WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/03 by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Charges in the tourist industry.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, application of EU law, charges for use of infrastructure, free movement of persons, tourism, tourist infrastructure

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/417

At this point in time (August 2003), the Commission is aware of the following import bans on EU beef
from one or more Member States:

(cid:1) Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD): South Korea still has yet to lift its restriction imposed on the United
Kingdom as a result of the 2001 crisis. Korea informed the Commission that this will soon be lifted.

However, due to a previous Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) ban which remains in place,
United Kingdom beef would continue to be banned.

(cid:1) BSE: nearly all countries in the world have banned Union beef from one or more countries of the

Union and in particular from the United Kingdom.

In terms of markets, the bans in relation to BSE are of most relevance. Even where bans are not in
place, there are frequently additional restrictions (age of animal, herd of origin, etc.) going beyond the
protective measures in place in the Union in relation to BSE. These restrictions also limit the export
potential of Member States, especially in key former markets in North Africa and the Middle East.
However, taking into account the long history of restrictions in relation to BSE and intervening
developments (evolution of the world market in beef, etc.) it is difficult to identify the contribution of
BSE towards loss of market share.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing figures for the total Union beef exports (meat and live animals) in tonnes carcase weight
equivalent for the most recent years (1999-2002).

It is worth noting that the Union beef market is at present relatively stable, with a balanced supply-
demand situation.

The Commission has frequently addressed the disproportionate BSE trade restriction regimes of third
countries during bilateral and multilateral contacts (cid:1) such as in the WTO/Sanitary and Phytosanitary
Committee (cid:1) with the relevant countries, insisting that import restrictions must be science-based and
comply with international standards. The Commission is also responsible for co-ordinating the position of
the Member States on proposed changes to the Office International des Epizooties (OIE) animal health
code,
including the BSE chapter. In this regard, Union efforts are directed towards ensuring that the
international standard is based on the latest scientific knowledge. This standard includes the scientifically
justifiable measures which importing countries should adopt in relation to the import of bovine animals
and products, and is aimed at enabling trade to take place in safe conditions. In addition, the Commission
is ensuring that the ten acceeding Member States will fully implement the ‘acquis communautaire’ in the
area of veterinary health and food safety, including BSE measures. This will open up new markets to beef
exports from all existing Member States as existing restrictions of the acceding Member States will be
required to be lifted to the extent they are not compatible with the relevant Community rules. Finally, in
its bilateral dealings with third countries, the Commission continues to press for recognition that the
existing series of protective measures is sufficient to allow for trade in beef and beef products to take place
from all Member States.

The Commission does not have any formal trading agreements with the Commonwealth. However, it is
reasonable to assume that most Commonwealth Countries maintain bans or restrictions on Union beef
exports in relation to BSE. The Commission is currently negotiating with New Zealand a range of measures
which would lead to the opening up of its markets to imports from the Union.

(2004/C 88 E/0424)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2507/03

by Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Charges in the tourist industry

The ever closer union of the peoples of the Member States must find expression in the free movement of
persons and goods in Union countries.

C 88 E/418

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Under the Schengen Agreement, European citizens are entitled to move freely on Union territory without
being subjected to national constraints.

In some parts of Italy (for example Tuscany) many local authorities require tourists to pay entrance fees,
thus restricting de facto the free movement of persons at no charge.

Does the Commission agree that, without overstepping its powers, the Union should intervene in order to
guarantee the safe, free movement of persons at no charge on Union territory and call on Member States
to remove the difficulties currently preventing it?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

The information provided in the question does not allow the Commission to have a clear and complete
assessment of the problem referred.

The Commission would like to recall from a general point of view that the Court of Justice has ruled, in its
judgment of 16 January 2003 (case C-388/01) with regard to entrance fees to monuments etc., that
advantageous rates discriminating between foreign and national tourists without any direct link with the
need to protect either public order, security or health (see Article 46 EC) or any other overriding
requirement in the general interest are incompatible with Community law (Articles 12 and 49 EC).

(2004/C 88 E/0425)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2571/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Violations of freedom of religion in Azerbaijan

Given that:

(cid:1) on 13 July 2003, at a private flat in Gyanja (Azerbaijan), police burst into the meeting of a Baptist
group, alleging it to be illegal, confiscating all the group’s religious publications, including Bibles and
hymnbooks, and arresting two people;

(cid:1) the two persons arrested, Mr Ismailov and Mr Musayev, were filmed at the police station: they were
interrogated for approximately three-and-a-half hours and their identity cards were confiscated. The
film was later broadcast on local television;

(cid:1) Mr Ismailov was fined 65 000 manats under Article 299 of the Code of Administrative Offences,
which punishes ‘violation of the regulations on the creation and functioning of religious associations’;

(cid:1) Mr Musayev, who had recently returned to Azerbaijan from Russia, was fined 165 000 manats under

Article 300 of the same code, which punishes ‘religious propaganda by foreigners’;

(cid:1) the Gyanja Baptist church belongs to the International Council of Churches of Evangelical Christians/
Baptists, which rejects the notion of official registration of religious associations in the former Soviet
republics, believing that such registration leads to state interference and unacceptable restrictions on
church activity;

(cid:1) the authorities concede that believers have the right to ‘meet privately’, but insist that such meetings of
unregistered groups are illegal even if the laws on religious observance do not make registration
mandatory;

(cid:1) Azerbaijan’s international human rights obligations give it no authority to place restrictions on

freedom of belief or association.