WRITTEN QUESTION P-2748/00 by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Irregularity of the EC-Israel Agreement.
Date: 2000-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Israel, certificate of origin, territorial law, trade agreement (EU)

C 103 E/216

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

resources of the EIB, as well as risk capital funds on behalf of the Community. Under the 1997 (cid:145)Growth
and employment Initiative(cid:146), sponsored by the Parliament, the EIF manages the (cid:145)European technology facility
(ETF) start-up(cid:146) scheme (indicative budget € 150 million over 3 years), which is the first higher-volume
Community risk-capital instrument with specific features to encourage allocation of benefits to early-stage
and innovative or technology-oriented companies.

(2001/C 103 E/252)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2738/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Development assistance in Peru

The European Union has taken note of the extent of the electoral anomalies and irregularities that plagued
this year(cid:146)s electoral process in Peru and cast serious doubt on the democratic legitimacy of the outcome.
As the EU(cid:146)s programme of development assistance to Peru is governed by the framework agreement
between the EU and the Andean Community (CAN), which contains a (cid:145)democracy(cid:146) clause, and since the
authorities in Peru show no signs of heeding international demands for fresh elections that are free and
fair, would it not seem an appropriate moment to invoke that clause?

Furthermore, as there have been reports that EU development assistance was used in President Fujimori(cid:146)s
re-election campaign to promote his image, would the Commission consider ordering all future develop-
ment aid to be directed henceforth through non-official (NGO, church) channels?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2000)

The Commission closely monitors events in Peru together with Member States. It supports the special
mission that the Organisation of American States has set up with the objective of reinforcing democracy in
the country. At this time, therefore, it does not seem appropriate to invoke the (cid:145)democracy(cid:146) clause of the
framework co-operation agreement between the Union and the Andean Community.

The Commission is looking into the alleged misuse of Community funds in Peru but so far it has not been
possible to confirm these allegations. If this misuse was confirmed, a suspension of Community aid would
need a Council decision.

Nevertheless, the Commission reserves its right to re-consider its position in view of further developments
in Peru.

(2001/C 103 E/253)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2748/00

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(2 August 2000)

Subject: Irregularity of the EC-Israel Agreement

In 1998, Israel confirmed to the European Commission its official policy and regular practice of certifying
products wholly produced or substantially processed in Israeli settlements located in the territories
occupied by Israel since 1967 as originating in the State of Israel. On the occasion of the Parliament(cid:146)s
2 March plenary debate on the (cid:145)Irregular application of EC-Israel Trade Agreement(cid:146), Israel(cid:146)s mission to the

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/217

EC reiterated this position publicly. It stated that the borders of the State of Israel are nowhere defined in
the EC-Israel Agreements, and that (cid:145)Israel defines its territoriality according to national law and issues
certificates of origin accordingly(cid:146). As noted in the Commission(cid:146)s May 1998 Communication (1), Israel(cid:146)s
national law annexes substantial parts of the territories it occupied in 1967, provides for the establishment
of Israeli settlements and incorporates the occupied territories within Israel(cid:146)s international trading jurisdic-
legislation through which they are
tion. Israel(cid:146)s policies of annexation and settlement, and the Israeli
implemented, are held by the international community, including the European Union and all Member
States, to be clear and serious violations of international law.

In March the Commission informed us that Israel(cid:146)s interpretation of the territorial clauses of its agreements
do not match those of the Community. Nonetheless, in April the Commission decided to put into effect a
new Association Agreement with Israel containing that same territorial clause. As drafted, does this
Agreement in fact allow Israel to conduct its treaty-based trade relations with the Community in a manner
that violates key provisions of international law binding on Israel and on the Community(cid:146)s Member States,
as Israel claims? Would the conclusion of such a treaty be consistent with Article 3(2) of the Treaty on
European Union (Amsterdam)
the European Union(cid:146)s established policies relative to
maintaining respect for public international law, with particular reference to the Fourth Geneva Conven-
tion of 1949?

in the light of

(1) SEC(98) 695 final.

(2001/C 103 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2786/00

by Alain Lipietz (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Irregular application of the EC-Israel Agreement

In a (cid:145)Notice to European Importers(cid:146) (1) dated November 1997, the Commission stated that it possessed
evidence to (cid:145)confirm a lack of effective administrative cooperation as foreseen in the different preferential
agreements signed between the Community and Israel (cid:133) to the extent that the validity of all preferential
certificates issued by Israel, for all products, are put in doubt(cid:146). In 1998, Israeli officials told the Commission
that, as a matter of official policy, the Israeli Customs Service was routinely certifying goods produced in
Israeli settlements as originating in Israel. In January, the Commission informed us that its (cid:145)extensive efforts
to find a solution to this issue have not yet yielded a satisfactory result (cid:133)(cid:146). Is the (cid:145)Notice to European
Importers(cid:146) still in force? Before deciding to put the new Association Agreement with Israel into effect, did
the Commission secure Israel(cid:146)s assurances that it will cooperate in ensuring the proper application of that
Agreement(cid:146)s rules of origin and territorial clause?

(1) OJ C 338, 8.11.1997.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-2748/00 and P-2786/00
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(18 September 2000)

The notice to European importers is still in effect as no new notice has been published indicating the end
of its validity. The Israeli authorities have taken the necessary measures to allow administrative co-
operation but the issue of territorial coverage remains, which explains why the notice is still in effect.

The decision to put into effect the Union-Israel Association Agreement was not taken by the Commission
but is the result of the completion of the ratification procedure by both the Parliament (on 29 February
1996) and the national parliaments of the Member States.