WRITTEN QUESTION P-1300/01 by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Irregular application of the EC-Israel Trade Agreement.
Date: 2001-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Israel, common commercial policy, customs fraud, originating product, trade agreement (EU), trade dispute

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/115

Local groups were selected primarily on the basis of the quality of the action plan drawn up by local
players and their innovative features for testing new approaches to rural development in practical terms.
Responsibility for the selection of the groups and implementation of local measures, including the control
tasks as provided for in Article 23(1) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4253/88 of 19 December 1988
laying down provisions for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 2052/88 as regards coordination of the
the
interventions of
European Investment Bank and the other existing financial instruments (1) (amended by Council Regulation
(EEC) No 2082/93 of 20 July 1993) (2),
In view of this
responsibility, the Commission has requested additional
information from the Campania region about
possible irregularities by GAL Cadispa.

the different Structural Funds between themselves and with the operations of

lies exclusively with the Campania region.

In the light of the information it receives, the Commission may decide to carry out on-the-spot checks as
provided for in Article 23(2) of the above-mentioned Regulation.

(1) OJ L 374, 31.12.1988.
(2) OJ L 193, 31.7.1993.

(2001/C 350 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1300/01

by Luisa Morgantini (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Irregular application of the EC-Israel Trade Agreement

(19 April 2001)

In September 1998 Israeli officials confirmed to the European 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. In 1999 several cases of fraudulent imports of
settlement products under preferences were uncovered by Member States(cid:146) customs services and presented
to the Commission. In January 2000 we were informed by the Commission 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), and that efforts were under way to (cid:145)find a viable solution (cid:133) without
prejudicing the position of any of the parties(cid:146). In March 2000 the Commission 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
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). According to statements made to the
Israeli press by the responsible Israeli official, in May and June Member States(cid:146) customs services reportedly
carried out the first of several thousand such verification procedures, and Israeli customs was preparing to
reply to Member States(cid:146) queries concerning the origin of settlement products by confirming their
originating status.

to preferential

Has Israel(cid:146)s application of the origin rules protocol according to an interpretation of the territorial clause
that contravenes public international law encumbered or diminished the capacity of the Member States(cid:146)
customs services to detect and prevent customs fraud? As the guardian of the Community Treaties, can the
Commission tell us the extent of the customs fraud perpetrated against the Community that has arisen
over the past years and decades from the failure of Member States to prevent the importation under
preferences of settlement products improperly certified by Israeli customs as originating in the State of
Israel? Does the Commission intend to recover the losses to the Community treasury from the Member
States whose customs services failed to detect and prevent such fraud?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2001)

As the Honourable Member may know, the Union-Israel Association Agreement establishes a procedure
for the verification of the proof of origin. It is foreseen that the customs authorities of the importing
country returns the origin certificate 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

C 350 E/116

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

concerned or the fulfilment of the other requirements of Protocol 4 of the Agreement. The verification
shall be carried out by the customs authorities of the exporting country. This process is presently taking
place.

About 2000 certificates of origin have been sent to Israel(cid:146)s customs authorities by Member States 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 reply does not contain sufficient information to determine the authenticity of the document
in question or the real origin of the products, the agreement indicates that the requesting customs
authorities shall refuse entitlement to the preferences.

(2001/C 350 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1305/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(3 May 2001)

Subject: Media ownership

1. What restrictions,
particular media (television, radio, newspapers, magazines, journals)?

if any, exist in each Member State in relation to the foreign ownership of

2.

Are such restrictions compatible with the treaties?

3. What restrictions exist within the United States on ownership of the media by EU citizens or
corporations?

Are such restrictions compatible with World Trade Organisation or other internationally agreed

4.
rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

1.
A number of Member States have quantitative restrictions to media control based on the number of
channels (Spain, Italy, Portugal, Sweden), the share of audience (Germany, France, United Kingdom), the
share of circulation or absolute circulation in the press sector (France, United Kingdom), or the right to
vote (Sweden). These types of restrictions may pertain to one kind of media outlet or may be constructed
as restrictions of certain combinations of ownership (e.g. Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom).

2.
National restrictions in relation to foreign ownership are not being applied between Member States.
They are only applicable in case of non-Community foreign operators. For this reason Member States(cid:146)
national restrictions on foreign ownership are not incompatible with the treaties.

At the end of the Uruguay Round, the United States have reserved their rights to maintain barriers to
3.
foreign investments
in radio and TV stations. Such obstacles correspond to the United States
Communications Act (1934) which limits direct foreign control over corporations with broadcasting
licenses to 20 %. Furthermore, non-American nationals/corporations are not allowed to own more than
a 25 % interest in a holding or parent company with a broadcasting license.

4.
These obstacles have been listed as a restriction in the list of specific commitments of the United
States in the general agreement on tariffs and services (GATS) and have been accepted by the Community.