WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. New information concerning the refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State.
Date: 2003-08-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Holy See, customs fraud, data processing, database, export refund, fraud against the EU, trade volume

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/129

(2004/C 78 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2569/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 August 2003)

Subject: Bioptic driving

Will the Commission state in which Member States bioptic driving is currently allowed?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

As the Commission indicated to the Honourable Member in its reply to his Written Question E-1231/
03 (1), the Commission is not aware of any Member State allowing to drive with the use of bioptic lenses.
Moreover, no experiments have been conducted at any larger scale in Europe. Therefore, it is not expected
that bioptic lenses will be allowed to be used in the near future, as it should first be thoroughly
investigated and discussed.

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 52.

(2004/C 78 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2586/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(8 August 2003)

Subject: New information concerning the refunds for agricultural products exported from the Member

States to the Vatican City State

It appears that, in reply to questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (1) on refunds for agricultural products
exported from the Member States to the Vatican City State, Mr Fischler, Commissioner, stated on 21 May
2003 that the Commission was gathering the information it needed in order to be able to answer the
questions and that it would pass on the results of its research as soon as possible.

Furthermore, following correspondence with the Italian State Customs Agency (which had been asked for
the same information as was requested from the Commission), the questioner was told on 27 May that,
unfortunately, not all the information requested was available, but from what was available it emerged
that:

(cid:1) the average number of potential beneficiaries registered in 1989 was 32 600;

(cid:1) in 2001, on the basis of data received from the Rome Customs Office and cross-checked with
information from the Vatican City, the Vatican imported 548 925 kg of meat and 288 351 kg of dairy
products, whilst data supplied by theVatican for the same items indicated imports of 505 553 and
271 699 kg for 2001 and of 712 232 and 293 543 kg for 2000;

(cid:1) as regards exports from Italy to the Vatican, the Italian Customs system shows that Italy by itself

exported:

(a) meat: 1998, 250 473 kg; 1999, 1 254 200 kg; 2000, 386 832 kg; 2001, 377 028 kg;

(b)

sugar: 1998, 71 040 kg; 1999, 695 500 kg.

C 78 E/130

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

A comparison of the data for exports from Italy to the Vatican as ascertained by the Italian Customs
System (Source: Datawarehouse (cid:1) MERCE system) and by the CATS system reveals that, as regards meat
imports from Italy, the Vatican:

(cid:1) imported 250 473 kg in 1998 without taking advantage of the Community aid available, thereby

foregoing approximately EUR 169 000;

(cid:1) imported 1 254 200 kg in 1999 and applied for Community aid only in respect of 377 028 kg,

thereby foregoing approximately EUR 556 000;

(cid:1) imported 377 028 kg in 2001 and applied for Community aid only in respect of 18 677 300 kg,

thereby foregoing approximately EUR 240 000.

Will the Commission say:

(cid:1) what stage has been reached in the research being carried out in order to enable the above-mentioned

questions to be answered?

(cid:1) what technical reasons justify foregoing Community aid?

(cid:1) whether or not it considers that the increasingly obvious shortfalls and discrepancies between the data
from the various official sources pose a serious threat to the credibility of those sources, and that
those shortfalls and discrepancies could stem from possible defrauding of the Community budget (cid:1) or
is the Commission already in a position to dismiss that possibility?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

The joint reply to Written Questions E-1477/03 (1) to E-1480/03 needed some research and has now been
submitted to the Honourable Member.

The main reason for not claiming Community aid on exports of agricultural products is the fact that, for
many of these products, simply no export refunds are applicable (for instance: no export refunds are
applicable on pig meat). Furthermore, exporters can, for various reasons, choose not to claim for export
refunds even if refunds are applicable (for instance:
the internal
administrative cost of claiming for the refund may be higher than the refund paid).

for exports of small quantities,

The Honourable Member has received data from various sources, which all have been collected in a certain
context and for certain purposes, and thus have their own significance. For instance, the difference
between Comext (the Eurostat foreign trade database; reflects the commercial flux) and CATS (Clearance
Audit Trail System; contains Community aids paid) has been explained in the reply to Written Question
E-1478/03 (1). Apparent discrepancies are thus not necessarily anomalies, but can reflect another view on
the same reality, which makes the different data complementary and not contradictory.

Three extractions from the Comext Database are sent to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s
Secretariat.

These tables contain data on the export flow from Member States to the Vatican City.

Each table is specialised for a group of products and reflects the value on annual data from 1989 until
2001.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.