WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/02 by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Seigneurage.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Central Bank, currency adjustment, euro, euro area, monetary policy, participating country (euro area)

C 28 E/22

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Community legislation does not specify that the certified copy of the Community licence has to be a
particular colour. Consequently, the certified copy which must be kept in the vehicle does not necessarily
have to be blue.

Community legislation provides that it is for the Member States to take all measures relating to means of
inspection and the system of penalties applicable. In accordance with the case-law of the European Court
of Justice, ‘where a Community regulation does not lay down any specific penalty for infringement but
refers to national provisions, Member States retain a discretion as to the choice of penalties (2).’ However,
the Court of Justice goes on to say that these penalties ‘must in any event be effective, dissuasive and
proportionate’ (2). They must be appropriate and necessary to achieve the aim pursued, without going
beyond what is essential in order to attain it (2), although the Court of Justice recognised that Member
States may demand that non-resident carriers lay down a deposit by way of security, they may only resort
to this measure if it is proportionate. Furthermore, Member States must apply the penalties without
discrimination on grounds of nationality or the place of establishment of the carrier. Any question relating
to the amount of a specific penalty, as in the case referred to by the Honourable Member, is a matter for
national courts, which give their decisions in the light of this case-law and the concrete elements of the
case.

(1) Community licence aimed at facilitating the inspection of transport operations and applicable to the international
carriage of passengers by road for hire or reward, introduced by Council Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 of 16 March
1992 on common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus, OJ L 74, 20.3.1992, as
amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 11/98 of 11 December 1998 amending Regulation (EEC) No 684/92 on
common rules for the international carriage of passengers by coach and bus (OJ L 4, 8.1.1998).

(2) ECJ 23.01.1997, Pastoors, Case C-29/95 (cid:1) European Court Reports 1997 page I-00285.

(2003/C 28 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0336/02

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Seigneurage

Where can we find a copy of the formula that the ECB will use to credit seigneurage benefits to the
Euroland states?

Has the ECB (or the Commission) done any estimate of the winners and losers on Seigneurage? If so, may
we have a copy, please?

Does the ECB (or the Commission) have any estimate of the costs or benefits in Seigneurage terms to the
UK if it were to join the Euro? Again, if so may we have sight of such estimates?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

1.
The Decision 2001/914/EC of the European Central Bank (ECB) of 6 December 2001 on the
allocation of monetary income of the national central banks of participating Member States from the
financial year 2002 has been published in the Official Journal (1).

The Commission does not know as to whether the ECB has ‘done any estimate of the winners and

2.
losers on seigniorage’.

The Commission has not estimated the impact of the Decision of the Governing Council of 9 December
2001 on the allocation of seigniorage revenues among the Member States.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/23

The Commission does not know as to whether the ECB has ‘any estimate of the costs or benefits in

3.
seigniorage terms to the United Kingdom if it were to join the euro’.

The Commission respects the position of the Member States that have not adopted the euro so far and
regards it as inappropriate to investigate or publish hypothetical scenarios what might have happened if
these Member States would also have adopted the euro.

(1) OJ L 337, 20.12.2001.

(2003/C 28 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0365/02

by Pere Esteve (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights violations in refugee camps

Except during the recent Belgian Presidency, the Great Lakes region has over the last few years barely
featured in the EU’s foreign policy. Refugees from the Burundi conflict are currently in an alarming
situation, especially since the Tanzanian Government made statements calling for the forced repatriation of
Burundian refugees who are currently on its territory.

Reports from various international organisations working amongst the refugees indicate that the latter are
subject to restrictions on their fundamental rights and freedoms, such as the right to education (primary
education is patchy, largely on account of the fact that the Tanzanian Government does not want the
refugees to be better educated than its own people), the right to work (refugees are prohibited from
working the land and from growing agricultural produce, even for their own consumption), freedom of
expression (political debate is banned), freedom of association (the right of assembly is totally suppressed
within the camps) and freedom of movement (restricted by means of the ‘four-kilometre law’, which
prevents any refugee from straying more than that distance from the camp at which he or she is
registered).

Pursuant to the Geneva Convention on the Status of Refugees, refugees are required to be treated at least
as favourably as the nationals of the country of refuge in terms of the rights they are granted.

Can the violations of, and the restrictions imposed on, the refugees’ human rights be justified on the
grounds of national security and public order? What view does the Commission take of the matter? Are
the Commission’s third-country aid bodies active in this area?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The Commission has taken note of the recent statements by the Tanzanian authorities concerning the
presence of Burundian refugees on their territory, and of
the concerns expressed by certain non-
Governmental organisations working in Tanzania. It believes that developments should be followed closely
to ensure that no violation or restriction of the refugees’ fundamental rights occurs.

However, it is understandable that the Tanzanian authorities should appeal to the international community
for assistance in dealing with the growing number of refugees. Furthermore, despite the efforts to help
Burundian refugees to return to their country, including the EUR 25 million programme financed by the
United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR), they are not doing so.

In the Commission’s view it is undeniable that some tension exists between the refugees and the Tanzanian
population. At this stage it seems unlikely that this will get out of hand. Tanzania has always shown a
willingness to receive refugees (cid:1) since 1993 Burundians, Rwandans and Congolese have taken refuge
there. It is said that there are now approximately 1 200 000 refugees in the country, of whom about