WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/01 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. The EU-South Africa Fisheries Agreement.
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Africa, common fisheries policy, fishing agreement, negotiation of an agreement (EU)

C 364 E/122

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

(2001/C 364 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1471/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Israeli taxes

The EU cannot remain indifferent to the statements made by Faysal Al Husseini, the Palestinian Authority(cid:146)s
Minister for Jerusalem Affairs, calling for a Holy War against Israel extending from Indonesia to Morocco,
not least because the debate on the situation in the Palestinian territories not only (cid:129) unfortunately (cid:129)
mentions violence, but also has social and economic implications.

Can the Commission therefore check every request for the reimbursement of taxes from Israel to the
Palestinian Authority due to be paid in accordance with the agreements signed and to re-establish
humanitarian aid only when the PA has undertaken to suspend terrorist acts and Israel has granted access
for humanitarian aid workers and essential merchandise, making this dependent on an end to the
Palestinian terrorist acts?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 July 2001)

The present system of transfers of clearance revenue (VAT and custom duties receipts) from the Israel State
to the Palestinian Authority (PA) is provided for in Article VI of the 1994 Israeli-Palestinian Protocol on
Economic Relations (the Paris Protocol). This system was, at the time, considered by the two parties as one
of the major successes of co-operation between Palestinians and Israelis, making it possible to ensure or
stabilise about 60 % of the budgetary income of the PA. The monitoring of these transfers is currently
being undertaken by the International Monetary Fund.

Since the beginning of the current crisis in the Middle East, the Commission has provided a total of € 24,5
million in emergency aid, € 14,5 million alone to United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine
Refugees (UNRWA) in response to its emergency appeal. Furthermore, the Commission has disbursed
€ 57,5 million from two reimbursable facilities established for the case of Israel not transferring tax
receipts and customs revenues due to the Palestinian. Finally, a package of € 60 million in budgetary aid to
the Palestinian Authority will be disbursed in monthly payments during the next six months.

Since the signature of the Oslo Agreement, the Union has (cid:129) together with other international donors (cid:129)
consistently worked to support the creation and consolidation of a functioning administration for the West
Bank and Gaza; in the belief that this is in the interest of the population and of greater stability in the
the
region The assistance provided under the current crisis has been particularly crucial
humanitarian needs of the Palestinian population and, by allowing the Palestinian Authority(cid:146)s ability to pay
salaries and preserving the basic functioning of the Palestinian administration, to avoid the Palestinian
territories slipping further into turmoil and chaos.

to meet

(2001/C 364 E/135)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1481/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: The EU-South Africa Fisheries Agreement

Does the Commission have any predictions about the likelihood of a successful outcome to the ongoing
negotiations with South Africa on fisheries?

Are there any particular difficulties which are being encountered and is it the case that other agreements
are being jeopardised by the position of certain Member States?

Is there any analysis of what the benefits of such an agreement with the EU would be for South Africa at
the time?

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/123

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2001)

The Council of Ministers delivered to the Commission in September 1995 a negotiating directive to enter
into negotiations and conclude a fisheries agreement with the Republic of South Africa.

Despite many attempts by the Commission to open the fisheries negotiation, South Africa was not in
a position before December 2000, to accept a fisheries negotiation with the Community.

The 1st round of these negotiations took place in Brussels on 5-6 March 2001. The South African
delegation forwarded a draft co-operation agreement on fisheries which excluded any access to South
African fisheries.

The Commission delegation could not accept this draft and presented a complementary draft including
access to South African fisheries. South Africa could not accept such a draft because it did not correspond
to their negotiating mandate.

South Africa cancelled the 2nd round scheduled for early April 2001 in Cape Town.

The failure of the negotiating process is due to the South African reluctance to include in any fisheries
agreement the issue of access to fisheries which, according to the Union mandate, is the main element of
the fisheries agreement.

In fact the Commission, when it negotiates fisheries agreement with third countries, does not only take
account of the Community fishing interest, but in addition need for sustainable development of the sector
in the third country concerned.

The Union proposed draft fisheries agreement offered to South Africa a cooperation for the development
of research, surveillance and transfer of technologies and would have promoted joint operations in
fisheries between Union partners and South African partners.

Under these circumstances, a successful outcome of the negotiations with South Africa seems unlikely for
the foreseeable future.

(2001/C 364 E/136)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/01

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Clergy and employment rights in the UK

Given that the UK, in the Employment Rights Act 1996, did not provide for any exclusion from the
Council Directive 91/533/EEC (1) of 14 October 1991 for the clergy, is it the view of the Commission that
they must be covered?

Does it not follow that any court ruling that the clergy are excluded cannot be made without a preliminary
reference to the European Court of Justice?

If such a ruling were made without a preliminary reference what remedy is available and should the
Commission not take the matter up with the UK Government as a breach of Community law?

(1) OJ L 288, 18.10.1991, p. 32.