WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EDF and EIB.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, EU financial instrument, European Development Fund, European Investment Bank, development aid, institutional cooperation

C 229 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(c) The Commission does not consider that the levy of an excise duty by a Member State in accordance
with the harmonised excise duty rules of Directive 92/12/EEC can constitute a customs duty (as
prohibited by Article 25 of the EC Treaty).

(d)

In the light of the above, there seems to be no ground for the Commission to take action against the
United Kingdom.

(1)

Judgment of the Court of 2 April 1998, The Queen v. Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex parte EMU Tabac
SARL, The Man in Black Ltd, John Cunningham, ECR 1998 I-1605.

(2002/C 229 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/01

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: NoVa-standard consumption levy

In Austria there is a standard consumption levy (NoVa) which has to be paid when a vehicle is imported
into Austria.

Are any such levies payable in other EU countries?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The Austrian tax to which the Honourable Member is referring, is a tax which can be characterised as a
registration tax. Under Austrian law, the tax is chargeable when a new car is delivered and when a car,
which is not yet registered nationally, is registered. Cars transferred from other Member States and cars
imported from third countries are thus subject to this tax.

Ten Member States are currently applying a registration tax. Germany, France, Luxembourg, Sweden and
the United Kingdom do not apply a registration tax.

It should be added that the Commission considers that aspects of the Austrian NoVa discriminate between
cars from Austria and cars from other Member States in a way that is contrary to Article 90 of the EC
Treaty. The Commission has therefore decided to challenge this tax before the Court of Justice.

(2002/C 229 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3487/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: EDF and EIB

How does the Commission see the relationship between the European Development Fund and the
European Investment Bank?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

According to the Cotonou Agreement, the Investment Facility (IF), by providing investment financing, in
the form of loans, equity and quasi equity, as well as guarantees, aims to promote commercially viable
businesses, primarily in the private sector. It will be operated by the European Investment Bank (EIB) as a
revolving fund and be expected to earn a positive real rate of return.

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/27

The IF will be added to the EIB continuing own resource activities. Although operational management of
the IF will be carried out exclusively by the EIB, close co-operation with the Commission will be necessary,
in order to maximise synergies and cross-fertilisation in the programming and implementation process of
European Development Fund (EDF) resources.

The preparation of Country Strategy Papers provides an opportunity for the EIB to contribute its advice
and to ensure to the maximum extent possible that the decisions taken will enhance EIB activities in a
given sector. At the same time, Delegations will be able to profit from EIB’s experience and expertise.

The Commission and the EIB will have then to co-ordinate their policy of intervention in the African,
Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries in order to support private sector development and macro-economic
reforms. In order to be effective and complementary, the IF and the assistance offered by the Commission
on EDF funds will need to work in tandem, e.g. by ensuring that the Commission focuses on supporting
the necessary macro-economic reforms, by building capacities in the ACP countries, by encouraging
foreign direct
local enterprises through technical
assistance-related programmes.

investment and by contributing to the growth of

(2002/C 229 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3498/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Investigation into coltan cartel

Within the Belgian parliamentary committee of inquiry on the Great Lakes, a suspicion has been expressed
that the professional association of coltan producers, the Tantalium-Niobium International Study Center
(TIC), based in Brussels, could be a front for a cartel which controls coltan prices.

A large proportion of coltan production takes place in the Kivu region in eastern Congo, which is
occupied by Ugandan and Rwandan troops and by rebels who have their support. Recent UN reports
indicate that these countries, which are Congo’s neighbours, are keeping the war going because they have
an interest in plundering commodities there.

As it is thanks to the proceeds from environmentally damaging exploitation of raw materials that the war
is able to continue, has the Commission investigated the possible formation of a cartel by the TIC?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2002)

The Commission is fully aware of the environmental and economic losses experienced by the Democratic
Republic of Congo (DRC) because of the protracted situation of conflict within its territory. It has taken
note of the findings presented in the Addendum (December 2001) to the United Nations (UN) report on
illegal exploitation of natural resources in DRC and follows with interest initiatives like the recent report
on coltan trade investigations presented in Brussels by the International Peace Information Service with the
support of European non-governmental organisations (NGOs).

Even if Coltan exploitation is a major economic interest that can magnify the real security concerns utilised
by Rwanda and Burundi to justify their occupation, other countries involved in the conflict are exploiting
other resources like diamonds and tropical forest.

It has been reported that a Zimbabwean company whose board comprises military figures has effectively
created the world’s largest logging concession by gaining rights to exploit 33 millions hectares of tropical
forest in DRC, equivalent to 15 % of the whole territory. Such commercial involvement in DRC clearly
provides a very strong disincentive to their withdrawal from military intervention.