You are on page 1of 1

C 137 E/36 Official Journal of the European Union EN 12.6.


(2003/C 137 E/040) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1907/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Immigration

Would the Commission consider that the recently enacted legislation relating to immigration in Denmark
is in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly in respect of Article 12 and
Article 14 of the Convention?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Although it is the duty of the Commission to ensure observance of fundamental rights in the field of
Community law, it has no power to examine the compatibility with the European Convention on Human
Rights of national legislation lying outside the scope ot Community law. This is derived from the case law
of the Court of Justice (Demirel, Warauf and ERT) and Article 51 of the Charter of fundamental rights of
the European Union.

In the field of immigration, there is yet no Community provision in place based on Article 63 of the EC
Treaty. Furthermore, on the basis of its protocol to the Amsterdam Treaty, Denmark has opted out the
application of Article 63 of the EC Treaty.

In the field of free movement of Union citizens and their family members who are third country nationals,
the provisions of the new Danish legislation on immigration do not apply.

(2003/C 137 E/041) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1916/02

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2002)

Subject: Introduction of the euro

According to Eurobarometer 56, close to half the EU population thinks that the euro is pushing up
consumer goods prices. According to a survey by the Netherlands’ Consumers’ Association, compact disc
prices rose by 7,2 % between March 2001 and March 2002. In the same period, set-meal prices in
restaurants increased by 6,2 %, on average, and by as much as 8,8 % in cafes. The euro was supposed to
result in greater transparency and an end to exchange costs and thus lower prices. When the summer
holidays came, people were supposed to discover the benefits of the euro abroad, since money no longer
needs to be changed in the euro zone. Now that the introduction of the euro has resulted in large price
rises, those benefits have vanished. At the same time, some old banknotes have not been returned,
representing a profit for national banks and hence for national exchequers.

1. Can the Commission say to what extent inflation has risen in EU countries as a result of the
introduction of the euro?

2. In what sectors and/or Member States have prices risen more than by the average rate of inflation?

3. Does the Commission acknowledge that it has a political responsibility to deliver on the pledge made
to consumers and make sure that the euro finally benefits them?

4. What scope does the Commission see to flesh out that political responsibility? For instance, would
the Commission support consumers’ associations selectively campaigning against euro-related price rises
and/or would it cooperate on ‘naming and shaming’ strategies?