illegal migrants is concerned, it is the responsibility of each Member State to ensure that expulsions are carried out in accordance with its obligations arising from the Geneva Convention of 28 July 1951 and the Protocol of 31 January 1967 relating to the status of refugees and other relevant treaties