WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1999.
Date: 2003-09-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Holy See, beet sugar, cane sugar, data processing, export refund, fraud against the EU, sucrose, trade volume

C 78 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2639/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and

chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1998

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural
products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May
2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would
communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and
chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a)

the European Commission’s CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1998:

(cid:1) 110 kg were exported from France to the VCS with a refund of EUR 44,18, equivalent to aid of

EUR 0,40/kg;

(cid:1) 727 700 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to

aid of EUR 0,43/kg;

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1998:

(cid:1) 1 371 000 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that:

(cid:1) unwarranted aid of EUR 44,18 was paid on an additional 110 kg not shown in the OECD data;

(cid:1) no application was made for aid of EUR 278 789,01 for the export of 643 300 kg on which

Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the
different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and might be due to
possible fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

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

(2004/C 78 E/0147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2640/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and

chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 1999

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural
products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May
2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would
communicate its findings as soon as possible.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/143

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and
chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a)

the European Commission’s CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 1999:

(cid:1) 2 803 kg were exported from Spain to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 268,38, equivalent to aid

of EUR 0,45/kg;

(cid:1) 790 750 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 315 365,71, equivalent to

aid of EUR 0,43/kg;

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 1999:

(cid:1) 724 300 kg were exported from Italy and 263 400 kg from Germany to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that:

(cid:1) unwarranted aid of EUR 33 682,96 was paid on an additional 69 253 kg not shown in the OECD

data;

(cid:1) no application was made for aid of EUR 123 839,10 for the export of 263 400 kg on which

Community aid could have been paid.

Could the Commission state the technical reasons for the foregoing of this Community aid?

Does it not agree that the increasingly patent omissions and the discrepancies between the data from the
different institutional sources seriously affect the credibility of these institutions and be due to possible
fraud against Community funds, or is it already able to discount this possibility of fraud?

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

(2004/C 78 E/0148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2641/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Refunds on exports from Member States to the Vatican City State of beet and cane sugar and

chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701) for 2000

In response to questions E-1477/03 and E-1480/03 (1) relating to refunds on exports of agricultural
products from Member States to the Vatican City State (VCS), Commissioner Fischler stated on 21 May
2003 that the Commission was collecting the information it needed to answer the question and would
communicate its findings as soon as possible.

The following supplementary data can be supplied in relation to the export of beet and cane sugar and
chemically pure sucrose in solid form (code 1701):

(a)

the European Commission’s CATS (Clearance Audit Trail System) database shows that in 2000:

(cid:1) 311 650 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 164 007,53,

equivalent to aid of EUR 0,53/kg;

(cid:1) 701 150 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 356 906,17, equivalent to

aid of EUR 0,51/kg;