WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/03 by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Odysseus Community Programme.
Date: 2003-04-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: area of freedom, security and justice, customs cooperation, illegal migration, maritime surveillance

C 65 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

What does the Commission think of this proposal? What solutions can be envisaged to ensure the
continuing availability of statistical
information on trading in goods within the Community while
simplifying business management?

(1) OJ L 316, 16.11.1991, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

Statistical
information on trade in goods between Member States is collected on the basis of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 3330/91 of 7 November 1991 on the statistics relating to the trading of goods
between Member States (Intrastat Regulation).

The scope of this Regulation is strictly limited to statistics and in most countries the statistical data are
collected separately from the information which those liable to VAT are required to provide to the national
tax authorities with regard to intra-Community dispatches and arrivals of goods. As the French authority
responsible for Intrastat is the Direction Générale des Douanes et Droits Indirects (customs and indirect
taxes department), France has nevertheless opted for a statistical declaration that is also used for tax
purposes.

The exemption threshold of EUR 100 000, below which firms in France are not required to supply
statistical information, stems from application of the Intrastat Regulation with its system of thresholds
designed to ensure that the burden of response on firms, especially those which are small or medium-
sized, is not disproportionate to the statistical objectives. In applying this Intrastat Regulation, France also
uses other thresholds which allow the amount of information to be supplied to be adjusted according to
the extent of firms’ trade (simplified information).

France had already raised the exemption threshold on 1 January 2001; before that date it had been
EUR 38 000. According to the information provided by the Direction Générale des Douanes in France, the
result of this increase was likely to exempt about 50 000 firms whose annual trade in 2000 was below the
new threshold. In addition, among the firms required to submit a declaration, one in three is required to
submit only a simplified declaration.

The statistical thresholds, which are based on quality requirements fixed by the Intrastat Regulation, differ
from the thresholds which may be applied by the Member States in accordance with Directive 77/388/
EEC (1), which are for tax purposes and which can be of special benefit to specific professional sectors.

The Commission should shortly submit to Parliament and to the Council a proposal for a new Intrastat
regulation. The aim of providing a satisfactory response to the needs of users while limiting the response
burden on firms will be maintained. New adjustments to the thresholds applicable in France would seem
likely in connection with this new regulation which should enter into force in 2005.

(1) Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States

relating to turnover taxes (cid:1) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment.

(2004/C 65 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1267/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 April 2003)

Subject: Odysseus Community Programme

According to the report in the authoritative briefing sheet ‘Agence Europe’ (12 March 2003), the first
phase of the Odysseus programme for controlling illegal
immigration failed because of the lack of a
common working language and technical compatibility problems which complicated the work which

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/73

ought to have been carried out jointly by the five Spanish, Italian, French, British and Portuguese ships,
as reported in a document sent by the Spanish authorities to the Greek Presidency of the EU.

The report also states that not a single illegal immigrant has been detected throughout the programme’s
period of application.

Meanwhile, according to the same report, Commissioner Vitorino has suggested that the Mediterranean
should be divided into three illegal immigration monitoring areas, which will be controlled, respectively,
by Italy, Greece and Spain.

What makes the Commission more optimistic about the success of the Community initiatives for the
prevention of illegal immigration, after the failure referred to above? What special steps will be taken in
the sensitive region of the Aegean, which is an entry-point for thousands of illegal immigrants coming into
Greece and the other countries of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

It is not the Commission’s custom to react to press articles.

However, the Commission would point out that Operation Ulysses, conducted under the responsibility of
the Spanish authorities, is a joint operation on the EU’s external borders as provided for in the plan for the
management of the external borders adopted by the Council (Justice and Home Affairs) on 13 June 2002.
The Seville European Council (21/22 June 2002) regarded such joint operations as a priority.

The relevant body in the Council (SCIFA+ Working Party) approved, among other things, the Ulysses
project referred to by the Honourable Member, a joint operation carried out by Spain with the
participation of France, Italy, Portugal and the United Kingdom, and the involvement as observers of other
Member States (such as Greece and the Netherlands) and candidate countries (such as Poland and Latvia).
According to the description of the operation provided by Spain, its aim was the joint surveillance by the
ship patrols of several Member States of the external borders of the Schengen area with a view to deterring
illegal immigration.

