WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/03 by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission. EC-Israel trade agreement.
Date: 2003-05-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Israel, export, fraud, originating product, trade agreement (EU), trade regulations

C 78 E/374

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The proposal reflects the Union’s strong opposition to the application of the death penalty and the use of
torture and other cruel,
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Union adopted policy
guidelines in 1998 and 2001. Furthermore, the Union has supported international conventions, treaties
and mechanisms addressing these issues. Moreover, the proposal responds to the resolutions on torture
adopted by the United Nations (UN) Commission on Human Rights (including at this year’s 59th session)
which call, ‘inter alia’, for UN Member States to take action, including legislative measures, to prevent and
prohibit
inhuman or degrading
treatment. The UN Special rapporteur on torture, Mr Theo van Boven, highlighted the Commission
proposal in his recent report on this subject.

the export of equipment designed to inflict torture or other cruel,

A study entitled ‘Crowd Control Technologies’ (June 2000), which was carried out for the Parliament, gives
some insight into the production of and trade in some of the equipment and products included in the
annexes to this proposal.

The Guidelines to the Union’s Policy toward third countries, on torture and other cruel,
inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment, foresee that measures to prevent the use and production of the
equipment concerned should also be taken. However, unlike the trade restrictions, such measures do not
fall under the exclusive competence of the Community granted by Article 133 of the EC Treaty. For the
time being, the Commission considers that, in view of the principle of subsidiarity, measures to prevent
the use and production of the equipment concerned should be taken by Member States.

import duties,

Council Regulation (EC) No 150/2003 of 21 January 2003 suspending import duties on certain weapons
the weapons or equipment
and military equipment, provides for a suspension of
concerned are used by, or on behalf of the military forces of a Member State. Some of the equipment and
products included in Annex I to the proposed Regulation, such as electric-shock belts and automatic drug
injection systems designed or modified for the purpose of execution of human beings, has a CN code
falling within the broader chapters of the Nomenclature included in the Annexes to Regulation (EC)
No 150/2003. The Commission proposal shows, however, that the use of the equipment included in
Annex I, which has no, or virtually no, practical use other than for the purpose of capital punishment or
for the purpose of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is not in line
with Union policy and relevant international legal instruments and is therefore illegal. Moreover, with the
adoption of the Regulation set out in COM(2002) 770, the suspension of import duties for the materials
concerned will no longer apply since their importation itself will be illegal.

if

(1) COM(2002) 770.

(2004/C 78 E/0396)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1594/03

by Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: EC-Israel trade agreement

On 17 May 2001 the European Parliament said ‘whereas Israel’s improper implementation of its trade-
related agreements is causing the benefits of Community preferences to accrue illegally to goods produced
in illegal settlements’ and called on ‘the Commission and the Member States to take decisive measures to
correct any violation of rules of origin by Israel under the trade agreement with the EU and to inform
Parliament, so as to avoid any indirect complicity in illegal settlements’ (European Parliament resolution on
the situation in the Middle East (1)).

Is Israel continuing to establish the origin of its exports without making a distinction between those
produced in Israel itself and those produced in its illegal settlements?

Does the Commission consider that Israel is currently violating the Protocol on Rules of Origin to the
EC-Israel Association Agreement?

(1) OJ C 34 E, 7.2.2002, p. 356.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/375

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the joint reply it gave to oral questions
H-0266/03, H-0268/03, H-0270/03, H-0272/03, H-0278/03, H-0283/03, H-0287/03 by Mr Lipietz,
Mrs Banotti, Mr Cushnahan, Mrs Morgantini, Mr Pronk, Mr Dhaene and Mrs Sandbaek during question
time at Parliament’s May 2003 session (1).

(1) Written reply of 13.5.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0397)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1595/03

by Helena Torres Marques (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Cross-border payments in euro

With reference to written question P-0327/03 (1) of 31 January 2003, the Commission’s answer to which
was unclear, the questioner once again seeks clarification as to whether an electronic card which serves as
both a credit card and a debit card in Portugal can only be used as a credit card in the other euro
countries.

More precisely, can a card which is used to withdraw cash from ATMs free of charge in Portugal be used
for the same purpose in the other countries in the euro zone or might the withdrawal, without prior
warning, be considered as a cash advance with the charges that entails?

Similarly, can the Commission say what it means by ‘deferred debit cards’ mentioned in point 23 of
Commission Decision 2002/914/EC (2) of 24 July 2002 and what the advantages are for consumers?

(1) See page 354.
(2) OJ L 318, 22.11.2002, p. 17.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2003)

The Commission is still conducting an investigation of the problem raised by the Honourable Member and
will inform her of the outcome as soon as possible.

(2004/C 78 E/0398)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1632/03

by Renato Brunetta (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 May 2003)

Subject: Sale of the ‘Vittoriosa Gaming’ company by the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia’

According to reports in the Venetian press, the ‘Casinò Municipale di Venezia SpA’, an entirely public
company of which the Venice municipality is the main shareholder, has been involved in a major
transaction to sell its holding in ‘Vittoriosa Gaming Ltd’ (which runs the Casino in Malta).

It has also been reported that the ‘Meliorbanca’ bank acted as advisors in this transaction.