WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/03 by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council. EU/Morocco policies.
Date: 2003-01-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, Morocco, agricultural trade, competence of the Member States, drug traffic, economic situation, fishing agreement, illegal migration, image, negotiation of an agreement (EU), region-EU relationship, relations between the State and the regions

C 222 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

(2003/C 222 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0081/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(23 January 2003)

Subject: Pressure on the EU to withdraw a diplomatic passport used for a visit in support of the Palestinian

territories

1.
Is the Council aware that a number of organisations which, for various reasons, have strong links
with the Israeli government, have described as anti-Semitic a visit by a delegation from the Netherlands
‘Stop the Occupation’ committee to Yasser Arafat, aimed at providing support for people in the Palestinian
areas colonised and occupied by Israel since 1967 and bringing their situation into line with that in
neighbouring Israel, among other things by ending the restrictions on the democratically elected
administration, the destruction of housing and infrastructure, the confiscation of land for colonisation by
non-Palestinians and the killing or wounding of the inhabitants?

2.
Is the Council also aware that as a result of the visit referred to in paragraph 1, Gretta Duisenberg,
the wife of the President of the European Central Bank, has become the butt of criticism because she
travelled to Israel and the Palestinian territories on the diplomatic passport issued to her because of her
husband’s position?

3.
Can the Council confirm that when diplomatic passports are issued the ordinary passport is kept by
the Member State concerned for the period in which the diplomatic passport is valid, which means it can
no longer be used? Does the position in this regard differ from one Member State to another or does this
rule apply only in the Netherlands?

4.
Does the presentation of an ordinary passport instead of a diplomatic passport mean that peaceful
but unwelcome visitors who are nationals of an EU Member State have less chance of being allowed to
enter countries outside the EU, so that in this case a visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories might not
have been possible without a delegation member holding a diplomatic passport?

Can the Council give an assurance that it will in no circumstances bend to pressure on the EU from
to have

5.
organisations, such as the US Anti-Defamation League and the Simon Wiesenthal Centre,
diplomatic passports withdrawn in this or similar cases?

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council informs the Honourable Parliamentarian that although Mrs Gretta Duisenberg has kept the
Council informed on many of her activities, details on her visit referred to in the question were not
brought to its attention.

On the more general question of the issuance of any type of national passport the Council recalls that this
falls entirely under the competence of each Member State, therefore it is not in a position to comment on
the question raised.

None of the remaining issues mentioned by the Honourable Member, have been brought to the attention
of the Council.

(2003/C 222 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0083/03

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 January 2003)

Subject: EU/Morocco policies

Bearing in mind that Andalusia is among the EU regions with the highest unemployment, is the Council
in one way or another, all the negotiations conducted with Morocco in recent years in
aware that,

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/149

whatever field (cid:1) agriculture, fisheries or diplomatic matters, immigration and drug trafficking (cid:1) directly
affect Andalusia, either in economic or social terms or in terms of its image in the outside world?

Does the Council not consider it necessary that the EU should consult or at least ascertain the opinion of
the Andalusian authorities and government with regard to negotiations in these specific cases?

Is the Council familiar with the political landscape in Andalusia? Is it aware of the level of on-going
confrontation between the autonomous and state governments in Spain? Is the Council aware that many
of its decisions deepen the political breach between the two levels of administration and that this breach is
already having direct adverse effects on Andalusia’s development and economy? Does the Council not
believe that many of its decisions are having a negative impact on the development of a region whose
unemployment rate is among the highest in the EU?

I should be grateful not to receive a reply based on the European Union’s lack of competence in these
matters, on the grounds that each Member State is responsible for relations with its regions. Seven and a
half million Andalusians (cid:1) and Europeans (cid:1) are tired of being used as a bargaining counter for the EU in
its agricultural and fisheries negotiations with Morocco.

Reply

(8 May 2003)

The Council can only confirm that it is not competent to pass judgement on the extent to which Member
States take account of regional or other interests when negotiating in the Council.

More generally, as far as relations at the European Union level are concerned, the Council would recall that
the voice of the regions is, notably, given expression through the Committee of the Regions, on which it
notes Andalusia is represented by the President of its Government and its Director General for European
Affairs and External Cooperation.

(2003/C 222 E/173)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0103/03

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: VAT on Italian road tunnel tariffs

Article 21(15) of the 2003 Italian Budget Law provides for the immediate application of VAT, at the
standard rate of 20 %, to tolls collected for using cross-border tunnels. In this way, the 1972 decree under
which tolls for using cross-border tunnels were exempt from VAT has been repealed, meaning that Italy, as
the Commission had requested, has conformed to the Court of Justice’s ruling of 12 September 2000 on
this matter. The implementation of this decision has created a paradox both at the Mont Blanc tunnel
between Italy and France and at the Gran San Bernardo tunnel between Italy and Switzerland. In the first
case, the tariffs are 20 % higher on the Italian side because France has for some time been applying VAT to
its tariffs, while in the second case there is no VAT in Switzerland and the tolls are therefore higher on the
Italian side. These circumstances create a distortion of competition between companies operating the same
tunnel and cause problems for users. How does the Commission view this situation?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

As the Honourable Member points out, Italy has complied with the Sixth VAT Directive (1) as interpreted
by the Court of Justice in its judgments of 12 September 2000 on the taxation of tolls for the use of road
infrastructure. Italy changed its legislation to abolish exemption from VAT on tolls for using cross-border
tunnels following an infringement procedure started by the Commission.