WRITTEN QUESTION P-0906/02 by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discrimination against foreigners in the Belgian system of traffic fines.
Date: 2002-03-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, discrimination on the basis of nationality, fine, mutual recognition principle, road traffic, traffic control

C 301 E/62

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(2002/C 301 E/067)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0899/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2002)

Subject: Alleged persecution in Laos

Has the Commission received evidence through its representation or directly which indicates that religious
minority groups in Laos have been and are still being targeted for abuse?

What representations has the Commission made on this matter to the Laotian authorities?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(24 April 2002)

The Commission is well aware of reports that freedom of religious expression remains restricted in Laos,
including reports of members of Christian groups being persecuted and/or detained on grounds of their
religious affiliation.

While the Laotian Constitution stipulates ‘the right and freedom to believe or not to believe in religion’, the
authorities apparently restrict this right in practice, especially to non-Buddhist communities.

The level of tolerance of religious practice varies between regions. There have been reports of arrest and
detention of religious believers and their spiritual leaders without charges. Some Christians have also been
sentenced for gathering ‘to create social turmoil’. Some reports also mention difficulties for religious
groups seeking to establish new places of worship.

The Catholic Church, while having three dioceses in the South where Catholics are able to worship openly,
reportedly have difficulties operating in the highlands and the North. Protestant congregations, with two
officially recognised groups, are reported to conduct services throughout the country.

The need to strengthen respect for civil and political rights, including freedom of religion, in Laos was
raised in the Union statement before the 57th United Nations Commission on Human Rights on 29 March
2001. The Commission also raised these concerns during the Community-Lao People’s Democratic
Republic (PDR) Joint Committee which met on 15 May 2001.

The Commission, the Commission Delegation in Bangkok, which covers relations with Lao PDR, together
with the diplomatic missions of the Member States, follow this and other matters relating to human rights
in Laos very closely. The Commission also participates fully in all Union actions to convey its concerns to
the Laotian authorities.

(2002/C 301 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0906/02

by Karla Peijs (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against foreigners in the Belgian system of traffic fines

Last year I asked the Commission about discrimination against foreigners in relation to speeding fines in
Belgium (E-0830/01) (1). In its answer, the Commission said it would have to analyse the Belgian legislation
in detail before taking a position. A year later, the situation is still the same, if not worse.

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/63

The Belgian government has increased the amount for the out-of-court settlement of speeding offences
significantly (EUR 200 fine for every 10 km in excess of the speed limit). This is for foreigners. The
corresponding amount for Belgians is still expressed in Belgian francs and cannot therefore be collected at
all as francs are no longer legal tender. This situation is unacceptable. Last year the Belgian government
announced that this matter was not one of its priorities. Following the recent reform, I am forced to
conclude that it is only traffic offences committed by foreigners that are a priority and this constitutes a
new form of discrimination. With a view to the White Paper on transport, in which the Commission aims
to harmonise penalties and checks, one wonders whether it is not time to call the Belgian government to
account. Things are going too far. I anticipate that the Commission’s analysis of Belgian legislation will
support my complaint and I would ask the Commission now to take action.

It has since come to my attention that there has been a judgment (C-224/00) in a similar case in Italy, to
which the Commission referred in its answer. Under this judgment, the Italian government may no longer
discriminate against people with foreign number plates. Is it not time for the European Commission to
draw up an inventory of legislation on fines in the various Member States and examine whether there is
also discrimination against foreigners in other countries? This matter causes citizens a great deal of
annoyance and inconvenience and casts doubt on the effectiveness of the Union.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 129.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2002)

On the basis of the information available to the Commission, Belgian legislation relating to the collection
and deposit of fines for road traffic offences makes a distinction between resident and non-resident
offenders. The former can opt to pay the fine immediately or within a period set by the King, while the
latter must pay the amount demanded immediately or deposit the amount plus an increase to cover legal
costs.

