WRITTEN QUESTION E-2206/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Import subsidies for Uzbekistan.
Date: 2001-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: UN Conference on Trade and Development, Uzbekistan, generalised preferences, import levy, import licence, least-developed country, originating product

C 115 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

(2002/C 115 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/01

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

Subject: Albanian elections without EP observers

(23 July 2001)

In view of the situation in Albania, where the holding of proper free and democratic elections involving
the whole population is still a long way off, is the Commission willing to say why, during the second
ballot stage (an extremely delicate stage because of repeated allegations of election-rigging and police
intervention) no observer was sent by the European Parliament? What criterion was used to pick out the
polling stations to which observers were allocated?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2001)

The decision to send or not to send Parliament observers to monitor the second round of the Albanian
elections was of the exclusive competence of the Parliament itself. The Commission has no say in
Parliament decisions of this nature.

In order to ensure an adequate follow up of the whole electoral process in Albania, an ‘International
Election Observation Mission’ under the auspices of the Organisation for security and cooperation in
Europe/Office for democratic institutions and human rights (OSCE/ODHIR) has been set up. This mission
has assembled a significant number of international election experts, long-term and short-term observers,
members of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and, during the first round, members of
the Parliament. The Commission considers that this Mission is adequately performing its mandate.

The exact criteria for the allocation of observers by the OSCE/ODHIR to the various polling stations are
not known to the Commission. The Commission fully relies on the widely recognised expertise and know-
how of the OSCE/ODHIR in this respect.

(2002/C 115 E/038)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2206/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 July 2001)

Subject: Import subsidies for Uzbekistan

Products from the Central Asian Republic of Uzbekistan are subject to a levy of 10,5 % upon importation
into the European Union. Yet businesses from Uzbekistan are permitted to make use of the so-called GSP
FORM A, by analogy with businesses from Bangladesh, Burma and Cambodia. In order fully to support the
socio-economic development of Uzbekistan, it would be appropriate to apply all aspects of GSP FORM A,
including exemption from import levies, to imports of products from this Central Asian republic into the
European Union.

1. Why are not all aspects of GSP FORM A, including exemption from import levies, applicable to
imports of products from Uzbekistan, by analogy with the arrangement for products from Bangladesh,
Burma and Cambodia?

2. Will the Commission apply all aspects of GSP FORM A, including exemption from import levies, to
imports of products from Uzbekistan, in view of the precarious socio-economic situation in this Central
Asian republic? If not, why does the Commission refuse to apply all aspects of GSP FORM A, including
exemption from import levies, to imports of products from Uzbekistan?

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/39

Answer given b y Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2001)

Uzbekistan is a beneficiary country of the European Union’ Generalized System of Trade Preferences (GSP)
and thus enjoys the tariff preferences laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December
1998 applying a multiannual scheme of generalized tariff preferences for the period 1 July 1998 to
31 December 2001 (1). Preferential access to the Community market is limited to products originating in
beneficiary countries, and proof of origin has to be provided by a certificate of origin Form A. Shipments
accompanied by a valid certificate of origin Form A enjoy all the advantages available under the GSP.

The GSP provides, however, different arrangements, and the most favorable of these arrangements is
granted only to Least Developed Countries (LDC), recognized as such by the United Nations, based on
criteria such as a low income, weak human resources and a low level of economic diversification (2).
Bangladesh, Cambodia and Myanmar are on the United Nations list of LDCs. However, GSP benefits have
been withdrawn from Myanmar.

Uzbekistan is not a LDC and therefore entitled only to the general arrangements of the GSP. It enjoys the
same benefits as any other beneficiary country of these arrangements.

(1) OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.
(2) http://www.unctad.org/en/pub/ldcprofiles2001.en.htm.

(2002/C 115 E/039)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2209/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: The Commission’s efforts to investigate the PerryLux case

In paragraph 14 of its resolution of 4 April 2001 on the implementation of the 1998 general budget
(A5-0112/2001) Parliament called on the Commission:

E to clarify why, in the proceedings before the Belgian courts in the ‘PerryLux affair’, the Commission

has not yet appeared as joint plaintiff and thus has no access to the files; and

E to appear without delay as joint plaintiff in Belgium, as it has already been doing for some time in the

corresponding proceedings before the Luxembourg courts.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Who took the decision not to appear as a joint plaintiff from the outset in Belgium, as was done in

Luxembourg?

2. What justification was given for this decision?

3. When was Parliament’s call to appear as joint plaintiff finally complied with?

4. When the Commission applied to the Belgian court for access to the files, and whether this request

has been met?

5. Whether the files have already been consulted, and if so, whether any evidence of misconduct by

officials or former Members of the Commission was found?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2001)

At this point, the Commission has not joined a civil action in the case referred to by the Honourable
Member.