# CE2004084EN.01052202.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/522 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/522

---

(2004/C 84 E/0599)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject:   Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State

Subject:

Since questions P-3279/03 (1) and E-3280/03 (1) incorrectly stated the value of exports to the Vatican City State — because it was not specified at the end of the extracts from the CATS database (answer to question P-3202/02) (2) that the figures represent the general total — the questioner acknowledges that the correct amount of export refunds for the period 1998-2001 is EUR 4 000 813,01.

1

1

2

The answer to question P-3279/03 confirms the figures given in point (d) and hence, since the correct total of payments is EUR 321 711 242,39, the proportion of payments made in cases where the product and/or the unit of measurement is not indicated is 30,26 % of the total, rather than 15,13 %.

In reply to question E-3280/03 the Commission said that it did not consider the questions relevant, in view of the error made in stating the amount of refunds for exports to the Vatican City State, and stressed the following:

| 1. | in point (c) or the supplementary answer to questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (3) it is stated that:






  — | There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State. The quantity of exports to this country appears reasonable. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

in point (c) or the supplementary answer to questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (3) it is stated that:

3

—

There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State. The quantity of exports to this country appears reasonable.

| — | In the case of exports of agricultural products with refund from the Community to the Vatican City, the Vatican City authorities certify that they have been released for consumption in the territory of the Vatican City or the institutions and offices of the Holy See. |
| --- | --- |

—

In the case of exports of agricultural products with refund from the Community to the Vatican City, the Vatican City authorities certify that they have been released for consumption in the territory of the Vatican City or the institutions and offices of the Holy See.

| — | As regards the special provisions for products exported with refund to the Vatican, the customs agreement between Italy and the Vatican City and Community legislation on export refunds ... apply. |
| --- | --- |

—

As regards the special provisions for products exported with refund to the Vatican, the customs agreement between Italy and the Vatican City and Community legislation on export refunds ... apply.

| 2. | in point (d) it is stated that Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty, which governs the relations between the Vatican City State and the Italian Republic guarantees the central bodies of the Catholic Church exemption from ‘any interference on the part of the Italian State’. |
| --- | --- |

2.

in point (d) it is stated that Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty, which governs the relations between the Vatican City State and the Italian Republic guarantees the central bodies of the Catholic Church exemption from ‘any interference on the part of the Italian State’.

Can the Commission therefore say, as it was originally asked in question E-3280/03:

| — | why no specific checks are conducted on the quantities of beef, cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State? |
| --- | --- |

—

why no specific checks are conducted on the quantities of beef, cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State?

| — | whether it has a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican to which the goods are exported? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether it has a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican to which the goods are exported?

| — | whether any infringement of the Community rules on export refunds should be exempt from interference on the part of the Italian State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty? |
| --- | --- |

—

whether any infringement of the Community rules on export refunds should be exempt from interference on the part of the Italian State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty?

| — | which assessments provide the basis for its statement that the quantity of exports to the Vatican appears reasonable? |
| --- | --- |

—

which assessments provide the basis for its statement that the quantity of exports to the Vatican appears reasonable?

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

(5 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his Written Question P-3279/03.

The Commission points out that the figures given in the answer to Written Question P-3279/03 were not confirmed (4) as indicated by the Honourable Member in this written question. The correct total of payments for the period 1998-2001 for various destinations including the Vatican State City (VA) is EUR 321 711 242,39.

4

For the amount of EUR 9 066 774,47 (instead of EUR 9 067 116,01 as stated by the Honourable Member) the CATS database does not contain an indication of the product and of the unit of measurement.

For the amount of EUR 23 236 120 ,85 (instead of EUR 14 173 353,56) the CATS database does not contain the product code.

For the amount of EUR 83 188 136,82 (instead of EUR 74 115 436,13) the CATS database does not contain the unit of measurement.

However, it must be made clear that no payments are made on the basis of the CATS database. These are made by the national paying agencies respecting the provisions of Commission Regulation (CE) No 800/1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds on agricultural products (5).

5

The calculated percentage of 30,26 % of missing information in the CATS database is an average for the whole period (1998-2001). Due to substantial improved quality controls, the calculated proportion of data fields with missing information went down from 62,63 % for financial year 1998 to 6,77 % for financial year 2001 (6).

