WRITTEN QUESTION P-2068/99 by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Disadvantages for importers.
Date: 1999-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fishing net, fishing regulations

C 219 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

(2000/C 219 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2067/99

by Carmen Fraga EstØvez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Compliance with the regulation intended to ban the use of driftnets

In Commissioner Fischler(cid:146)s reply of 8 October 1999 to two earlier questions (P-1937/99 and E-1561/
99 (1)) from the present author, the purpose of which was to monitor compliance with the plan laid down
in Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 (2) concerning a ban on the use of driftnets, it is stated that the figures
submitted by the Member States concerned indicate that the plan (which stipulates that, in 1998, only
60 % of the fishing vessels authorized for the 1995-1997 reference period will be allowed to operate) is
being followed. However, the numbers of vessels which have been authorized to operate using driftnets are
(by Member State) 43 French, 18 Irish and 6 UK in 1998 and 41 French, 18 Irish and 6 UK in 1999.
Except in the case of Ireland, the number of vessels authorized exceeds 60 % of the number authorized in
the reference period.

In view of the above, how can the Commission maintain that the driftnet eradication plan is being
complied with when the figures supplied by the Commission itself demonstrate that this is not the case?
What action is the Commission intending to take in order to remedy the situation and to ensure that the
rules are complied with?

(1) OJ C 170 E, 20.6.2000.
(2) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(23 November 1999)

Article 11a(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 894/
97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of fishery resources (1) stipulates that the
maximum number of vessels which may be authorised by a Member State to keep on board, or use for
fishing, one or more drift-nets must not exceed 60 % of the fishing vessels which used one or more drift-
nets during the period 1995 to 1997.

The lists of names of the vessels authorised in 1998 and 1999, which were forwarded to the Commission,
were checked against the information concerning all the vessels which used one or more drift-nets, if only
for one trip, in each year of the period mentioned. This check showed that the provision referred to above
has been complied with. Accordingly, and on the basis of all the information which the Commission
possesses, it does not have any grounds for drawing contrary conclusions.

Following the checks carried out under Article 29 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12 October
1993 establishing a control system applicable to the common fisheries policy (2), and on the basis of all the
information to be provided by the Member States concerned, the Commission is currently drawing up a
report on the application of the Community legislation concerning the use of drift-nets in the North-East
Atlantic and the Mediterranean, which will be forwarded to the members of Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on
Fisheries as soon as it is finalised.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.
(2) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993.

(2000/C 219 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2068/99

by Werner Langen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 1999)

Subject: Disadvantages for importers

Under the general preferential tariff arrangements, the importation of goods from the least developed
developing countries is exempt from customs duty. The exporter is required to fill in a (cid:145)form A(cid:146), and the

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/83

exporting country confirms the accuracy of the information provided. Should it emerge later that the
information given by the exporter is inaccurate for whatever reason, even though it was certified as
accurate by the exporting country, the duty is levied on the party owing the duty, often years later.

In my view, this means that Community importers are penalised by law through no fault of their own.

Will the Commission say:

1. Does it take the view that importers are disadvantaged by these arrangements and that their good faith

is adequately protected?

2. Does it see any possibility of adding the following to Article 220.2(b) of the Community Customs
Code: (cid:145)Ex post facto auditing shall be excluded even if the duty due by law has not been levied owing
to faulty documentation of the exporting country or a Member State, unless the party owing the duty
was aware of this error(cid:146)?

3. Does it agree that practical problems arising from a supplement of this kind to the Article in question
can be prevented if duly justified doubts about the implementation of the preferences arrangements by
a given country are published in the Official Journal, which would mean that the importer could no
longer claim he was acting in good faith?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 1999)

1.
The Court of Justice has ruled that authorities in an exporting country who issue an origin certificate
based on factually incorrect information supplied by an exporter have not committed an error within the
meaning of Article 220(2)(b) of the Community Customs Code and hence the question of the importer(cid:146)s
good faith does not arise.

The obligation to pay customs duties that are legally owed cannot be regarded as unfairly penalising
importers.

On the basis of an amendment adopted by Parliament in March 1999 the Commission submitted a

2.
proposal for amendment of Article 220 in June; this is currently before the Council.

3.

The proposal provides for notice to be given to importers via publication in the Official Journal.

(2000/C 219 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2071/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Council

(15 November 1999)

Subject: Balkans Coordinator

Is it the intention to extend the mandate of the Balkans Coordinator, Bodo Hombach, beyond 31 December
1999?

Reply

(31 January 2000)

The Council adopted a Joint Action on 9 December 1999 extending the mandate of the EU special envoy,
Bodo Hombach, until 31 December 2000.

The Council Joint Action containing that decision was published in Official Journal L 318 of the European
Communities of 11 December 1999.