Brussels, 12/03/2001 (Agence Europe) - This Tuesday in Strasbourg, the European Parliament examined three reports that reject initiatives put forward by Member States - France, Finland and Portugal - concerning of asylum and immigration, and insist its report on the European Commission's right to initiative and enforcement.
Hartmut Nassauer (EPP, German) in his report on the French initiative in view of the adopting of a Directive relating to the mutual recognition of decisions turning back third country nationals, rejects this administrative and national measure to expatriate taken against foreigners even if they find themselves, in the meantime, in another Member State. The EP Petitions Committee, consulted by Mr Nassauer, issued an opinion in which it: recalls the numerous petitions sent to the EP by non-Community nationals threatened or hit by expulsion measures; b) asserted that the EU must draft measures concerning of immigration taking into account, among others, its demographic decline and the ageing of its population, and that it must remain an area of freedom, security and justice; c) feels that the measures to expulse must be framed by Community law and integrate themselves into a coherent group of correct and politically acceptable legal provisions, without only favouring the repressive aspect; d) notes that the foreigners being expulsed are often placed in detention centres in "sub-human conditions"; e) considers the French initiative inappropriate both on a political level as well as on a legal, cultural and human level; f) recalls the power of legislative initiative held by the European Commission.
Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL, Danish) in her report on the Portuguese initiative in view of the adopting of a regulation concerning the period during which the third country nationals exempted from the visa requirement may circulate freely on the territory of the Member States, rejects this initiative and calls on Portugal to with draw it. In February 2000, the Portuguese Presidency of the EU had presented this initiative whose aim was to resolve the problem of bilateral agreements that can extend, by six to nine months or even more, the travel period for these nationals in the countries of the EU. The Portuguese initiative manifestly brings a certain added value, admits Mrs Frahm, but she nevertheless calls on the plenary to reject it given the fragmentation and incoherence that result from the difference between the treatment given to a category of people (those which are exempted from the visa requirement) and two other categories (those which are required to hold a visa and those which have a residency permit). According to Mrs Frahm, it is preferable to await a European Commission proposal.
Gerard Deprez (EPP/ED, Belgian) called for the rejecting of two initiatives: a) the first, from Finland in view of adopting a regulation reserving to the Council to powers of enforcement with regards to certain detailed provisions and practical aspects relating to the assessment of visa applications; b) the second, from Portugal in view of the adopting of a regulation reserving, to the Council, the powers of enforcement concerning certain detailed provisions and practical aspects of the implementation of border checks and monitoring. Mr Deprez calls on the two governments to withdraw these initiatives, noting that, in a general manner, the core of the provisions established by Article 67 (Heading 4) of the Treaty presently fails, due to a total absence of parliamentary control and that this democratic deficit, in the case of the Finnish and Portuguese initiatives are worsened by two additional elements: a) the Parliament is consulted on the initiatives that aim to give the Council the power to modify provisions for which the MEPs have no knowledge of the content. In fact, underlines Mr Deprez, the Council refused to pass on to the EP certain documents classified as confidential, and we have the right to wonder if, under such conditions, the EP consultation procedure is not emptied of its meaning; b) the Council, in reserving for itself the powers of enforcement instead of leaving them to the European Commission, deprives the Parliament of any information to which it would have had a right in the framework of the normal comitology.