WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Food aid programme for Russia.
Date: 2001-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, agricultural product, pension scheme, sale, social policy, social security

C 350 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

and Gaza Strip and those from East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights contravene agreed rules of origin
since these territories do not form part of the State of Israel under public international law. There are
indications that these exports are taking place. The European Community will take steps to verify the
accuracy of this information (cid:133) Should it be confirmed, such violations of rules should be brought to an
end.(cid:146)

In September 1998 Israeli officials confirmed to the Commission that as a matter of official policy Israeli
Customs was routinely certifying products wholly produced or substantially processed in Israeli settlements
as originating in the State of Israel. After several cases of fraudulent imports of settlement products under
preferences were uncovered by Member States(cid:146) customs services, the Commission informed us that (cid:145)the
interpretation of the territorial scope of application of the agreement adopted by Israel does not coincide
with the interpretation accepted by the European Union(cid:146). However, the Commission also assured us that
(cid:145)the verification procedure for the origin of products makes it possible to determine whether a product
may benefit from the right to preferential treatment even where there is a failure to co-operate in the
determination of origin on the part of the third country concerned.(cid:146) After the Commission moved to
coordinate a posteriori verifications by the Member States(cid:146) customs services for a number of imports of
settlement-produced goods, Israeli officials announced publicly that Israel would respond to the Member
States(cid:146) verification inquiries by reaffirming the originating status of the products concerned. Can Israel (cid:145)fail
to co-operate in the determination of origin(cid:146) without violating an essential provision of its agreement with
the EU? Does such a failure to co-operate encumber and diminish the capacity of the Member States(cid:146)
customs services to detect and prevent customs fraud? Does the Commission tolerate an inferior standard
of customs fraud deterrence and prevention on the Member States(cid:146) parts where Israeli exports of settlement
products are concerned?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member may know, the Union-Israel Association Agreement establishes a procedure
for the verification of the proof of origin, whereby the customs authorities of the importing country return
the certificate of origin to the customs authorities of the exporting country, if they have a reasonable
doubt as to the authenticity of such documents, the originating status of the products concerned or the
fulfilment of the other requirements of Protocol 4 of the Agreement. The verification is carried out by the
customs authorities of the exporting country. This process is presently taking place.

About 2000 certificates of origin have been sent back to Israel(cid:146)s customs authorities by Member State
customs authorities. The Union-Israel Association Agreement foresees that Israel(cid:146)s customs authorities have
up to 10 months to send an answer to Member States custom authorities.
In case Israel customs
authorities fail to answer or if
information to determine the
the reply does not contain sufficient
authenticity of the document in question or the real origin of the products, the requesting customs
authorities shall refuse entitlement to the preferences.

On the occasion of the first Association Council on 13 June 2000, the Union Presidency, in the official
speech, expressed its particular attachment to the respect of the territorial coverage of the Association
Agreement with Israel. The Commission, in full co-ordination with Member States, will ensure the respect
of the Association Agreement.

(2001/C 350 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1115/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Food aid programme for Russia

In the winter of 1998-1999 the EU decided (cid:129) evidently in order to use up its stocks (cid:129) to grant food aid
to Russia. It was agreed with the Russian government that 20 % of the income from the sale of this food
would be directed to a special social fund. Has the Commission had any details of the use of the resources
from this fund?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/73

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

In the context of the Programme to supply agricultural products to the Russian Federation, Council
Regulation (EC) No 2802/98 of 17 December 1998 provides for the sale of product delivered and the use
of sale proceeds for social measures.

The Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) further provides for Special Account receipts to be disbursed
for the payment of pensions (80 %) and for specific social purposes (20 %). The MoU also obliged the
Russian authorities to provide regular reports on receipts to and disbursement from the Special Account.
These reports are presented by the Ministry for Finance to the Joint Working Group (JWG), which meets
regularly to manage the Programme. No disbursement from the Special Account can be made unless
approved by the Commission upon the recommendation of the JWG.

According to the latest reports the disbursement of funds from the Special Account to the agreed areas is
as follows:

(cid:129) Pension Fund: € 177 million,

(cid:129) Ministries for Health and Labour: € 44 million (22 million to each).

The current balances remaining on the Account are:

(cid:129) Pension Fund: € 13 million,

(cid:129) Ministries for Health and Labour: € 3,2 million.

Reports relating to disbursement to the Pension Fund include details as to the amount and date of receipt
from the Special Account, payments from the State Pension Fund to regional branches including the
amount and date of transaction. In the context of control the Commission(cid:146)s Technical Assistance Unit has
undertaken a number of audit missions to beneficiary regions. These missions have verified that there is
a clear audit trail identifying the flow of funds from the State Pension Fund to the final recipient i.e. the
pensioner.

The reports received in respect of usage of Special Account funds by the Ministries for Health and Labour
clearly show that these funds have been dedicated for the purchase of equipment for hospitals, medical
institutions and children(cid:146)s clinics/schools. The equipment purchase includes wheelchairs, computers for
boarding schools, beds for hospitals, clothes and laundry equipment.

(2001/C 350 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1117/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Renovation of the Berlaymont building

(6 April 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s headquarters in the Berlaymont building has been out of use for several years. Its
renovation was in view of future use. How much has the Commission committed itself to paying for the
renovations and how will this amount be taken into account in the rents charged on the building?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2001)

The Berlaymont Building was vacated by the European Commission in 1991 when proof was provided
that the condition of the asbestos used in its construction had deteriorated to the point where it breached
safety requirements.