WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/03 by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission. EU/East Timor 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc.
Date: 2003-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU relations, East Timor, aid evaluation, aid policy

C 88 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Where a registered vehicle leaves Danish territory, 85 % of the registration tax calculated as described is
refunded to the exporter. The reduction of 15 % is applied in order not to give refund on the commercial
profit assumed to be included in the tax-inclusive price of the vehicle.

In his question, the Honourable Member points out that the registration tax refund of 85 % that is
reimbursed when vehicles are exported from Denmark, is then re-imposed with no reductions should the
same vehicles be re-imported (and re-registered) in Danish territory.

Once a vehicle is re-imported to Denmark, the registration tax is calculated on a taxable basis that is
assessed mainly on the value of the car at the time it is re-imported. In this regard, it is worth noting that,
in real terms, the amount of the tax to be paid at the time the vehicle is re-imported will not be the same
as the amount paid when the vehicle was first registered in Denmark, due to the depreciation on its value.

Therefore, the difference between the tax initially reimbursed at the export and the tax actually paid on re-
importation of the vehicle will not amount to 15 % as the percentage is calculated on a different amount.

This being stated, it must be pointed out that, as an internal tax, the registration does not fall within the
scope of application of EC Treaty’s provisions dealing with customs duties and charges having equivalent
effect (Articles 23 to 25) but under the taxation provisions (Articles 90 to 93).

According to Article 91 of the EC Treaty, Denmark is not required to make any repayment of internal tax
on the export of tax paid goods. Member States are simply prohibited from repaying at export more tax
than was originally paid within the country.

However, since the entry into force of the Danish refund system is quite recent, the way it is applied in
practice is still a matter of future analysis.

Moreover, according to the above-mentioned Communication, the Commission intends to propose ‘general
rules with regard to the method of calculation of the registration tax on used cars imported from other
Member States’. Of course, such a proposal would also take into account the rules to be applied to refund
systems in the case of export.

(1) COM(2002) 431 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0609/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(3 March 2003)

Subject: EU/East Timor 1999-2003: cooperation, development, human rights, assistance, etc

For the years 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002 and 2003 and with regard to East Timor, can the Commission
provide information on the following:

(cid:1) What programmes have been or are being undertaken by the EU with East Timor?

(cid:1) What are the funds allocated?

(cid:1) What is the expected duration of the individual programmes?

(cid:1) What results have been obtained by the programmes, and what assessment has been made of their

success or otherwise?

(cid:1) What particular developments have characterised each of the programmes?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/15

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

For the period in question the Commission has committed, or intends to commit, funds for the following
programmes and activities in East Timor:

(cid:1) 1999-2002 (funds committed)

Humanitarian Assistance: EUR 42,5 million for shelter, rehabilitation, repatriation and protection,
water and sanitation, and health. Implemented through the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR), World Food Programme (WFP), International Organisation for Migration (IOM),
United Nations International Children’s emergency Fund (Unicef), and international non-governmental
organisations (NGOs).

United Nations Transitional Administration for East Timor (Untaet) EUR 10 million for recurrent
expenditure, equipping the civil service, and capacity building in the new administration.

Trust Fund for East Timor (TFET): EUR 56 million for economic and social reconstruction through the
World Bank and Asian Development bank fund set up specifically for this purpose.

Food Aid: EUR 8,5 million financed through the World Food Programme.

Support for the 1999 Referendum and the 2001 and 2002 elections: EUR 1,5 million of which
EUR 1,0 million was for voter and civic education programmes, and EUR 0,5 was used to support the
cost of Union electoral observation missions. Details of the main findings of the Observation Missions
can be found on the Europa website at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/human_rights/
eu_election_ass_observ/index.htm

Health Programme: EUR 16,5 million (2002). Health sector rehabilitation and development project,
financed through the World Bank. Infrastructure, pharmaceutical products, and training for health
staff. 36 month duration.

Capacity building through the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP): EUR 2,5 million
(2002). The co-financing of 17 public administration posts, mainly in the Ministries of Agriculture,
Internal Administration and Health.

