WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/01 by Isidoro Sánchez García (ELDR) to the Commission. Stage reached in the approval of the Canaries tax AIEM.
Date: 2001-03-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, fishery product, import policy, import tax, industrial product

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/75

6. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the statement by Thomas Cook(cid:146)s board that the Commission has
never given a serious response to the problem raised by Thomas Cook? What was the reason for this?

Has the Commission been informed by Thomas Cook of a possible claim for damages of GBP 25

7.
million (according to the article)?

Can the Commission confirm that Thomas Cook has set a deadline for a reply and that, in the

8.
absence of a reply, it will file its claim for damages at the end of February?

Does the Commission agree that given the legal process this could result in a long drawn out court

9.
procedures?

10.

Does the Commission agree that this could effect the planned date of introduction of the euro?

11.
If the problems assume such proportions that the planned introductory date of 1 January 2002
cannot be met, is the Commission prepared, in cooperation with the 12 Member States involved, to draw
up an emergency plan for maintaining the existing currency on a provisional basis?

12.

Is the Commission prepared to inform Parliament of the issue and of any follow-up?

13.

Finally, what is the Commission(cid:146)s view of Cook(cid:146)s claim for damages totalling GBP 25 million?

14.
Does the Commission agree that steps must be taken to prevent it being manoeuvred into a position
where there is no solution but to hand over the damages requested (cid:129) European citizens(cid:146) tax (cid:129) to prevent
even bigger problems?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the actions launched by Thomas Cook on the euro logo.

The whole of
Communities, no written or spoken declaration can be made by the Commission.

to an action with the Court of

the dossier being subject

the First

Instance of

the

Nevertheless, the Commission considers that this action cannot affect the date of the introduction of the
euro.

(2001/C 340 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0717/01

by Isidoro SÆnchez Garc(cid:237)a (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Stage reached in the approval of the Canaries tax AIEM

(8 March 2001)

The industrial sector in the Canaries has expressed concern at the delay within the Commission regarding
approval of the tax on the importation and transfer of goods in the Canaries (AIEM). In the past week,
business representatives explained to Community tax experts their concerns regarding the delay in the
introduction of the AIEM and in the approval of the regulation governing exemptions from duty on
imports of certain industrial and fisheries products. Failure to approve the rules in the course of this year
could lead to the cessation of the bulk of industrial activity in the Canaries.

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in work on the approval of the AIEM, and can it
give a date for its entry into force?

C 340 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2001)

By letter of 25 July 2000, Spain sent the Commission some items of descriptive socio-economic data on
the situation in the Canary Islands and certain details concerning a new tax entitled (cid:145)Arbitrio sobre los
Importaciones y Entregas de Mercancias en las islas Canarias (AIEM)(cid:146) (cid:129) tax on the import and transfer of
goods in the Canaries. The tax represents the implementation for tax purposes of Article 299(2) (former
Article 227) of the EC Treaty.

further particulars to the
Since the notification was incomplete, on 25 October 2000 Spain sent
Commission,
indicating the rates planned for this future tax. This enabled the Commission to start
examining and evaluating this information. The provisions concerning the tax on production and imports
(APIM) expired on 31 December 2000 and in order to ensure the necessary transition to the new tax
arrangements, the Spanish authorities,
in a letter of 31 October 2000 requested an extension to the
transitional period laid down in Article 5 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1911/91 of 26 June 1991 on the
application of the provisions of Community law to the Canary Islands (1). The Commission adopted
a proposal to that effect (2), and it is at present before the Council and Parliament.

Simultaneously, the Commission continued its deliberations concerning the AIEM in conjunction with the
Spanish authorities, to which it sent remarks and objections concerning the prop osal. The Commission is
awaiting the answer to these comments in order to complete its evaluation and prepare a proposal
pursuant to Article 299(2) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 171, 29.6.1991.
(2) COM(2001) 76 final.

(2001/C 340 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0719/01

by FrØdØrique Ries (ELDR) to the Council

(14 March 2001)

Subject: Transnationally abducted children and the case of the Limet/de Brouwer children in Kenya

In 1994, Marie de Brouwer, a Belgian citizen, left Belgium to start a new life in Kenya and separated from
her husband and her three children.

The custody of the three children was awarded to the father, Olivier Limet and confirmed by the Brussels
Court of Appeal in 1997.

Since 9 August 1998, Mrs de Brouwer, who in the meantime acquired Kenyan citizenship, has refused to
return the children to their father and has prevented any contact between the children on the one hand
and their father and close relations in Belgium on the other.

The Belgian Courts have issued an international warrant for the arrest of Mrs de Brouwer and an
extradition order against her on the grounds of hostage taking. They have also condemned her to a jail
sentence.

The Kenyan authorities, through their attorney-general, have issued legal objections to the Belgian Courts(cid:146)
decision and have placed the children under the protection of the Kenyan Court.

Since the summer of 1998, the three children have not seen their father.

Could this case be raised in meetings with Kenyan officials at all levels and the Kenyan authorities be
invited to do their utmost to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion for all parties involved, in
accordance with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that every child has the right to
maintain direct contact with both parents if separated from one or both?