WRITTEN QUESTION E-1538/03 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. EU and WTO rules regarding business with companies based in tax havens.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, United Kingdom, United States, World Trade Organisation, real property, sale, tax avoidance

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/165

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Member States decided to incorporate into the Accession Treaty lists of the medicinal products
covered by the transitional period. This transitional period is foreseen in the section on free movement of
goods in the Accession Treaty of
five Candidate Countries. The Commission does not have any
information on how far the Member States checked the lists as provided by the Candidate Countries.
As the lists are part of the Accession Treaties as signed on 16 April 2003 in Athens, a revision of these
lists would require changing the concerned Accession Treaties.

The provision on the transitional period as foreseen in the draft Accession Treaty is worded in a rather
restrictive way, being limited to aspects of quality, safety and efficacy (‘by way of derogation from the
requirements of quality, safety and efficacy laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC (1) …’). Other aspects than
those of quality, safety and efficacy such as the respect of other legal or procedural requirements of the
Community pharmaceutical legislation are not referred to.

National marketing authorisations for medicinal products, which are not in compliance with European
legislation and which are not covered by the transitional period, must be withdrawn immediately after
accession. Such national authorisations granted by the new Member States, before accession, for generic
copies of products authorised via the centralised procedure become inapplicable on the day of accession.

The wording of Article 10(1)(a)(iii) of Directive 2001/83/EC implies that an abridged application can only
be lodged with the authority that evaluated and authorised the reference product. It is only this authority
that holds the full dossier on the reference product, to which the generic applicant wants to refer and
which is indispensable to assess the generic application.

For medicinal products authorised via the centralised procedure, only the European Agency set up under
Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 (2) holds the full dossier, not the agencies of the acceding Member States.
As a consequence, the national authorisations for generic copies of centrally approved medicines become
illegal and have to be withdrawn upon accession.

(1) Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating

to medicinal products for human use (cid:1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 2309/93 of 22 July 1993 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation
and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal products (cid:1) OJ L 214, 24.8.1993.

(2003/C 280 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1538/03

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: EU and WTO rules regarding business with companies based in tax havens

There has been some discussion within the UK about the propriety of the sale by the Inland Revenue of
tax and customs offices to the Bermuda-based company Mapeley Steps for GBP 370 million. Some of the
details of the case are laid-out on page 26 of the 21 February (cid:1) 6 March 2003 issue of the investigative/
satirical publication Private Eye which has taken a close interest in the case. The Chairman of the Inland
Revenue appears to have justified the sale of the buildings on the grounds that it is contrary to EU and
WTO rules to turn-down a contract with a company on the grounds that it operates within a tax haven,
although there appears also to be some dispute as to whether Mapely Steps was registered in Bermuda or
the UK at the time of the sale.

Can the Commission clarify the EU and WTO rules regarding the sale of government property to
companies based in tax havens and whether the government in question would be entitled to take into
account the overall net benefit to the Exchequer when deciding to make a sale? Can the Commission also
confirm whether or not it is correct that the United States government will not sign contracts or come to
arrangements with any organisation based in a tax haven, and, if so, whether that is in the opinion of the

C 280 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Commission compatible with the US WTO. obligations? Finally, has the Commission asked the British
government for clarification of the details surrounding this particular sale and, if so, is the Commission
satisfied that the British Government and the Inland Revenue have acted in conformity with EU law?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

There are no World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules governing property transactions with companies
based in tax havens. WTO agreements generally apply to trade in goods and services and not to property
transactions.

Community law on taxation does not contain any provisions specifically applicable to property
transactions carried out between the public authorities of a Member State and a company based in a
jurisdiction described as a ‘tax haven’. However, and more generally, the Commission considers that more
transparent tax systems would minimise the opportunity for fraud and tax evasion.
It reiterates its
commitment to eliminating, on as broad a geographical basis as possible, harmful tax practices which
distort free and fair competition and hamper the cross-border activities of businesses.

(2003/C 280 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1546/03

by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Closure of Internet cafes in Inner Mongolia

According to the Chinese press agency Xin-Hua News more than 700 Internet cafes in Inner Mongolia
have been the subject of intimidation and intrusion by the Chinese authorities since 1 April, and as a result
a number of them have been closed down. According to the official press agency the ‘Inner Mongolian
Daily’, the local police authorities have mobilised 400 officers and 150 vehicles to inspect more than 500
Internet cafes since 10 April. As a result of these checks 80 % of the premises inspected in the region of
Huhhot City have been closed down.

A meeting between representatives of the public security authorities, the Bureau of Culture and the
telecommunications department of the Autonomous Region was held on 10 April under the supervision
of the Inner Mongolian authorities. The final declaration issued at the end of the meeting states ‘using
online games, allowing young people access to the Internet, keeping cybercafes open until
late and
allowing people access to the Internet without ascertaining their identity constitute unlawful activities’.

Is the Commission aware of this initiative on the part of the Inner Mongolian authorities? How does it
intend to prevent this initiative being used to suppress freedom of speech and expression in China further?

What pressure does it intend to exert in order to ensure that the citizens of Inner Mongolia may exercise
fully freedom of speech and expression which, as stated in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, covers freedom of opinion and expression, including freedom to hold opinions without
interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of
frontiers?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of the restrictions placed by the Chinese government on the use of the Internet
including the requirement for users of Internet cafes to declare their identity and for servers and owners of
Internet cafes to remove any ‘subversive’ content and to keep a record of users and their connections.
Following a number of
tragedies resulting from non-compliance with safety standards the Chinese
authorities introduced a campaign against non-registered Internet cafes in 2001 and this has led to the
closure of many establishments.