WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/02 by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission. Security-related customs duty for sugar imports from the former Yugoslavia.
Date: 2002-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Italy, Yugoslavia, customs debt, guarantee, import, originating product, restriction on competition, sugar

C 92 E/94

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 July 2002)

The remarks of the Honourable Member are correct. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organisation (Unesco) has traditionally collected illitteracy rates and statistics and these may be
available at national level, but they have never been put together and harmonised (ie, the definitions made
similar so that comparisons may reasonably be made) at European level. The Commission is aware of the
importance of the issue and considers that the possibility of obtaining data about it should be explored,
although it has never been signalled as a priority by Member States.

A table with the estimated number of illiterates by age in Greece in the years 1985, 1990 and 1995
according to the Unesco Institute for Statistics is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

(2003/C 92 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/02

by Wolfgang Ilgenfritz (NI) to the Commission

(19 June 2002)

Subject: Security-related customs duty for sugar imports from the former Yugoslavia

Since mid-May 2002, Austria has been levying a security-related customs duty on sugar imported from the
former Yugoslavia (Serbia and Croatia).

The levying of this duty is jeopardising the existence of small and medium-sized firms, given that, firstly,
Italy is clearly not levying this duty, which places Austrian firms at a disadvantage in terms of competition,
and secondly the checks to be carried out by the Anti-Fraud Office are allegedly taking too long. The result
is that small and medium-sized firms are having to pay customs duty running into millions of euros which
they are unable to finance.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

(cid:1) Does it consider that this represents a breach of competition rules?

(cid:1) What will

it do to ensure that small and medium-sized firms are not driven into bankruptcy by

measures of this kind?

(cid:1) Has it also received information that the requisite checks by the Anti-Fraud Office are taking too long?

(cid:1) If so, what steps will it take to ensure that the requisite checks are carried out as swiftly as possible

and thereby prevent firms being driven into bankruptcy?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2002)

In accordance with Community customs rules (Community Customs Code and its Implementing
Provisions), customs authorities are entitled to require the provision of a security in order to ensure
payment of a customs debt.

In the case of imports of sugar from countries in the Western Balkans, the Commission has recently
identified a significant increase in their volume, together with an increase of Community exports to those
countries. There is reasonable doubt as to the nature of this trade in both directions. At the same time,
there are indications pointing to an incorrect declaration of origin.

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/95

The Commission has consequently decided to publish a notice to importers advising them to take
precautionary measures, given the existence of reasonable doubt as to the proper application of the
preferential arrangements for sugar by countries in the Western Balkans. Community operators will
thereby also be informed that the release of the goods in question for free circulation may give rise to a
customs debt and lead to fraud against the Community’s financial interests.

In the meantime, requests for subsequent verification of the proofs of origin presented for sugar imported
from countries in the Western Balkans have been sent by the importing Member States to the countries
concerned. The action taken by the Austrian customs offices, i.e. the requirement that operators lodge a
security on import of sugar subject to such verification, should be seen in this context and is therefore in
conformity with applicable rules.

As to the time it will take until the security is released, it depends from the completion of the necessary
checks showing that the claimed tariff preferences can legitimately be granted. The applicable rules foresee
a maximum of ten months for receiving a reply from the exporting country.

Member States are free to decide whether they require a security or not, but they all bear the responsibility
to protect the Community’s financial interests and will have to ensure payment in case a customs debt is
incurred. The security may be provided by either a cash deposit or a guarantor. The form in which the
required security should be lodged can of course be agreed with each operator in order to avoid financial
difficulties, but it is up to the customs authorities to decide which form can be accepted in order to
appropriately protect the financial interests at stake.

Finally, the situation described in the question does not appear to raise any concern under the Community
competition rules. It does not appear to constitute a restrictive agreement between undertakings (Article 81
of the EC Treaty), an abuse of dominant position (Article 82 of the EC Treaty) or a State aid (Article 87 of
the EC Treaty).

(2003/C 92 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1823/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 June 2002)

Subject: Making it impossible for firms to continue using existing Microsoft licenses by restricting add-on

and upgrade options

Has the Commission now taken note of the complaint made by NGN, the Dutch user group network,

1.
against Microsoft because:

(a)

(b)

since 1 October 2001 upgrades at 50 % of the normal licence fee for applications (such as MS Office)
and workstation access licenses (CALs) have no longer been available to firms with several licenses,
which means that users have to spend more to stay up-to-date;

the ‘upgrade advantage’ under which for a period of two years customers are entitled to obtain the
latest versions of software at a price only between 5 and 8 % higher than the old upgrades will only
remain valid until 1 August 2002, after which it will not be possible to upgrade any licenses that do
not have an ‘upgrade advantage’ or a ‘software assurance’, which means that 66 % of Microsoft licenses
will then be downgraded to throwaway software;

(c)

the ‘software assurance’ solution offered costs at least 25 to 29 % more than before, while the
alternative option of an annual ‘subscription programme’ proves even more expensive in many cases?