WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Trade in cigarettes.
Date: 2000-11-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Cyprus, Province of Antwerp, Yugoslavia, extra-EU trade, illicit trade, tobacco industry

C 151 E/204

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

22.5.2001

(2001/C 151 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3720/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Trade in cigarettes

The Commission(cid:146)s legal dispute with two American tobacco manufacturers has focused interest once more
on the import and export of cigarettes.

There is a degree of uncertainty about the extent of the cigarette trade (including smuggling). I should
therefore be glad if the Commission could answer these questions:

1. How many cigarettes were confiscated in the various EU Member States in 1997, 1998 and 1999?

2. Which were the five most confiscated makes of cigarettes in the EU, in order of importance, in 1997,

1998 and 1999?

3. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Cyprus in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year,

Member State and number of cigarettes)?

4. Which Member States exported cigarettes to Yugoslavia in 1997-1999 (data broken down by year,

Member State and number of cigarettes)?

5.

From which countries were cigarettes imported into the EU in 1997-1999 through the port of
Antwerp? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

6. To which countries outside the EU were cigarettes exported from the Belgian Federation in 1997-

1999? (data broken down by year, Member State and number of cigarettes)?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2001)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 151 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3721/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 November 2000)

Subject: Family allowances as an obstacle to freedom of movement

Border workers are sometimes faced with discrepancies between the legislation in their country of
residence and their country of work. One notable case is the legislation on family allowances. The German
child allowance rules are based on the country-of-residence principle, while the Netherlands General Child
Allowances Act (AKW) is based on the country-of-employment principle. The underlying rule of European
coordination law is that the border worker should receive whichever of the amounts payable under the
two schemes is the higher.

In practice, however, the following cases have arisen. A German border worker who works in the
Netherlands has for some years now received the Dutch benefit under the AKW, topped up with a benefit
under the German child allowance scheme, adding up to a total amount of family allowances equal to the
amount he would have received in child allowances if he had worked in Germany. However, after a few
years his wife also went to work in the Netherlands and the body paying the benefit has decided that there
is no longer any entitlement to the German top-up family benefit.

Is the action of the German government compatible with the regulation or with other parts of the

1.
EU Treaties?

Does the Commission consider that this action may constitute an obstacle to the free movement of

2.
workers?