WRITTEN QUESTION E-2512/03 by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission. Support for victims of the crisis in the Palestinian territories.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ECHO, EU financing, Palestine, Palestine question, financial aid, humanitarian aid, use of aid

C 88 E/88

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

(2004/C 88 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2504/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Double taxation of returning migrants

In April 2001 Frits Bolkestein drew attention to double taxation of pensions and, citing one specific
instance in which discrimination arose, mentioned the different taxation practices applying to Finnish and
Swedish pensions in particular. Has the Commission acted to remedy the shortcomings and what results
has it achieved since 2001?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2003)

In its Communication on pension taxation of April 2001 (1), the Commission identified the elimination of
tax obstacles to the cross-border provision of occupational pensions as a priority. The Finnish and the
Swedish rules on taxation of pensions have since been subject to preliminary rulings by the Court of
Justice (2). In both cases the Court ruled in favour of the taxpayer, striking down on rules restricting the
in comparison to domestic
taxpayer’s
contributions. The Commission will closely monitor which modifications Finland and Sweden will be
making to their tax legislation following the rulings.

right of deduction for cross-border pension contributions

In this context, it should also be mentioned that the Commission has decided to refer Denmark to the
Court of Justice and has opened infringement procedures against seven other Member States (3). Two of
these seven have already informed the Commission that they will take steps to modify their legislation.

(1) OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.
(2) The Danner case C-136/00,

26.6.2003.

(3) See IP/03/179 and IP/03/965.

judgement of 3.10.2002, and the Skandia/Ramstedt case C-422/01,

judgement of

(2004/C 88 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2512/03

by Koenraad Dillen (NI) to the Commission

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Support for victims of the crisis in the Palestinian territories

On Tuesday, 8 July 2003 the Commission approved humanitarian aid of EUR 10 million for Palestinian
victims of the Middle East crisis and Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. This sum brings the total support
granted by the Commission to Palestinians since the beginning of the second Intifada to EUR 100 million.
The money is to be spent on sanitary facilities, infrastructure, education, etc.

On the basis of what bilateral (multilateral?) consultation process is support of this kind granted? How is
the support paid out in practical terms? Via which banks, Palestinian authorities, NGOs?

How does the Commission intend to scrutinise the proper disbursement of this funding?

What guarantees did the Commission obtain that this financial support will not be used for improper
purposes (cid:1) I am thinking of anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli propaganda or
terrorist
organisations?

support

for

Can the Commission provide details of the practical impact of the humanitarian aid granted thus far to the
Palestinians?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/89

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

The funding decision referred to by the Honourable Member, for an amount of EUR 10 million, was
adopted by the Commission on 1 July 2003 in the framework of budget line B7-210, humanitarian aid,
managed by the European Commission Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO).

The decision makes funds available in favour of the victims of the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian
Territories, and Palestinian populations in Lebanon, targeting the following sectors: provision of food and
non-food items; health and psychosocial support; improvement of water and sanitation facilities; support
to household income, and protection activities.

Funding decisions adopted by the Commission under budget line B7-210 are for humanitarian aid
operations that are implemented by Union non governmental organisations (NGOs), United Nations
Agencies and the Red Cross family.

In order to qualify as ECHO’s implementing partners, Union NGOs must be signatory to a Framework
Partnership Agreement, which can only be concluded after a screening procedure that offers ample
guarantees in terms of humanitarian vocation, technical competence, administrative capacity, as well as
financial accountability and solvability. The humanitarian organisations’ overall compliance with the
eligibility criteria for Community funding laid down in Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/96 of 20 June
1996 on humanitarian aid (1)
is checked before a partnership agreement is concluded. In
addition, ECHO’s external audit service undertakes periodic audits of partner organisations through an
annual audit programme.

(Article 7)

Funding decisions adopted by the Commission under budget line B7-210 are taken on the basis of the
process described below.

The identification of priorities is the result of a continuous assessment of needs made by ECHO, at both
including regular missions, and through its team of experts in the region. This
headquarters level,
assessment is based upon systematic monitoring of developments related to the humanitarian situation on
the ground, including the implementation of ongoing ECHO funded operations, as well as the consultation
of all relevant players through existing co-ordination mechanisms involving Member States, UN Agencies,
NGOs and the Red Cross family. Humanitarian aid operations funded by ECHO are complementary to
more structural and longer-term interventions funded by other Community instruments.

In order to better assess the humanitarian needs of the Palestinian affected by the current crisis in the
Middle East, ECHO avails itself of expatriate and local staff at two offices established in Jerusalem and
Amman.

By their nature, ECHO funded operations respond to purely humanitarian needs, have no link to political
considerations, and their deliverables are easily identifiable.

No ECHO funds channelled through banks or similar mechanisms are provided to national authorities and/
or internationally recognised administrative entities.

Against the background described above, with regard to the specific situation in the occupied Palestinian
territories, the risk that funds made available under budget line B7-210 are used for purposes other than
those of providing humanitarian relief is, to say the least, extremely limited. In practice, not a single
questionable case has emerged so far.

Since the beginning of the second Intifada in September 2000, hundreds of thousands among the most
vulnerable Palestinians have benefited from dozens of ECHO funded operations. These operations have
strengthened food security for particularly vulnerable groups such as children and lactating women, as well
as the provision of safe drinking water. They have improved hygiene conditions, especially in refugee
camps,
including through the rehabilitation of extremely precarious shelters. They have provided
protection and psychological support, as well as access to basic primary and emergency healthcare.
Self-reliance activities and employment opportunities have been facilitated. Whenever possible, priority has
been given to locally produced, transformed or packed products, such as olive oil, thereby stimulating the
local economy.

C 88 E/90

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

These operations have been subject to an external evaluation carried out in 2001: the results of this
evaluation were globally positive; its recommendations as regards improving effectiveness and sustainabil-
ity of ECHO funded projects in the area have been taken on board in providing further humanitarian
support in 2002 and 2003. The evaluation report can be made available to the Honourable Member upon
request.

A new external evaluation is scheduled for the first half of 2004.

(1) OJ L 163, 2.7.1996.

(2004/C 88 E/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2514/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(21 July 2003)

Subject: Medicinal products: specific exception to patent rights

In its amended proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council amending Directive
2001/83/EC (1) on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use, the Commission
states that it does not accept amendment 196, which introduces a specific exception to patent rights,
allowing for the production of medicinal products intended for export to third countries, at the request of
the authorities of the third country in question, when it is covered by a patent.

Can the Commission clarify how the text of the amendment does not meet the strict conditions on

1.
exception on patent rights set by the TRIPs and what these conditions exactly are?

How should the text be adapted in order to respect the conditions and correspond to the spirit in

2.
which this amendment is proposed?

Can the Commission clarify why such a provision does not have a place in this legislation and in

3.
which legislation this should be addressed in the Commission’s view?

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001, p. 67.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(14 August 2003)

Article 30 of the Trade-Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement provides that
Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) ‘may provide limited exceptions to the exclusive rights
conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably conflict with a normal
exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner,
taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties’.

This means that, when introducing exceptions to patent rights, WTO Members have to make sure that the
following three conditions are fulfilled:

1.

2.

3.

the exception must be limited;

it must not unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent;

it must not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner, taking account of the
legitimate interests of third parties.

Typically, this provision has been invoked to justify ‘research exemptions’ (allowing free use of a patented
invention for the purpose of research), so-called ‘Bolar exemptions’ (allowing free production of limited
amounts of patented drugs for the purpose of submitting them to authorities in view of obtaining
marketing approval) or ‘farmers’ privileges’ (allowing certain categories of farmers to freely use protected