NGO Projects: Following a call for proposals in 2001 two NGO projects have been financed under the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights (EIDHR) with a total Community contribution
of EUR 1,44 million. One, with CARE Austria, covers children’s rights and welfare, and the other, with
Avocats Sans Frontières, is aimed at conflict prevention through support for the establishment of the
rule of law through the legal system.

(cid:1) 2003 (funds not yet committed):

The Commission is presently examining possibilities for the commitment of the 2003 allocation of
funds for East Timor, which were increased to EUR 25,5 million by the budgetary authority. It is
probable that these funds will be committed for the rural development sector through multilateral
agencies.

(cid:1) General

The humanitarian assistance and food aid activities have been completed, though activities under
separate financing of EUR 6,0 million for East Timorese refugees in West Timor through the UNHCR
will continue to be implemented until mid-2003.

The rehabilitation and consolidation support being provided by the Community to Untaet and TFET
are still under implementation, as is the 2002 support for capacity building through the UNDP, which
is a one-year programme.

The support being provided for longer-term health project is likely to continue until 2006.

An evaluation of the Community’s humanitarian assistance to East Timor was carried out in 2001
with very positive conclusions concerning the effectiveness, efficiency, co-ordination and impact of
this aid.

C 88 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The remaining bulk of the Community assistance has been provided through the TFET. This has been
done on the basis of reports prepared by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank and
presented to meetings of the Donors’ Council of the Trust Fund for East Timor. The conclusions of
these reports have generally been considered very positive by donors, and on the basis of the reports
further tranches of funding for the Trust have been committed.

The Commission considers that the impact of its assistance to East Timor since 1999 has been
extremely positive. This assistance has been provided in a systematic and logical approach comprising
four types of intervention: (a) initial emergency humanitarian assistance, (b) medium-term support for
administrative capacity building and rehabilitation, (c) support for the democratic process, and (d)
longer-term development assistance. These interventions have been linked to each other in that, for
example, humanitarian assistance in the health sector has led on to longer-term policy development
and development co-operation financing with Community funding in that sector. Likewise, capacity
building under the UNDP project in the Ministry of Agriculture will provide the administrative
framework for the implementation of Community and other donors’ future longer-term interventions
in that sector.

In so far as it has assisted East Timor to reach its newly-found independence and to prepare itself for
its longer-term development, the Community aid provided can be considered most successful.

An overview of Community assistance to East Timor can be found on the Europa website at: (http://
europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/east_timor/index.htm).

Two NGO projects for East Timor have been selected, as a result of the call for proposals 2001 of the
European Initiative for Democracy and Human Rights, their details are sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2004/C 88 E/0015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0824/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Subject: Restrictions on the transfer of securities in the Czech Republic

Even though investors in the south Bohemian energy supply company JÈP exercise all their shareholders’
rights for a significant proportion of their stake, the shares are owned by the municipalities in southern
Bohemia. The reason is that, under the JÈP statutes, the transfer of shares is restricted (transfers can be
made only between municipalities and state funds). Investors may acquire rights only in respect of the
acquisition of shares, dividends, etc. Shareholders’ requests for an amendment to the statutes abolishing
these restrictions on transfers have been consistently rejected by the Czech state (following the
privatisation of RWE). Similar applications have been approved by the state for almost all the other
Czech gas and electricity distribution companies (there were also ‘municipality shares’ in the case of the
electricity companies).

Owing to the restrictions on selling, the holders of JÈP shares (the municipalities) are not in a position to
dispose freely of their shares. Does this not represent discrimination against the shareholders and hence a
contravention of EU rules?

Is the fact that some investors are placed at a disadvantage compatible with the investment protection
provisions of the European energy charter, which has also been ratified in the Czech Republic, and with
the spirit of energy market liberalisation, which provides ‘inter alia’ for the equal treatment of market
participants?

In view of the dominant position of RWE in the Czech natural gas sector,
this situation appears
counterproductive. How does the Commission assess this situation on the Czech natural gas market, which
is a significant market for Europe?