WRITTEN QUESTION E-3904/02 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Financial assistance to Rwanda and Uganda.
Date: 2003-01-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Democratic Republic of the Congo, EU financing, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, economic sanctions, exploitation of resources, illicit trade, international sanctions

C 33 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Under German legislation as it now stands, one of the conditions for grant of the benefits is
2.
unlimited tax liability, a status which a non-resident is granted on demand if more than 90 % of his
income is subject to German income tax or if his income not subject to German tax does not exceed
EUR 6 136. A further condition is that the house must be in Germany.

The Commission considers that the condition regarding the location of the house is incompatible with
Community law and has therefore launched an infringement procedure (No 1999/4943).

The 90 % threshold requires some examination. What is important as a matter of Community law is
whether the state of residence is in a position to take into account the taxpayer’s personal and family
circumstances, in order to grant him the corresponding tax or related advantages (2). It is not immediately
apparent whether or not a fixed 90 % threshold corresponds to that criterion, which relates to the
particular situation of the taxpayer.

3.
Under current German legislation a frontier worker in the situation described is not entitled to
‘Eigenheimzulage’ (and its component ‘Kinderzulage’), not only because he is only liable to German tax to a
limited extent, but also because his home is not in Germany.

As has already been noted, the Commission considers that the condition of the location of the house is
unacceptable.

For the reasons already mentioned,
examination.

the condition relating to unlimited tax liability requires closer

4.
As long as the frontier worker remains subject to German tax without restriction, he will be entitled
to the benefit. That situation will most frequently come to an end when he ceases to be employed and
instead receives a pension taxabloe in his Member State of residence.

(1) Case C-85/96, Martinez Sala ECR, [1998] I-02691.
(2) Case C-279/93 Schumacker [1995] ECR-I-225.

(2004/C 33 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3904/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: Financial assistance to Rwanda and Uganda

On Tuesday, 3 December, the European Parliament’s Committee on Development and Cooperation held a
debate with experts on the UN report,
‘Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’. Despite the so-called withdrawal of foreign troops, the
plundering of Congo’s natural resources is continuing unabated. The UN panel reported the existence of a
leaders and military personnel from Rwanda and Uganda.
network involving senior politicians, rebel
Together with Zimbabwe, they have organised matters so as to avoid losing their control over diamonds,
cobalt, copper, germanium, gold, coltan and timber.

In the light of this, might it not be desirable to bring pressure to bear by making part of the aid given to
these countries (cid:1) which directly or indirectly benefits their governments (cid:1) conditional on such criteria as
the complete withdrawal of their troops from Congo, a complete cessation of support for rebel groups in
Congo and practical measures by those countries to put an end to the unlawful exploitation of natural
resources by civilians and military personnel from their countries in Eastern Congo?

Ought not the Commission to recommend that the Council consider ‘targeted sanctions’ against individuals
and businesses that promote this trade?

What support does the Commission give to Rwanda and Uganda?

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/29

Does it include direct budget support?

If so, ought it not to be halted immediately?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The Commission has taken due note of the content of the expert panel report on the illegal exploitation of
natural resources and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) transmitted by
the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council on 15 October 2002.

The report states, notably in paragraphs 171, 172 and 173, that the UN Security Council could,
if
necessary, propose reductions in official development assistance in order to promote peace and good
governance in the region. The report also proposes a general mechanism for implementing the reductions
which would in particular be conditional on the withdrawal of foreign troops from the DRC (this has in
fact already taken place). However, the report does not specifically state any other sort of corrective
measures to take into consideration as regards the establishment of a mechanism for gradually reducing
aid.

In resolution 1457 of 24 January 2003, the Security Council commented on the report, granting the panel
a six-month extension of its mandate to allow the expert group to review relevant data and analyse the
information it had already gathered in order to verify, reinforce and, where necessary, update its findings.

Because of the complexity of the issues involved, the Commission is in favour of the extension of the
mandate which will help provide a clearer picture of the situation. The Commission likewise believes, if
appropriate, that a Security Council resolution setting out the implementing framework of a common and
concerted position by the whole international community on possible sanctions is a prerequisite for
ensuring the effectiveness of such sanctions in securing the desired objectives.

In the context of the political dialogue between the Union and the ACP countries under Article 8 of the
Cotonou Agreement, the Commission strongly urges the countries cited in the report to conduct extensive
investigations and take appropriate measures against their nationals, also cited, where such action is
warranted by incontestable proof and objective circumstantial evidence. The Commission also notes that
the UN expert group’s report cites individuals and businesses from the Member States of the European
Union and from other countries outside the African continent as being responsible for the pillaging of the
DRC’s resources.

The Commission has no specific competence for targeted sanctions against individuals and businesses.
Since the sanctions against individuals and businesses referred to in the report belong to the sphere of
criminal
justice and/or home affairs, the Commission cannot make a formal recommendation to the
Council to adopt them.

Community support for Uganda and Rwanda takes the form of project aid in the health, education,
transport and local development sectors and budgetary assistance for national poverty reduction strategies
devised in conjunction with the World Bank, IMF, civil society and the donor community.

(2004/C 33 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3909/02

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 January 2003)

Subject: GATS

The UK Government has clearly implied that at least some parts of the public education system do not fall
under the exemption clause in Article 1.3 as they are supplied in competition with the private sector.