WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/03 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission. The role of certificates in preferential and non-preferential rules of origin.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, certificate of origin, customs harmonisation, customs regulations, originating product, single market

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/201

(cid:1) Must Gibraltar, given its peculiar position within the EU, comply with the EU legislation concerning
oil waste deposit in harbours, as specified by directive 2000/59/EC (1) of the European Parliament and
of the Council of 27 November 2000 on port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo
residues?

(cid:1) Does Gibraltar comply with this EU legislation?

(cid:1) What steps will the Commission take to solve this problem?

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 81.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2003)

The Commission is aware of maritime oil pollution affecting Member States’ coasts, including in southern
Spain. As it has stated on many occasions, it deplores these incidents and intends to help, through its
action, to provide an effective response to them.

Since its communication of 3 December 2002 (1), the Commission has explained the initiatives it has taken
to improve maritime safety and step up environmental protection on several occasions, including in the
progress reports it has presented to the Community institutions (2).

Among the measures it has proposed, the Commission would draw the Honourable Members’ attention to
the proposal on the protection of the environment through criminal law (3) and to the proposal for a
Directive on ship-source pollution and on the introduction of sanctions, including criminal sanctions, for
pollution offences (4). The latter proposal, which was sent to Parliament and the Council on 5 March 2003,
concerns illegal discharges and major oil pollution.
liability.
Accordingly, those causing such pollution will no longer be able to evade their liabilities in this matter.

It encompasses the entire chain of

Exercising its power to monitor the enforcement of Community law, the Commission has instituted
infringement proceedings against the eight Member States (cid:1) including the United Kingdom (cid:1) which have
not yet transposed Directive 2000/59/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November
2000 port reception facilities for ship-generated waste and cargo residues. The United Kingdom will of
course have to comply with the Community legislation and enforce it properly, including in Gibraltar.

Information communicated by the United Kingdom authorities shows that Directive 2000/59/EC should be
transposed by the end of summer 2003.

(1) COM(2002) 681 final.
(2) Report to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster (COM(2003) 105 final),
and Commission staff paper reporting on the wreck of the oil tanker Prestige, produced for the hearing in the
European Parliament’s Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism, 19 March 2003.

(3) OJ C 180 E, 26.6.2001, amended by OJ C 20 E, 28.1.2003.
(4) COM(2003) 92 final.

(2004/C 11 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: The role of certificates in preferential and non-preferential rules of origin

Can the Commission explain why, on the basis of the non-preferential rules of origin, the production
1.
of a certificate of origin is not a condition for acceptance of the declaration by the customs and why there
is no possibility of appeal?

Can the Commission say how far businesses are disrupted by possible errors in the issuing of

2.
certificates of origin from other Member States?

C 11 E/202

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

Can the Commission say how the problem that businesses and other persons concerned cannot

3.
appeal on such certificates is being tackled?

Does the Commission realise that the fact that certificates of origin are recognised in one Member

4.
State, and not in another, is hindering the proper functioning of the single market?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

1.
The Commission refers the Honourable Member to Articles 26, 62 and 68 of the Community
Customs Code (1) and to all specific Community rules introducing special measures or treatment for
products originating in certain non-Community countries.

Some special rules introducing mandatory measures to ban or limit imports of products from particular
non-Community countries require a certificate of origin to be presented before such products can be
released for free circulation.

If it is required, the person concerned may rely on it but Community customs authorities do of course
have the right to demand additional proof that the stated origin is correct.

If no Community rules require an origin certificate to be lodged, it is only of commercial value and the
person concerned cannot rely on it. The origin indicated in the declaration will then be taken into account
but may be checked in accordance with Article 68 of the Comunity Customs Code.

2. and 3.
The Commission does not have any information about problems encountered by business as a
result of errors by Member State authorities which issue certificates of origin or about difficulties
encountered by traders or other persons in being able to use such certificates.

4.
The Commission is well aware of the importance for the internal market of ensuring uniform
decisions to accept or reject origin certificates in all Member States. The fact that the issue and acceptance
of such documents is governed by Community legislation which is directly applicable by the Member
States is a guarantee. Furthermore, any questions arising from the interpretation and implementation of
this legislation are regularly dealt with by the relevant committees on which Member States and the
Commission are represented.

(1) Council Regulation (EEC)No 2913/92 of 12 0ctober 1992 establishing the Community Customs Code (OJ L 302,

19.10.1992).

(2004/C 11 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/03

by Ioannis Marínos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Funding of the European Ombudsman Institute

Could the Commission say whether the European Ombudsman Institute (EOI), which is based in
Innsbruck, Austria, is funded through any kind of Community Initiative? Does a representative of any of
the Community bodies participate in its work, or have any sort of say in its running?