WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/01 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. 'Jihad levy'.
Date: 2001-12-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Afghanistan, capital movement, capital transfer, financial legislation, foreign capital, terrorism

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/47

(2002/C 172 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3379/01

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: WTO waiver

Given the success in obtaining a waiver in respect of the Cotonou Agreement at the WTO Ministerial
Meeting in Doha, Qatar, would the Commission confirm that ACP bananas will,
like other products
originating in ACP countries and in accordance with the Cotonou Agreement, continue to be entitled to
duty-free access to the EU market until 2008?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2002)

The waiver granted to the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) and the Community in respect of the
Cotonou Agreement covers the non-reciprocal tariff preferences granted by the Community to all ACP
imports until 2008.

Although the Cotonou Agreement provides for tariff preferences on bananas, and does not specifically
address the issue of the exact level of the tariff for ACP imports, the Community has granted duty free
access to ACP imports and has no intention to change this in the future.

(2002/C 172 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/01

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject:

’Jihad levy’

According to reports in the European press, a system of collecting a ‘jihad levy’ allied to an illicit banking
system is operating among illegal, semi-legal and legal Muslim immigrants in Europe (and especially in
Germany). This ‘banking system’ is operating in western European countries and enables illegal immigrants
(who cannot legally conduct business with the banks) to send money to their countries of origin.

This system is known as ‘Hawala’ and operates through ‘agents’ in the immigrants’ country of residence
who undertake to send the money, for a commission, to the countries of origin of legal and illegal
immigrants. During this transaction, and with the full consent of those involved, a ‘jihad levy’ is withheld
which is intended as financial support for the Taliban.

Is the Commission aware of this illicit banking system and what will it do to put an end to such financial
support for terrorism in compliance with the decisions of the Council, Parliament and the UN?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Commission has taken note of allegations that the Hawala system of money transfers has played a
major role in the financing of activities of certain terrorist groups. It is aware that there are often no
written records of transactions in this system, which is based on trust, and that it is therefore difficult to
verify or substantiate the allegations which have been made.

In general terms, transfers of money between the Community and third countries benefit from the EC
Treaty provisions on the free movements of capital and payments. However, the transfers referred to by
the Honourable Member might fall foul of national banking laws (for example in Germany, where a
banking licence is required for money transmission business), Community legislation to combat money

C 172 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

laundering (depending on the origin of the funds) or Community Regulations imposing financial sanctions
(depending on the recipient or destination). The mere fact that these money transfer facilities would also be
offered to illegal immigrants does not of itself render them illegal.

In view of the allegations concerning financing of terrorist activities, the Financial Action Task Force on
Money Laundering (FATF/GAFI) recommended, on 30 October 2001, that, among other actions, those that
provide a service for the transmission of money or value, including transmission through an informal
money or value transfer system or network, should be licensed or registered, and that they should be
subject
to the laws and regulations aimed at preventing money laundering that apply to financial
institutions. The FATF also agreed that persons or legal entities that carry out this service illegally should
be subject to administrative, civil or criminal sanctions (Special Recommendation No VI).

If, as alleged, a specific sum is levied which is intended as financial support for the Taliban, the transfer of
such financial support to the Taliban is likely to be in breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 of
6 March 2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight
ban and extending the freeze of
the Taliban of
Afghanistan (1). However, the Commission does not have any evidence at its disposal that would show that
one or more persons or entities in the Community or under its jurisdiction have engaged in a transfer of
financial resources in breach of Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001.

funds and other financial resources in respect of

The Commission will keep the matter of financial transfers by means of the Hawala system under review
and propose amendments to relevant Community instruments, where appropriate.

(1) OJ L 67, 9.3.2001.

(2002/C 172 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3386/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 December 2001)

Subject: UK Customs action on alcohol and tobacco

The UK Government has interpreted the guidelines laid down in Directive 92/12/EEC (1) on excise duties as
allowing them to prevent the import of cigarettes and alcohol in any quantities greater than the minimum
levels set out in that Directive, even where the cigarettes and/or alcohol are for private use. Not only have
travellers had legal purchases of alcohol and tobacco impounded, they have even, on occasions, had their
vehicles confiscated.

Given this outrageous behaviour, can the Commission indicate the scope and content of its inquiry? Will it
say what the consequences will be if it is shown that the British authorities have acted disproportionately
in this matter and without regard to the free movement of goods within the Union? What punitive
measures are available to the Commission if it finds that the Customs and Excise Service has acted ultra
vires?

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

On 23 October 2001 the Commission decided to issue a letter of formal notice to the United Kingdom,
thereby taking the first step in an infringement procedure under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC
Treaty. The Commission is seeking to determine whether British authorities apply the rules of Council
Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992 on the general arrangements for products subject to excise duty