6

The Commission wants to stress, that the CATS database has been established and designed as a control tool, and that no payments are made on the basis of the data contained therein.

The Commission would like to draw attention to an obvious translation mistake. In the joint answer to the Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 it should read ‘beet’ and not ‘beef’ as it has been erroneously published only in the Italian version of the answer.

In light of the above:

| — | The exports of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form from Member States to the Vatican City with export refunds to the Vatican City are according to Council Regulation (EC) No 386/90 of 12 February 1990 on the monitoring carried out at the time of export of agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts (7) subject of a mandatory physical control of at least 5 %. No specific problem was brought to the attention of the Commission that would have lead to requesting a change with regard to specific checks on the exports from Member States to the Vatican City. If the Honourable Member is in the possession of any evidence which would presume a non-regulatory situation, he is requested to transmit it to the Commission which will then assure the appropriate follow-up. |
| --- | --- |

—

The exports of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form from Member States to the Vatican City with export refunds to the Vatican City are according to Council Regulation (EC) No 386/90 of 12 February 1990 on the monitoring carried out at the time of export of agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts (7) subject of a mandatory physical control of at least 5 %. No specific problem was brought to the attention of the Commission that would have lead to requesting a change with regard to specific checks on the exports from Member States to the Vatican City. If the Honourable Member is in the possession of any evidence which would presume a non-regulatory situation, he is requested to transmit it to the Commission which will then assure the appropriate follow-up.

7

| — | On a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican, the Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to what is said about these in the Lateran Treaty itself, which is to be found annexed to the Italian ratifying act, Law No 810 of 27 May 1929. |
| --- | --- |

—

On a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican, the Commission asks the Honourable Member to refer to what is said about these in the Lateran Treaty itself, which is to be found annexed to the Italian ratifying act, Law No 810 of 27 May 1929.

| — | The Lateran Treaty was concluded between Italy and the Holy See in 1929. It is therefore covered by Article 307 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 between one or more Member States and one or more third countries. Relations between the Community and Italy are governed by the Community legislation in force. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Lateran Treaty was concluded between Italy and the Holy See in 1929. It is therefore covered by Article 307 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 between one or more Member States and one or more third countries. Relations between the Community and Italy are governed by the Community legislation in force.

| — | The Commission has based its assumption that the exports to the Vatican City appear reasonable on the findings of the European Court of Auditors. In this context reference is made to the Special Report of the European Customs Association (ECA) No 2/93 (8) where it is stated under point 6.22: The persons eligible to benefit from the customs exemptions of the Vatican State are the permanent residents of the City State itself (some 600 people) and the persons who reside permanently or temporarily in the other buildings (on average some 20 000 in any one year are there for study purposes, religion training, official reasons, etc.). In addition Italian citizens employed by, or pensioners of, the agencies of the Holy See and the governorship of the Vatican City State and their families have the right to use the Vatican shops. This is estimated to be about 12 000 persons.' It can be reasoned that these figures are still valid or possibly even higher. For such a factual population the quoted figures appear reasonable. |
| --- | --- |

—

The Commission has based its assumption that the exports to the Vatican City appear reasonable on the findings of the European Court of Auditors. In this context reference is made to the Special Report of the European Customs Association (ECA) No 2/93 (8) where it is stated under point 6.22: The persons eligible to benefit from the customs exemptions of the Vatican State are the permanent residents of the City State itself (some 600 people) and the persons who reside permanently or temporarily in the other buildings (on average some 20 000 in any one year are there for study purposes, religion training, official reasons, etc.). In addition Italian citizens employed by, or pensioners of, the agencies of the Holy See and the governorship of the Vatican City State and their families have the right to use the Vatican shops. This is estimated to be about 12 000 persons.' It can be reasoned that these figures are still valid or possibly even higher. For such a factual population the quoted figures appear reasonable.

8

---

(1)  OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.

1

(2)  OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.

2

(3)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

3

(4)  Answer to P-3279/03, second paragraph: ‘In fact each amount quoted in the written question is inaccurate and can, therefore, not be confirmed by the Commission and it is not certain how and from where the Honourable Member extracted these figures.’

4

(5)  OJ L 102, 17.4.1999.

5

(6)  1998 was the starting phase of the CATS database.

6

(7)  OJ L 42, 16.2.1990.

7

(8)  OJ C 347, 27.12.1993.

8

---