One of the aims of the pilot projects and joint operations is to identify the legal and operational problems
encountered by the Member States in conducting such operations. Problems with language or the
compatibility of equipment are real difficulties which must be solved by way of joint training and the
interoperability of equipment. These difficulties were highlighted in the Commission’s Communication on
integrated management of the external borders (1).

As for the solutions envisaged by the Commission, the Thessaloníki European Council (20/21 June 2003)
will be an opportunity to establish whether the decisions taken at the Seville European Council in June
2002 have been correctly applied. More generally, it will also be then that the results of the first year of
application of the plan for the management of the external borders will be assessed.

The Greek Presidency is preparing a report for the European Council covering, among other things, the
conclusions to be drawn from the joint operations and pilot projects carried out during this period. The
Commission will contribute to this report by proposing a rationalisation of the initiatives planned.

As regards the reference made by the Honourable Member to a proposal by the Member of
the
Commission responsible for Justice and Home Affairs that cooperation in the Mediterranean be divided
into three areas, the Commission must inform the Honourable Member that this suggestion was made by
the consultant commissioned by the Commission, at the Council’s request, to carry out a feasibility study
the European Union’s maritime borders.
with a view to improving monitoring and surveillance of
The Member of the Commission responsible reported to the Council
(Justice and Home Affairs) on
27/28 February 2003 on the consultant’s progress. The final report on the feasibility study will be available
in June 2003.

C 65 E/74

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Depending on the conclusions drawn from the various initiatives and from the above-mentioned feasibility
study, the Commission or the Member States, in accordance with their respective powers, will decide
whether to propose legislative and/or operational initiatives in order to meet the objectives of the above-
mentioned action plan.

(1) COM(2002) 703 final.

(2004/C 65 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1351/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 April 2003)

Subject: Price convergence

Does the Commission believe that the euro has so far encouraged price convergence within the euro-area,
thereby aiding the single market and improving the efficiency with which economic resources are
allocated? Will the Commission summarise the evidence available?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(26 May 2003)

The euro should encourage price convergence through a number of channels. First, the euro eliminates
exchange rate fluctuations and differences in monetary policy within the euro area and thus removes these
sources of price dispersion. Second, the elimination of exchange rate fluctuations reduces the transaction
costs and risks attached to cross-border trade and investment. This should stimulate cross-border trade (1)
and investment, increase competitive pressures in the euro area and hence push prices to convergence
downwards. Third, the introduction of euro notes and coins should increase price transparency between
products in different participating countries which should increase competitive pressures and push prices
to convergence downwards. In theory this increased price transparency effect could also enable firms to
co-ordinate prices more easily and could lead to upward price convergence, but such behaviour is against
Community and national competition policy rules.

The euro will not eliminate all price dispersion in the euro area. Price dispersion will remain due to factors,
such as differing indirect tax rates and barriers to trade, which Community policies are addressing.
Moreover, even with fully integrated euro area markets price dispersion would remain due to factors such
as differences in taste and transport costs.

The main data the Commission uses to monitor economy-wide price level convergence are Eurostat’s price
level index data. These data show that price level convergence in the euro area has continued since the
euro was introduced in 1999. In 1998 price level dispersion (2) in the euro area was 12,9 % but in 2001
(latest data) it was 12,3 %. In the Community as a whole price level dispersion rose slightly between 1998
and 2001 and was more variable. The difference in the evolution of euro area and Community price
dispersion since 1998 may have been caused by the introduction of the euro although other factors affect
price levels as well.

Table 1 (cid:1) Price level dispersion among the EU and euro area countries (1)

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

EU15

Euro area

18,9

13,7

15,5

16,4

13

15

18,0

16,9

15,8

13,8

14,9

12,7

14,5

12,9

14,7

12,8

15,3

12,4

14,6

12,3

Source: Eurostat.
(1)

Price level dispersion is measured here as the coefficient of variation of Member States’ price levels.