WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/01 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Council. Tax on the personal income of Community citizens living in Andorra.
Date: 2001-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andorra, EU national, tax harmonisation, tax on income

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/155

for products, based on mutual
This is also contrary to European rules on freedom of movement
recognition, i.e. the principle that the importing country must accept any product that meets the standards
applying in the country of origin.

What stage has been reached in the process of harmonising laws on active ingredients used in plant-
protection products and maximum authorised residues, a process which is apparently not due to be
completed until 2012?

What does the Commission intend to do to avoid serious problems arising in 2002 for Community fruit
in the absence of action on its part, will be obliged to take responsibility for plant
growers, who,
protection measures while facing total uncertainty, a situation that will benefit neither consumers nor the
market?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2002)

The Community Legislation concerning Pesticide Residues provides in two ways for the problem raised by
the Honourable Member. If correctly implemented and applied by the Member States no trade problems
should occur.

For pesticides for which Community Maximum Residue Levels (MRL) apply, Member States have to
transpose these MRLs into their national legislation. When no Community MRLs exist Member States shall
set national MRLs to protect their consumers and to be able to control illegal uses of pesticides in their
country.

In the case that no Community MRL exists and the Member State of origin (the producing country) has set
a national MRL and the product sent to another Member State country (the country of destination) satisfies
the MRL of the Member State of origin a special procedure applies when this product is refused by the
Member State of destination on the ground of not fulfilling its national MRL. This procedure is called ‘the
conciliation procedure’. The Member State of destination is obliged to notify all other Member States and
the Commission about this measure within 20 days after application of the measure.

The two Member States concerned shall immediately contact each other to solve the problem bilaterally,
notify the Commission about the solution (in the form of an MRL). The Commission shall submit the
solution to the Standing Committee on Plant Health in order to apply the MRL in the whole Community.

In the case of new pesticides for which new uses are being developed, Member States can adopt national
provisional MRLs (PMRLs) and have to notify these to other Member States and the Commission.
Enforcement authorities can take these national PMRLs into account although nowhere in the Community
legislation it is explicitly indicated that Member States have to take each other’s PMRLs into account.

The Commission is presently preparing a consolidation and revision of the Pesticide Residues framework
Directives and will modify the provisions concerning the conciliation procedure in such a way that
Member States will have less problems to implement them, in particular, the initiative of triggering the
procedure and notifying the Commission will be transferred to the Member State of origin.

The Commission is progressively harmonising all national MRLs and expects this process to be finalised by
2008, by which time no more conciliation procedure will be needed.

(2002/C 147 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3332/01

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Council

(3 December 2001)

Subject: Tax on the personal income of Community citizens living in Andorra

The Union and its Member States have launched a series of measures to combat money laundering and tax
evasion in what are termed tax havens. These measures, whose aims I fully support, have already achieved

C 147 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

some significant successes but also claimed their first innocent victims, namely a number of Community
citizens living and working in Andorra.

Recent changes in Spanish tax regulations regarding tax on the income of natural persons have overturned
the long-established arrangement, and the Spaniards habitually resident in Andorra, where they make up
the largest group of Community citizens, are consequently having to pay too much tax. The problem
appears to lie in the confusion between the concepts of residence for tax purposes and habitual residence.
Residents of other Member States are not affected in the same way. The end result
is that some
Community citizens are suffering discrimination compared with others. Is the Council aware of these facts?

When pursuing the measures referred to above and seeking to harmonise taxes, will the Council allow this
distinction in tax treatment to remain unaltered? Is it taking into account the legitimate interests of the
citizens concerned, who have no connection with criminal activities of any kind?

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member does not fall within the Council’s competence.

(2002/C 147 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3334/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 November 2001)

Subject: Production of fruit and vegetables contaminated with plant protection products and possibility of

stopping their being distributed in other Member States

1.
Is the Commission aware that an investigation conducted by the Netherlands Food Inspection Service
concerning the situation in 2000 revealed that, of 2 600 samples of fruit and vegetables in shops in the
Netherlands examined, 9,2 % contained higher amounts of plant protection products than are permitted by
law?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that, in the case of domestic produce, the level of contamination was
significantly lower, at 4 %, whilst the worst cases of the limits being exceeded (up to 50 %) were found in
grapes from Italy,
lettuce from France and peppers and oranges from Spain (despite the fact that a
proportion of these products had already been detected and destroyed before reaching the shops)?

3. What is the Commission’s view of the demand by the Netherlands Foundation for Nature and the
Environment and the Netherlands Association for Environmental Protection that the government and the
distribution sector must detect and destroy such contaminated foodstuffs in good time, before they reach
consumers? And how does it view the advice given by the consumers’ association and environmental
organisations to consumers to eat only organically-grown fruit and vegetables in future?

4.

How can it help prevent such contaminated foodstuffs continuing to be produced in Europe?

5. Within the single market, how can EU Member States prevent contaminated fruit and vegetables
from other Member States where the rules are applied less strictly from being introduced into their
territory and causing disease or entailing high costs in connection with early detection and destruction?

How and from when can consumers be assured that fruit and vegetables produced and distributed

6.
within the EU can no longer contain impermissible levels of toxins?

Source: Netherlands newspaper ‘De Volkskrant’ of 2 November 2001.