WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. VAT on postal services.
Date: 2003-05-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, VAT, postal service, single market

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/721

Among the victims of Fidel Castro’s regime is Dr Oscar E. Biscet González, the founder of the Lawton
Foundation for Human Rights and an activist for the promotion of democracy and human rights in Cuba.
After three years’ imprisonment in Holguin, Dr Biscet was released on 31 October 2002. On 6 December
2002, he was re-arrested on a charge of associating with other human rights activists. On 7 April 2003,
he was sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. Since 24 April 2003, Dr Biscet has been transferred to the
prison in Piñar del Rio, where he is being held in solitary confinement.

Is the Commission aware of the detention and ill-treatment of activists like Dr Biscet?

What has the Commission done to comply with the request set out in the resolution referred to above, and
what has the Commission been able to do in the specific case of Dr Biscet?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission is closely following the human rights situation in Cuba and the recent detention and
sentencing of 75 dissidents and independent journalists in Cuba, including Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet González.

The Commission, together with the Member States, has strongly condemned such arrests in a declaration
published on 26 March 2003, which was followed by a Union démarche in Havana to urge the Cuban
authorities to allow the prisoners’ immediate release. A second Union démarche in Havana took place on
18 April 2003, following the Foreign Ministers’ statement issued on 14 April 2003.

Further measures have recently been agreed, including limits to high-level visits.

The grave concern felt was also highlighted in the Union’s statement on ‘Human Rights in the World’, at
the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva in April 2003. The statement called for the
prompt release of those arrested whom the Union considers to be prisoners of opinion.

The Commission decided on 30 April 2003 to defer the examination of the Cuban application for
accession to the Cotonou Agreement, signalling that these recent developments are not conducive to
co-operation between the Union and Cuba. The Cuban authorities decided on 16 May 2003 to withdraw
their application.

Through these actions, the Cuban authorities have been made aware that detentions on political grounds
are not acceptable and that the Union urges the release of prisoners held due to their opinions or political
activities. In this context, we will certainly also bring the case of Dr Oscar Elías Biscet to the attention of
the Cuban authorities, and will follow this matter closely, exerting continued political pressure on the
Cuban authorities.

(2004/C 78 E/0771)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1667/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(19 May 2003)

Subject: VAT on postal services

The Commission’s Communication on a ‘Strategy To Improve the Operation of the VAT system’ (1), issued
in June 2000, indicated the Commission’s intention, ‘inter alia’, to come forward with proposals to ensure
the application of VAT to postal services. Could the Commission indicate what, if any, formal responses
were received by it from the Irish Government regarding this particular proposal in the three-year period
since the issuing of this Communication and its proposal for a draft Directive issued on 6 May 2003?

(1) COM(2000) 348 final.

C 78 E/722

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

No formal responses were received by the Commission from the Irish Government regarding the
application of VAT to postal services as set out in its Communication ‘A strategy to improve the operation
of the VAT system within the context of the internal market’ (1).

(1) COM(2000) 348 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0772)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1720/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: Joint EU and US bloc vis-à-vis the rest of the world by widening the remit of the TABD

1. With the reactivation of the Transatlantic Business Dialogue (TABD), is the Commission trying to
keep the divergent interests of the EU and US, with their very different social systems, Kyoto obligations,
concepts of international law enforcement, attitudes to war and arms, development aid to the Third World
and respect for the United Nations, completely separate?

2.
Is a broader remit for the TABD consistent with its original terms of reference, which were to build
bridges between policymakers and private actors on either side of the Atlantic, or is it now a question of
ensuring that, as far as possible, the EU and US present a united front as a single trading bloc at
international level?

3.
Against which other countries in the world is this joint venture on the part of the EU and US
directed? What common interests need to be defended vis-à-vis Japan, Russia, China and all the countries
of the Third World, and why?

4.
In connection with the considerations set out above, does the Commission apply benchmarks to
determine cases in which economic cooperation between the EU and US is desirable and those in which it
is not? Can the Commission disclose what these benchmarks are?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 2003)

1.
The Commission refers to the reply given to the Honourable Member in the Written Question
E-1719/03 (1). The Commission welcomes and supports the relaunching of the Trans-Atlantic Business
Dialogue (TABD). Its specific aim is to help solve differences in transatlantic economic relations and
contribute to dismantling of barriers to trade.

2.
There is no plan for a broader remit for the TABD. The role of the TABD will continue to be that of
building bridges between Union and United States businesses and governments. Moreover, in the area of
multilateralism, TABD has the potential to contribute to the DOHA process and World Trade Organisation
(WTO) matters in general, with benefit for other countries as well. Therefore, its role is certainly not to
ensure the existence of a single trading bloc at international level.

3.
The TABD is not directed against any other countries in the world. Common trade interests with the
countries referred to by the Honourable Member, as well as those between the Union and the United
States, are discussed in various multilateral and bilateral fora. Should they be of interest to business, dealing
with such issues within the TABD is possible. For instance, the WTO negotiations have been widely
discussed in the TABD in the past.