WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Video amateurs' right to edit videos.
Date: 2002-11-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, Combined Nomenclature, common commercial policy, recording equipment, tariff negotiations

C 11 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

(2004/C 11 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3360/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Use of languages on the Commission’s website on enlargement

Given that the level of knowledge of, and interest in, the enlargement of the Union among the European
population cannot be said to be exceptional, or even especially high, the Commission rightly devotes a
great deal of attention to this subject on its website at www.europa.eu.int. It is very strange, however, that
all of the links from the page in Dutch (www.europa.eu.int/comm/enlargement/index_nl.html) lead almost
exclusively to documents in English.

What are the grounds for the Commission’s having decided to communicate through its public website
solely in English on a subject which is nothing more nor less than a milestone in the development of
Europe?

languages within the Union? Does the
Does the Commission recognise the existence of 11 official
Commission therefore also intend to provide information in the other 10 official Union languages? If so,
when does it plan to do so? If not, why is it limiting itself almost exclusively to English, apart from the
occasional exception in French?

Why is English given preference over, for example, German, French or Dutch?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

The web site of the Directorate-General (DG) for Enlargement has been improved constantly during this
last year with the launching in early October 2002 of its new version. The introduction of a complete set
of web pages with navigation in the other ten official languages is envisaged within the framework of a
further revision of the web site of DG Enlargement, which will be set up in January 2003. Meanwhile, the
Commission would like to point out to the Honourable Member that the European citizens already have
access to important documents such as the ‘Strategy Papers concerning the Progress of the Applicant
Countries in the Negotiations’ for 1998-2002 in all eleven official languages of the Union.

(2004/C 11 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3373/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 November 2002)

Subject: Video amateurs’ right to edit videos

Since October 2002, German customs (reportedly with the Commission’s consent) have begun to take an
active part in restricting the right of video amateurs to edit videos.

Practically all video cameras imported into the Member States are reprogrammed by the manufacturers, i.e.
they are ‘doctored’ to meet EU requirements. Video cameras which have not been ‘doctored’ are subject to
a punitive tariff of some 10 % when imported into the EU, which prevents EU citizens from editing their
videos on a computer. Over five years, a whole new industry has developed in the Member States to
restore video cameras to a ‘democratic’ state. It is now claimed that the Commission is playing a part in
stifling that industry.

Is it reasonable for ‘non-doctored’ video cameras to be subject to an almost 10 % higher rate of duty than
those which have been ‘doctored’ to meet EU requirements? Are there any plans to change the rate of
duty?

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/51

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2003)

The Community’s Common Customs Tariff (CCT) (1) includes two subheadings for video cameras (other
than still-image video cameras and digital cameras): one of the subheadings (CN code 8525 40 91, duty-
rate 4,9 %) concerns cameras which are ‘only able to record sound and images taken by the television
camera’, and the other (CN code 8525 40 99, duty-rate 14 %) concerns the ‘other’ types.

Video camera users have drawn the Commission’s attention to the fact that, on the market, there are both
‘non-doctored’ and ‘doctored’ video cameras, urging it to revise the current situation.

It should be pointed out that, at importation, video cameras are classified according to the function they
are capable of performing, on the basis of an evaluation of the physical characteristics of the product.
Thus, the ‘doctored’ video cameras would have the necessary hardware to be able to record or reproduce
sound and images other than those taken by the television camera itself. Consequently, they are classified
under tariff subheading 8525 40 99. In 2002, an Explanatory Note to the Combined Nomenclature (2) was
published, to clarify the situation in this respect. The practice is uniform in the whole of the Union.

The duty-rates in question are the outcome of the General Agreement on Tarifs and Trade (GATT) and,
then, of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations for the post-Uruguay Round Information
Technology Agreement (ITA), and reflect an equitable balance between what was given to the Union and
what it offered in terms of market access.

Many members of the World Trade Organisation, including the Community, are parties to the ITA. It is
worth stressing that most ITA participants were opposed to the inclusion of consumer electronic products
(such as digital video cameras); as a result, the ITA focused on eliminating duties on core Information
Technology (IT) products.

However, it is the Commission’s view that the current multilateral trade negotiations (the Doha Round)
should be comprehensive, covering all industrial products without a priori exceptions. In the context of
these negotiations, the Community has proposed to compress duties sharply, including for the products in
question. The outcome will depend on the modalities agreed by WTO partners in order to achieve a
balanced and satisfactory outcome of concessions.

(1) The CCT rates for 2002 are published in OJ L 279, 23.10.2001.
(2) OJ C 256, 23.10.2002.

(2004/C 11 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3385/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 November 2002)

Subject: Obstacles to the export of Bulgarian white salted cheese containing Lactobacillus bulgaricus

because the designation ‘feta’ is protected within the EU

1.
Is the Commission aware that in Bulgaria, a candidate country, cheese and yoghurt are produced
which contain the bacterium Lactobacillus bulgaricus, also known as Bacillus bulgaricus, to which human
health promoting characteristics are ascribed?

2.
Can the Commission confirm that salted crumbly white cheese from Bulgaria that contains the
Lactobacillus bulgaricus bacterium and is very different from Greek feta cheese, which is fattier, tangier and
does not contain that bacterium, was being bought up in Bulgaria, from Greece, as long ago as before
1989 and subsequently sold as ‘Greek feta cheese’ within the EU?