WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/02 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Customs issues.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: customs regulations, exemption from customs duties, restriction on competition, simplification of formalities, single document, transport company

C 301 E/32

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

including those of organised resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or
outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps,
including such organised resistance movements,’ fulfil, inter alia, the following conditions:

(cid:1) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognisable at a distance;

(cid:1) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war;

or does the Commission believe that the American Government is correct to say that the prisoners
currently being held at the American Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay fall outside the definition of
‘prisoners of war’, and can thus be interrogated, even if they must be treated humanely under customary
international law?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0237/02 and E-0392/02
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2002)

It is not for the Commission to determine whether or not an individual detainee falls within the scope of
the Geneva Convention.

Nevertheless, the Commission notes that the United States announced on 7 February 2002 that the Geneva
Convention will apply to detainees at the Guantanamo Bay base (‘Camp X-Ray’) classified as Taliban
soldiers. However, the United States continues to view those detainees belonging to Al Qaeda as falling
outside the scope of the Geneva Convention.

The Commission also notes that the United States has nevertheless undertaken to treat all detainees in
conformity with the requirements of the Geneva Convention, and that the United States has accepted the
majority of the recommendations made by the International Red Cross regarding the improvement of
conditions for the detainees.

Furthermore, the Commission notes that the representatives of the International Committee of the Red
Cross and of the British government who have visited Camp X-Ray have confirmed that detainees are
being treated in conformity with international humanitarian law.

The Commission is following developments in the treatment of detainees during their transportation to
and detention at Camp X-Ray, through close contacts with the authorities of Member States as well as
non-governmental organisations (NGOs) with access to the detention centre.

The Union also maintains a regular dialogue with the United States in the field of human rights.

(2002/C 301 E/032)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/02

by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Customs issues

The international removals industry, mainly comprised of SMEs,
is facing a major problem which
undermines its business efficiency and illustrates a lack of a level playing field in customs matters.
Removals coming from other continents can be more easily imported by way of the UK than by way of
any other port in the EU, where a T-form must be established at point of entry and the consignment has
to be cleared through customs at final destination using all documents necessary to prove the primary
residence.

Is the Commission aware of this problem, which breaches fair competition between removals companies?

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/33

Does the Commission agree that customs rules do not keep up with the speed required in modern society’s
activities?

Could the Commission envisage a simplified and harmonised customs form, in which the administrative
burden of the proof of residence could be dealt with at a later stage, after the household goods have been
imported?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The Commission can confirm that it had been approached by representatives of some removal companies
describing the situation as set out in the Honourable Member’s question.

In response the Commission would like to outline the following principals in the customs clearance of the
removal goods coming from a third country:

(cid:1) any natural person transferring its normal place of residence from a third country to the customs
territory of the Community has the right to choose any customs office in the Community for the
release into free circulation of its personal property which it imports on this occasion. Given the
Single Market rules its choice is therefore not limited to customs offices located in the Member State
in which the person wants to establish its residence;

(cid:1) not withstanding the rules of

the Community’s Customs Code setting out

the conditions and
procedures for the release into free circulation of the imported goods the customs authorities of the
Member States have a certain discretion in respect of the documentary evidence to be provided by the
person transferring its residence to the Community in order to be able to benefit from duty relief in
accordance with the provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 918/83 of 28 March 1983 setting up
a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (1). The discretion has its reason in the big
differences in the national legislation of the Member States in respect of the administrative procedures
and requirements for a person taking residence in a country;

(cid:1) the customs authorities in the Member States, however, should not use their discretion to discriminate
in their customs treatment between persons taking residence in the country of the customs authority
and persons taking residence in another Member State of the Community. Therefore, any customs
office should grant the release on presentation of similar documentary evidence as required for a
person taking residence in the Member State of the customs office. Any refusal or request to use
Community transport procedures solely on the ground that the person takes its residence in another
Member State would be incompatible with the current legislation.

Should the Honourable Member dispose of any knowledge of specific cases where these principals have
not been observed he is invited to transmit such information to the Commission in order to enable its
services to follow it up in an appropriate manner.

(1) OJ L 105, 23.4.1983.

(2002/C 301 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0251/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Treatment of fish with water-binding substances to increase their total weight

There have been reports in the German specialist press about a method of processing fish and fish
products which misleads consumers. Products are said to be in use in the Netherlands which bind excess
water, thus artificially increasing the weight of the final product. These substances, known collectively as
‘Tari’, are allegedly used in both fillets and whole fish. The active ingredients are said to be proteins, so that
the European ban on the use of phosphates does not apply. The proteins added are not listed on the label
of the final product, in violation of the relevant legislation.