WRITTEN QUESTION P-2363/02 by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Follow-up question on EU preferential tariff arrangements (H-043/02).
Date: 2002-07-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Denmark, European Commission, Norway, dissemination of information, generalised preferences, import (EU), operation of the Institutions, originating product

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/49

(2003/C 110 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2363/02

by Karin Riis-Jørgensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 July 2002)

Subject: Follow-up question on EU preferential tariff arrangements (H-043/02)

Following on from the Commission’s answer to my question of 30 May 2002 (H-0453/02 (1)) on EU
preferential tariff arrangements, I should like to put a supplementary question. The Commission’s own
proposal on the need for immediate action against third countries, where errors and omissions outweigh
the general risks of trading with countries with preferential tariffs, implies the possibility of suspending the
preferential arrangements. The proposal also implies that the trader should be notified where there is
reasonable doubt as to how a preferential system works.

My supplementary question is therefore this: Why has the Commission opted not
to suspend the
preferential tariff as long as there is any doubt about the country from which the fish originates? Why did
the Commission choose not to warn the Danish fish importers of the Norwegian situation, when it was
aware of circumstances in Norway as early as August 2001?

(1) Written answer of 11 June 2002.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2002)

1.
referential agreements such as the EEA are based on the mutual trust and co-operation of the parties
concerned. Protocol 4 to the EEA Agreement only allows for the temporary suspension of preferential
rates for specific individual exports during the period of verification of the proofs of origin covering those
exports. This is applied by Member States on a case by case basis.

2.
In August 2001 the Commission received the first indications about doubts concerning the origin of
fish exports carried out prior to that time. It immediately advised the Norwegian authorities and asked
them to ensure ‘that the determination and control of the origin status of such products be secured’ in
order to prevent situations prejudicial to EU-importers.

Given the very co-operative attitude of the Norwegian authorities and their willingness both to quickly
remedy the situation and fully investigate the past cases, the Commission cannot conclude that doubts
exist concerning the co-operation of Norway which would justify the publication of a notice to importers.
In any case, such a notice would not affect the situation which occurred in the past.

(2003/C 110 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2368/02

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Pooling Open Source Software

Has the Commission given formal consideration to the report published by IDA (Interchange of Data
between Administrations) called ‘Pooling Open Source Software (cid:1) an IDA feasibility study on interchange
of data between administrations (DG Enterprise)’ which recommends the ‘creation of a software clearing
house to which administrations can donate software’? Does it agree with the study’s suggestion that
‘software developed for and owned by public administrations should be issued under an open source
licence’?

What action is the Commission intending to take on this?