WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Individual rights in the EU.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: citizens' Europe, double taxation, free movement of workers, tax on income

C 301 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

It is vital that the European Union as such should express at world level its condemnation of the death
penalty, giving those countries which still practise this maximum penalty to understand that they have
placed themselves beyond the realm of humanism, which demands the total abolition of this form of
punishment throughout the world.

Does the European Union believe that it should carry out, at its own expense, a worldwide publicity
campaign against the death penalty so that the whole world would know that the societies which make up
our Member States are firmly opposed to this irreversible form of punishment?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2002)

The European Union in 1998 decided, as an integral part of its human rights policy, to strengthen its
international activities in opposition to the death penalty. The Union works towards the universal abolition
of the death penalty as a strongly held policy now agreed by all Member States. This policy is also guided
by the EU Charter of fundamental rights (1) whose Article 2 proclaims that no one shall be condemned to
the death penalty. In the process of attaining this primary objective, where the death penalty still exists, the
Union calls for its use to be progressively restricted, and insists that it be carried out according to certain
minimum standards. The Union also presses, where relevant, for moratoria to be introduced. The Union
has produced internal guidelines for demarches and representations it makes on capital punishment, where
relevant, in multilateral fora and towards third countries.

Since the Honourable Member mentions the United States, it should be noted that EU policy is pursued
actively in relation to this country. Demarches in individual cases are frequently carried out by the Union,
represented by its Presidency, notably in relation to juveniles and the mentally retarded.

Another significant manifestation of Union policy was the demarche by the Union in February 2000,
inviting the United States to establish a general moratorium in view of complete elimination. On this
occasion a memorandum on EU-policy on the death penalty was presented to the United States Assistant
Secretary of State for Human Rights.

In addition, the Union has intervened in specific cases as an amicus curiae, on behalf of victims that have
appealed their death sentence to the United States Supreme Court.

Further information about Union action in the United States can be found in the Union’s annual Report on
Human Rights for 2001 (2).

The fight against the death penalty is also among the priority themes that have been identified in the
European Commission’s Communication to the Council and Parliament of 8 May 2001 regarding the
Union’s role in promoting human rights and democratisation in third countries (3). This commitment will
be translated into action by the identification of human rights projects under the Chapter B7-7, the
European Initiative for Human Rights and Democracy. The Commission recently approved a Programming
document for this budget line that notably foresees projects to raise public awareness of the numerous
shortcomings of the death penalty. This document has been sent to the Parliament and is available on the
Commission’s website.

(1) OJ C 364, 18.12.2000.
(2) http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/doc/report_01_en.pdf.
(3) COM(2001) 252 final.

(2002/C 301 E/012)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3620/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Individual rights in the EU

What is the Commission’s current view of the operation of double taxation on a single income in EU
Member States (as, for example, operated between Sweden and the United Kingdom)?

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/15

In the case of residence in a Member State other than the country of origin, may an individual make a free
choice as to the country in which that individual pays his or her taxes?

If not, is this not contrary to the spirit of the founding principles of the European Union which aim to
enable EU citizens to seek employment and a home wherever they will in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

In the absence of unifying or harmonising measures in the Community, direct taxation falls essentially
within the competence of Member States, subject always to their obligations under the EC Treaty. They
have concluded conventions with a view to avoiding double taxation, and in so doing have allocated tax
jurisdiction between themselves. The legitimacy of that practice has been recognised by the Court of Justice
(Case C-336/96 Gilly [1998] ECR 2793; see in particular paragraph 30).

It follows that an individual having moved residence to another Member State does not have the choice in
which Member State to pay his or her taxes. Nor can this lack of choice be considered contrary to the
founding principles of the Union. A citizen should not, however, incur any double taxation by virtue of
being subject to the tax systems of more than one Member State.

It may be considered that the conclusion of bilateral conventions is an effective method of avoiding double
taxation, since it makes it possible to take into account the interaction of the taxation systems of the
Member States concerned. Nevertheless, as the Commission recognised in its Communication ‘Towards an
Internal Market without tax obstacles’ of 23 October 2001 (1), the current tax treaties of Member States
need to be improved in order to comply better with the principles of the Internal Market enshrined in the
EC Treaty. This issue is being examined further by the Commission as part of the follow-up to that
Communication.

(1) COM(2001) 582 final.

(2002/C 301 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3621/01

by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE), Carmen Fraga Estevez (PPE-DE)
and José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Temporary suspension of imports of Spanish clementines into the USA

This week it has been reported that imports of Spanish clementines into the USA have been temporarily
suspended and/or banned on the grounds that the US plant-health authorities have allegedly discovered
one live and several dead fruit fly (Ceratitis lapitata) larvae in imports from Spain. Following various
confused reports and a temporary re-opening lasting one hour, the US authorities decided to suspend such
imports sine die. Spanish producers reject the explanations given by the USA, which they believe to be
largely prompted by pressure from US farmers, who are experiencing direct competition from increased
European citrus-fruit exports.

In view of the fact that this illegal means may be used by other countries and in respect of other European
products, would the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:1) Is it aware of the above threat to European exports?

(cid:1) What action is it intending to take in order to ensure that the rules laid down in agreements with

third countries are strictly observed?