WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission. Cyber-racism.
Date: 2003-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community acquis, European Commission, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, Internet site, computer crime, framework decision, human rights, judicial cooperation in criminal matters in the EU, racism

C 70 E/46

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(cid:1) According to the Comext data Community exports of fresh and frozen beef to the Vatican City were:
1 041,0 tonnes in 1998, 870,3 tonnes in 1999, 516,5 tonnes in 2000, 517,0 tonnes in 2001 and
566,2 tonnes in 2002 (quantities expressed as product weight). These figures indicate a trade flow
more in line with the general trend on the market, with a clear impact from the bovine spongiform
encephalopathy (BSE) crisis in 2000 and 2001 and a small recovery in consumption in 2002.

Reply specific to Written Question E-1479/03:

(cid:1) On the quantities of beef and veal exported with a refund to the Vatican City in the years 1998 to

2001, the Commission refers the Honourable Member to its reply to Question E-1478/03.

(cid:1) As far as specific provisions covering products exported with a refund to the Vatican City are
concerned,
there is both the Customs Convention between Italy and the Vatican City and the
Community legislation on export refunds, notably Commission Regulation (EC) No 800/1999 of
15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export refunds
on agricultural products (4).

(cid:1) For agricultural products exported from the Community to the Vatican City with a refund the Vatican
authorities certify their release for consumption within the territory of the Vatican City or within the
institutions and offices of the Holy See.

(cid:1) In response to the Honourable Member’s other two questions on the export activity of certain
companies, the Commission must point out that Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999
requires it to guarantee the confidentiality of the information received under that Regulation. It is
therefore unable to provide the names of the persons who received the EAGGF Guarantee Section aid
in question.

Reply specific to Written Question E-1480/03:

(cid:1) There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose
in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City. The quantities exported appear
reasonable.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down form and content of the accounting
information to be submitted to the Commission for the purpose of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
accounts as well as for monitoring and forecasting purposes, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999. Regulation last modified by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1884/2002, OJ L 288, 25.10.2002.

(2) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.
(3) The Eurostat foreign trade database.
(4) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999, p. 11. Last amended by Regulation (EC) No 444/2003, OJ L 67, 12.3.2003.

(2004/C 70 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1486/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Cyber-racism

The European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia has recently commissioned research on the
proliferation of websites which are designed to incite racial hatred. Is the European Commission aware of
this proliferation and what is the Commission’s view on the increase in such sites?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission firmly condemns racism and xenophobia, which are a direct violation of the principles of
liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, principles
upon which the Union is founded and which are common to the Member States as stated in Article 6 of
the Treaty on the European Union.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/47

The Commission presented in November 2001 a proposal for a Framework Decision (1), a legislative
instrument in the field of penal law to ensure that the same racist and xenophobic conducts are punishable
by the same penalties in all Member States and secondly, to improve and encourage judicial cooperation
by removing potential obstacles. The Commission’s approach on this issue is to ensure that racist and
xenophobic content on the Internet is criminalised in all Member States. The basic idea would be
contained in the principle, ‘what is illegal off-line is illegal on-line’. Moreover, the proposal also establishes
some minimum criteria as regards to jurisdiction for this type of offences. At present, negotiations on this
legislative instrument are blocked at Council and the Commission regrets that some Member States are not
willing to strengthening the Union ‘acquis’ contained in the Council Joint Action (2) adopted in 1996 on
this issue.

Regarding Community instruments, Article 15 of the Electronic Commerce Directive (3) lays down that
service providers who store information supplied by and at the request of a recipient of the service need to
expeditiously remove access to the information once they are informed of the illegality of this information.

Recital 48 of the Directive introduces the possibility for Member States to require hosting service providers
to apply ‘duties of care’ in order to detect and prevent illegal activity.

fifteen countries (cid:1) including ten Member States- have signed the Additional
At international
Protocol to the Council of Europe’s Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a
racist and xenophobic nature, committed through the use of computer systems.

level,

The Safer Internet Action Plan (4) also offers scope for funding action against racism (hotlines and
awareness-raising) and the Safer Internet Forum which is being set up under the Action Plan will discuss
practical ways of co-operating in this respect.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
(2) OJ L 185, 24.7.1996.
(3) Directive 2000/31/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information

society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, OJ L 178, 17.7.2000.

(4) COM(2002) 152 final.

(2004/C 70 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1491/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: Article 10 challenges

Specifying the individual complaints and the EU directives or regulations concerned, could the Commission
indicate how many letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions have been issued against Ireland under
Article 10 of the EC Treaty since 1 May 1999?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(16 June 2003)

Since 1 May 1999 and further to the Commission’s reply to the Honourable Member’s oral question
H-0256/03 during question time at Parliament’s May 2003 session (1), two letters of formal notice were
sent on 15 May 2003 against Ireland under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

The infringement procedures have been launched further to Commission investigations under its own
initiative and not following individual complaints.

(1) Written reply, 13.5.2003.