WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/02 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Checks on compliance with the origin rules for imports of ACP sugar.
Date: 2002-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, import (EU), import policy, originating product, protocol on sugar, sugar

C 110 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

advice and support for staff who may be affected by changes relating to Luxembourg; in any case,
these changes can only take place after negotiations with the Luxembourg authorities, the conclusion
of an overall agreement set out in clear and unequivocal terms, and concertation with the trade unions
and professional organisations;

(cid:1) to take particular account of the existence of multicultural educational and social structures;

(cid:1) to consult formally with the trade unions and professional organisations, as well as generally with the

staff, about the development of a strategic approach to the Luxembourg site;

(cid:1) to continue the dialogue between the Luxembourg authorities and the community institutions, in
particular with regard to administrative aspects and the physical conditions of the departments located
in Luxembourg.

No decision has yet been taken. The Commission meanwhile reaffirms its engagement in innovation policy
in the context of improving the competitiveness of European enterprises. The Commission therefore fully
endorsed the importance accorded by the 6th Framework Programme to the role of innovation in
construction of the European research area. At present, the Commission is reflecting on how best to
organise the Innovation Directorate for even more successful management of this policy.

(2003/C 110 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 September 2002)

Subject: Checks on compliance with the origin rules for imports of ACP sugar

Under the Sugar Protocol, certain ACP countries are permitted to export sugar to the EU at prices which
are attractive to them.

1.

Can the Commission confirm that this sugar is produced solely in the ACP countries concerned?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that the sugar in question consists of surplus sugar produced in the
ACP countries and not surpluses which have arisen because the ACP country concerned has also imported
sugar from the world market?

3.

How is this checked and how many inspection missions, if any, have been carried out from Brussels?

Have any studies recently been performed which shed light on which sections of society in the ACP

4.
countries benefit from the Sugar Protocol?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The Commission has no reason to believe that the sugar imported under the Sugar Protocol does not

1.
originate solely in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries concerned.

The Sugar Protocol does not prohibit the ACP from importing sugar from other countries while at

2.
the same time exporting their own production to the Community.

3.
The origin of the ACP sugar is certified and verified in accordance with the relevant provisions of
Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou Agreement, notably Title IV on proofs of origin and Title V on
arrangements for administrative cooperation.
Inspection missions can be carried out to identify and
prevent contraventions of the provisions of Protocol 1, which has not been the case with regard to the
origin of sugar imported under the Sugar Protocol.

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/67

The Commission is not aware of any recent studies on the benefits of the Sugar Protocol to various
4.
sections of society in ACP countries. However, the Commission is regularly informed by an annual
Memorandum (submitted by the ACP States signatories to the Sugar Protocol) of the efforts of the ACP
countries to increase efficiency and competitiveness and of the important role of sugar in their economies
and societies.

(2003/C 110 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2543/02

by Pietro-Paolo Mennea (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 September 2002)

Subject: The castle of Barletta

By virtue of resolution No 390 of 18 July 2000 and decision No 1387 of 20 July 2000 the town council
of Barletta approved and launched a project for the general restoration of the whole area surrounding the
castle of Barletta.

The castle and its surroundings are of great architectural and artistic value, part of the heritage of the
whole local community and worthy of being a world heritage site.

Statements made by members of the Italian Government indicate that the execution of the project in
Barletta entails worrying damage to the environment which is seriously jeopardising the local ecosystem
and the beauty of the landscape. The situation is of particular concern to the town’s inhabitants (cid:1) those
who benefit most from the area concerned.

Finally, the way the project is being executed is changing and harming the historical and aesthetic integrity
of the site.

Can the Commission say whether the required opinions on the project have been received from the
competent authorities, in particular Bari’s heritage department and the Ministry for Cultural Assets and
Activities? Has the project received European Union funding?

Can the Commission say whether the situation is damaging the site and spoiling the natural landscape and
historic features of what is such an important area in view of the proximity of Frederick II’s castle?

Can the Commission say whether, in the light of this kind of situation, which unfortunately is not unique,
a permanent monitoring service might be set up to ascertain the scale of such problems of environmental
pollution and damage to historic urban areas?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2002)

1.
The Commission cannot act as a substitute for local, regional or national authorities by authorising
or refusing to authorise any particular project. This would infringe the principle of subsidiarity. Nor is it
qble to verify whether the required opinions on a project have been given by the Bari heritage department
and the Ministry for Cultural Assets and Activities.

The project mentioned by the Honourable Member has not been granted aid from the European

2.
Regional Development Fund.

Creation of a permanent monitoring service as proposed by the Honourable Member is not at

3.
present envisaged.