As far as the Commission is aware, the amounts of the fines provided for in the legislation to which the
Honourable Member refers have not been changed since January 1998. Article 1 of the Royal Decree of
10 June 1985 relating to the collection and deposit of fines in the event of an infringement of the road
traffic regulations, as amended by the Royal Decree of 24 October 1997, which came into force on
1 January 1998, made provision for a fine of BEF 8 000 (equivalent to EUR 200) for exceeding the
maximum authorised speed limit by between 10 km and 21 km an hour, where the offender does not
have a domicile or fixed residence in Belgium. The Royal Decree of 10 June 1985 has since been amended
by the Royal Decrees of 19 July 2000 and 11 December 2001, with fines being converted into euros
without increasing their amount. Fines imposed on residents under the legislation relating to road traffic
regulations (Royal Decree of 16 March 1968) have been converted into euros under the Law introducing
the euro in connection with the matters referred to in Article 78 of the Constitution of 26 June 2000 and
are collected in euros.

As the Commission has already stated in its answer to Written Question E-0830/01 by the Honourable
Member (1), the Court of Justice has ruled in the Pastoors case (2) that, in the absence of instruments to
enforce a judgment in a Member State other than the one in which it had been delivered, there were
objective grounds for treating resident and non-resident offenders differently and that a Member State
could require only non-resident offenders to lodge a security if, in the case of an offence, they choose
criminal proceedings rather than opt to pay a fine immediately.

The Commission is completing its examination of Belgian legislation in the light of the recent judgment
(19 March 2002) in Case C-224/00 Commission v Italy, which concerns Italian legislation governing the
same subject, before it can decide whether or not it is compatible with Community law.

One of the reasons that has led the Belgian authorities to distinguish between residents and non-residents
is the difficulty in having a fine imposed by a Belgian court enforced in another Member State. In this
connection, the Commission would draw attention to the initiative of France, Sweden and the United

C 301 E/64

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

Kingdom aimed at adopting of a Council Framework Decision on the application of the principle of
mutual recognition to financial penalties (3). The proposed Framework Decision provides that a fine
imposed by a court in one Member State must be recognised and enforced in other Member States. Fines
imposed for road traffic offences by Member States are often administrative penalties rather than criminal
penalties. If the Framework Decision were to cover administrative fines, and this issue is currently being
discussed, it should go a long way towards resolving the problem of cross-border enforcement of fines and
thus eliminate the need for differential treatment of residents and non-residents.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001.
(2) Case C-29/95 [1997] ECR I-285.
(3) OJ C 278, 2.10.2001.

(2002/C 301 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0908/02

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 April 2002)

Subject: Duty charged retroactively on fisheries products from Norway

Problems have arisen in the past year in Germany with the charging of customs duty on Norwegian
fisheries products. German customs authorities have begun to suspect in the course of checks on quantities
that Norway could have over-fished its quotas (in particular of cod), and are now demanding payment of
the difference between the concessionary (0,9 %) and standard (7,5 %) rates. These demands are being
served on German importers or carriers although the latter cannot rightly be regarded as liable for
payment, since they are not directly involved in the import-export trade as such. The traders concerned
now confront serious economic difficulties in the face of demands running to several tens of thousand
euro. The result is that affected traders are now putting pressure on their suppliers in Norway to export via
Denmark or the Netherlands, because customs arrangements in those countries appear to be organised
differently and retroactive duties or securities are not applied.

On the basis of what directive is customs duty being charged retroactively or the lodging of securities

1.
demanded?

2. What approaches are taken by other EU Member States to applying customs provisions compared
with Germany?

3. Who is responsible for supervising compliance with such provisions?

4.

Can the Commission see any potential here for equality of treatment in all Member States?

Are there currently any negotiations or agreements between Norway and the Commission that would

5.
rule out retroactively charging duty in this way?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission is not aware of the situation described by the Honourable Member.

1.
Article 8 of Council Decision 2000/597/EC, Euratom of 29 September 2000 on the system of the
European Communities’ own resources (1), provides that import duties, as own resources of the EC, are
levied by the Member States in accordance with their national
laws, regulations and administration
provisions, which are amended if necessary to conform to Community legislation. Thus it is the Member
States which are responsible for collecting import duties.