WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/02 by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission. Paying fines imposed by the ECJ.
Date: 2002-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, France, United Kingdom, egg, fine, import restriction, originating product, sanction (EU)

C 222 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

The cash changeover to the euro in January 2002 has been the focus of much attention, not only by the
Commission but also by non-governmental organisations and research institutes.

Eurostat’s analyses (1) indicate that the euro-changeover seems to have led to some price increases for
specific products, such as restaurants & cafes and hairdressers, but that the overall effect on prices in the
euro-zone has been limited. For the all items Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices, the price increase
most likely falls within the range 0,0 to 0,2 %.

Concerning toys, the most detailed information available to Eurostat concerns the group of products
‘Games, Toys and Hobbies’ (Coicop class 09.3.1 (cid:1) an annex sent direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat details what this covers).

For the Netherlands, the inflation rate for the 12 months ending in November 2002 was 0,6 % for ‘Games,
Toys and Hobbies’, while the corresponding all items inflation rate was 4,1 %. For Belgium, the inflation
rate for ‘Games, Toys and Hobbies’ was 1,2 % and all-items inflation was 1,6 %. Therefore,
in both
countries, price increases for this group of products have been below the average for all consumer
products.

These comparisons indicate that, while prices for individual toys may have risen substantially, there does
not seem to be any exceptional price increase for toys taken as a whole.

(1) See Eurostat news releases No 23/2002 (28 February 2002), No 58/2002 (16 May 2002), and 84/2002 (17 July

2002).

(2003/C 222 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3631/02

by Bill Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Paying fines imposed by the ECJ

The French Government was reported to have been fined one hundred thousand pounds per day for
refusing to import perfectly good British beef?

Whatever the total amount owing, will the Commission be pressing the French Government to pay up?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2003)

France adopted legislation lifting its ban on entry and marketing of United Kingdom beef complying with
the Date Based Export Scheme before the proceedings opened by the Commission before the Court of
Justice under Article 228 of the EC Treaty reached the judgment stage.

As the Commission, after examining the French Legislation and considering certain aspects of its practical
implementations, took the view that France had complied with its Community Law obligations, the case
before the Court was withdrawn. The Commission nevertheless maintained a claim for legal costs.

On 5 December 2002, the President of the Court ordered case C-274/02 to be removed from the Court
Register. In compliance with the Commission’s request, France was ordered to pay the legal costs.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/97

The Honourable Member is also referred to the Commission’s answer to Written Question E-2871/02 (1) in
this connection.

(1) See page 25.

(2003/C 222 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3633/02

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(17 December 2002)

Subject: Association Agreement between the EU and Chile and respect for the rights of the Mapuche

people

On 18 November, an association agreement was signed between the EU and Chile. It includes a clause
concerning respect for human rights. The second point in the chapter devoted to political dialogue states
that ‘The main objective of the political dialogue […] is the promotion, dissemination, further development
and common defence of democratic values, such as the respect for human rights […]’.

Chile is the only country in the whole of Latin America which does not recognise the existence of
indigenous peoples. Their rights (cid:1) particularly those of the Mapuche people (cid:1) are far from being
respected and protected. Moreover, the Chilean Government refuses to ratify the International Labour
Organisation’s Convention 169 of 1989 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. The police have
committed numerous acts of arbitrary violence against Mapuche communities, and these acts have often
gone unpunished.

The Agreement also states that one of the principles by which it has been inspired is sustainable
development. Natural resources are being blindly exploited in the territory of the Mapuche people.
In addition, many environmental conflicts exist, such as those arising from the deforestation of a large part
of Mapuche territory and the construction of dams in the Pehuenche area of Alto Bio-bio. The planned
Ralco hydroelectric power station will require 3 500 ha of ancestral land to be flooded, violate indigenous
law and involve the removal, in some cases against their will, of Mapuche-Pehuenche families.

The Council:

(cid:1) is it aware of the situation of the Mapuche people and the possible violation of their rights and

territory by the Chilean State?

(cid:1) might it include the political and social situation of the Mapuche communities in the agenda for the
political dialogue at the time of entry into force of the Agreement, in an effort to induce the Chilean
Government to change its policy towards indigenous peoples?

(cid:1) will

it
Agreement?

invite Mapuche representatives to the political dialogue provided for in the Association

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

1.

The European Union is aware of the ‘Ralco-problematics’ and is following the developments closely.

2.
The EU-Chile Association Agreement was signed on 18 November. According to paragraph 3 of
Article 198, some of its provisions may be provisionally applied from the first day of the month following
the date on which Chile and the EU have notified each other of the completion of the procedures
necessary for this purpose. However, Articles 12 to 15 concerning the political dialogue will only enter
into force once both Parties have concluded their ratification procedures.

The Council does not need to wait for the entry into force of the Association Agreement to discuss with
Chile political issues and in particular questions concerning the violation of human rights. The EU Council
(cid:1) on the basis of the existing Joint Declaration on political dialogue annexed to the EC-Chile Framework
Co-operation Agreement of 1996 (cid:1) holds regular political dialogue meetings at different levels with the