WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Refusal to restore confiscated property to Assyrian Syrians from Tur Abdin.
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Türkiye, confiscation of property, ethnic conflict, forced migration, national minority

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/87

to product, and (cid:1) as conditions alter (cid:1) over the course of time. The Commission would not therefore
wish to offer any opinion on their overall usefulness. In the particular field of bottled spirits drinks,
according to the Commission’s information, only Denmark, Spain, Italy and Portugal currently require
fiscal markings.

As regards point (b), the detailed rules on the application of tax markings are laid down in Article 21 of
Council Directive 92/12/EEC of 25 February 1992, on the general arrangements for products subject to
excise duty and on the holding, movement and monitoring of such products (1). In particular, Article 21
provides that:

1. Without prejudice to Article 6(1), Member States may require that products released for
consumption in their territory shall require tax markings or national identification marks used for
fiscal purposes.

Any Member State which requires the use of tax marking or national identification marks as set
2.
out in paragraph 1 shall be required to make them available to authorized warehousekeepers of the
other Member States. However, each Member State may require that fiscal marks be made available to
a tax representative authorized by the tax authority of that Member State.

Without prejudice to any provisions they may lay down in order to ensure that this Article is
implemented properly and to prevent any fraud, evasion or abuse, Member States shall ensure that
these marks or markings do not create obstacles to the free movement of products subject to excise
duty.

3.
Tax markings or identification marks within the meaning of paragraph 1 shall be valid in the
Member State which issued them. However, there may be mutual recognition of these markings
between Member States.

Article 6(1) of Directive 92/12/EEC (cid:1) referred to above in paragraph 1 of Article 21 (cid:1) provides that ‘excise
duty shall become chargeable at the time of release for consumption’ … (which the provision goes on to
define in detail) …‘or when shortages are recorded which must be subject to excise duty …’.

Therefore, a Member State’s requirement that products bear tax markings may not affect the moment
when excise duty becomes chargeable on them.

(1) OJ L 76, 23.3.1992.

(2003/C 28 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1246/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Refusal to restore confiscated property to Assyrian Syrians from Tur Abdin

In 1984, the Kurds launched their armed struggle against the Turkish State. This civil war in south-eastern
Turkey gradually developed into a ruthless war which severely affected civilians throughout the south-east
region. Despite much provocation by the Turkish State, the Assyrian Syrians refused to take part in the
hostilities on either side. This did not prevent the Turkish State from deporting Assyrian Syrians from a
large number of their villages. The Turkish State reacted to their neutrality as if they were enemies of the
state. The method used by the Turkish State was often to gather the villagers together violently at gunpoint
and order them to leave the village within 24 hours. In a large number of Assyrian Syrian villages, the
population was driven out and replaced with the State’s own supporters.

The following are only two examples of 32 villages which received the same treatment. The villages of
Sare (Turkish Sari) and Gaznag (Turkish Gevizagaci) were both emptied of their Assyrian Syrian population
in 1996. Since then, the villagers have appealed to every conceivable authority in an attempt to recover
their property and the village but to no avail. Recently, the villagers appealed to the Turkish President, to
the same effect.

What steps will the Commission take to enable the Assyrian-Chaldean-Syrians to recover their confiscated
villages?

C 28 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2002)

In its Regular Report published in November 2001 (1), the Commission noted that ‘in several instances
village guards, armed and paid by the state to defend the evacuated or abandoned villages, have occupied
the houses of departed villagers and refuse to return them to the legitimate owners. There are between
45 000 and 90 000 village guards in the region.’

The Accession partnership for Turkey includes a short term priority concerning the development of a
comprehensive approach to reduce regional disparities, and in particular to improve the situation in the
Southeast, with a view to enhancing economic, social and cultural opportunities for all citizens.

The Commission will monitor the full implementation of this priority with a view to guaranteeing full
respect of basic rights including cultural rights and diversity of all Turkish citizens, irrespective of their
origin.

(1) COM(2001) 700 final.

(2003/C 28 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1249/02

by Carlos Ripoll y Martínez de Bedoya (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Tax in the Balearic Islands

(24 April 2002)

On 23 April 2002 the Government of the Autonomous Community of the Balearic Islands adopted law
7/2001 on a tax on stays in tourist accommodation enterprises intended for the fund to develop tourist
activity and protect the environment.

The explanatory memorandum to the law states that the extraordinary development of tourist activity has
resulted in excessive spending on regional and environmental resources in the Balearics and that
maintaining the competitiveness of the tourist product in the area will require an effort on the part of the
relevant institutions to ensure that it can be sustainably developed. Given the lack of sources of funding,
the abovementioned tax is therefore being introduced.

The Balearic Islands receive 11 million tourists per year, of which 50 % stay in tourist accommodation
enterprises.

Does the Commission not think that a tax of this nature with the objective described above should be
aimed at all tourists and not merely 50 % of them?

Does the Commission not think that this represents discrimination among tourists to the islands, according
to where they stay?

Could this law be a barrier to the free movement of persons in a part of the Union’s territory?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The problem raised by the Honourable Member concerns a tax on stays in tourist accommodation
enterprises, an indirect tax on consumption that has not been the object of harmonisation in the European
Communities. Consequently, the Member States remain free to establish the criteria to levy such a tax, as
long as the principles of Community law are respected.