WRITTEN QUESTION E-3759/02 by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission. Verification of the origin of ACP sugar.
Date: 2002-12-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, EU control, import (EU), import policy, originating product, protocol on sugar, sugar

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/21

(2004/C 70 E/023)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3851/02

by Arie Oostlander (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Kidnapping of Mr Arjan Erkel in the Russian Republic of Dagestan

On 12 August 2002 Mr Arjan Erkel, 32, who works for Médecins Sans Frontières Switzerland, was
kidnapped by three unknown gunmen in Makhachkala, the capital of the Russian Republic of Dagestan.
Since then, nothing more has been heard of him.

Is the Commission prepared to approach the Russian authorities and take steps which may assist his
release and return to the Netherlands?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3751/02 and P-3851/02
given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2003)

the Head of mission of MSF-
The Commission is extremely concerned at the fate of Arjan Erkel,
Switzerland who was abducted in Daghestan last 12 August 2002, a few weeks after another humanitarian
worker, Nina Davidovitch, was abducted in Chechnya.

The Commission officially reacted through a Presidency declaration, on 26 August 2002, which strongly
condemned both abductions and asked for the immediate and safe return of the hostages. In addition, the
Union Presidency took the opportunity of the release of two workers of the International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC), who had also been kidnapped subsequently, to reiterate its concerns, on 20 November
2002, and ask for immediate release of both aid workers that remain missing.

In parallel, the Commission is following the case very closely. It has raised the issue in several meetings
with the Russian authorities and will continue to do so until the safe release of Arjan Erkel. The fate of
both workers was addressed again in Moscow, on 23 December 2002, during a joint demarche of the
Union Troika, the United States, Switzerland and the Netherlands to the Deputy Minister for Migration of
the Russian Federation, Mr Chernienko. Unfortunately, co-operation from Russian authorities has so far
not been as forthcoming as the Commission would have expected. Most recently, on 10 January,
Commissioner Nielson took the opportunity of the release of Nina Davidovitch to publicly call for the
immediate and safe release of Arjan Erkel.

MSF-Switzerland, funded by the Humanitarian Office through MSF-Holland, was one of the very few
international organisations working in Daghestan at the time, providing essential health assistance to the
vulnerable Chechen and local population in this poor republic of the Russian Federation. Since Arjan
Erkel’s abduction, MSF has had to stop all its operations there and its absence is another blow dealt at the
victims of the conflict in Chechnya, whom Mr Erkel had courageously gone to Daghestan to help.

(2004/C 70 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3759/02

by Jan Mulder (ELDR) to the Commission

(23 December 2002)

Subject: Verification of the origin of ACP sugar

In its answer to my Written Question E-2533/02 (1), the Commission states that, while it is perfectly
possible to carry out verifications of the origin of ACP sugar, such verifications have never been carried
out. The Commission admits that it ‘has no reason to believe that the sugar imported under the Sugar
Protocol does not originate solely in the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries concerned’. The vast
difference between the price of sugar on the world market and the price in the European Union certainly
constitutes a good reason for the carrying out of such verifications.

C 70 E/22

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

1. Why has the Commission never taken the opportunity of carrying out verifications?

2. When does the Commission intend to carry out such verifications?

In what way and how often does the Commission intend in the future to verify the origin of
3.
imported sugar from the 48 poorest countries (under the Anything-But-Arms proposal and the ACP Sugar
Protocol)?

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 66.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the risk of origin fraud with regard to sensitive products such as sugar,
not only from the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) States concerned but also from other preferential
partners.

The fact that no inspections missions on the spot have been carried out by the Commission does not
1.
imply that the origin of sugar imported from ACP countries under a preferential tariff arrangement is not
being verified. Indeed, such verification takes place continuously on the basis of documents (proofs of
origin) that must accompany all preferential exports to the Community. As already indicated in the reply
to Written Question E-2533/02 by the Honourable Member (1), Protocol 1 to Annex V of the Cotonou
Agreement specifies the proof of origin that should be used in order to claim preferential treatment upon
importation into the Community from the ACP States. This Protocol also lays down specific arrangements
for administrative cooperation between the partner-countries, aimed in particular at checking the
authenticity of the proofs of origin presented upon importation, as well as the correctness of the
information given in these proofs. As a general remark, it should also be noted that the responsibility for
the verification of proofs of origin lies with the Member State of
importation and not with the
Commission.

2.
Adequate provisions allowing subsequent verifications of proofs of origin are in place and
verifications are being carried out by the customs authorities of the importing country, either at random
or whenever those authorities have reasonable doubts as to the authenticity of such documents, the
originating status of the products concerned or the fulfilment of the other provisions of the said Protocol.
In addition and on a larger scale, the Commission has published on 5 December 2000 (2) a non-exhaustive
list of the main circumstances liable to give raise to reasonable doubt as to origin. As far as sugar from the
ACP States is concerned, the Commission has currently no elements available that would justify the
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities (C series) of a notice to importers
explaining that there is a reasonable doubt as to imports of sugar originating in all ACP States. Such a
notice is mainly aimed at calling for systematic verification of the proofs of origin for all the concerned
imports.

3.
The principles and the mechanisms governing the verification of the origin are identical in substance
for goods imported under the Cotonou Convention and for those benefiting from the Everything-but-Arms
(EBA) provisions. In addition, sugar is one of the products singled out by Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/
2001 (3), which also governs EBA, for monitoring by the Commission, in close cooperation with Member
States. So far, this monitoring has not demonstrated the need for additional, special verification of the
origin of least developed countries (LDC) sugar.

However, in case of suspicion of fraud, the Commission is entitled to carry on the necessary spot checks
and investigations in agreement and close co-operation with the authorities of the exporting country.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 66.
(2) OJ C 348, 5.12.2000.
(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 of 10 December 2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences
for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004 (cid:1) Statements on a Council Regulation applying a
scheme of generalised tariff preferences for the period from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2004, OJ L 346,
31.12.2001.