WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/03 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 2001.
Date: 2003-09-10
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/144

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2000:

(cid:1) 312 400 kg were exported from Germany and 1 126 000 kg from Austria to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that:

(cid:1) unwarranted aid of EUR 356 906,17 was paid on an additional 701 150 kg not shown in the

OECD data;

(cid:1) no application was made for aid of EUR 583 260,26 for the export of 1 126 750 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/0149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2642/03

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 2001

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 2001:

(cid:1) 24 150 kg were exported from Germany to the VCS with a refund of EUR 10 118,61, equivalent

to aid of EUR 0,42/kg;

(cid:1) 2 285,30 kg were exported from Italy to the VCS with a refund of EUR 1 016,39, equivalent to

aid of EUR 0,44/kg;

(b)

the OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) database shows that in 2001:

(cid:1) 96 000 kg were exported from Germany and 1 207 700 kg from Austria to the VCS,

(c) This indicates that:

(cid:1) unwarranted aid of EUR 1 106,39 was paid on an additional 2 285,30 kg not shown in the OECD

data;

(cid:1) no application was made for aid of EUR 551 674,62 for the export of 1 279 550 kg on which

Community aid could have been paid.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/145

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.

Joint answer to Written Questions
E-2631/03, E-2632/03,
E-2633/03, E-2634/03, E-2635/03, E-2636/03, E-2637/03,
E-2638/03, E-2639/03, E-2640/03, E-2641/03 and E-2642/03
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2003)

The Honourable Member has received data from various sources, which all have been collected in a certain
context and for certain purposes and consequently have their own significance as it has been explained in
the Commission’s joint reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 (1)
and to its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2586/03 (2).

As it has been stated in these replies, both databases are conceptually different and therefore no
conclusions can be drawn upon possible discrepancies.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.
(2) See page 129.

(2004/C 78 E/0150)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2645/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Amendment of Article 25(1) of the Kyoto Protocol regarding entry into force

The Kyoto Protocol will enter into force when it has been ratified by not less than 55 parties to the
UNFCCC accounting for at least 55 % of the total CO2 emissions of the Annex I countries. At present the
Protocol has been accepted by 113 states making up over 80 % of the world’s population, but the
proportion of emissions accounted for by the Annex I countries which have ratified it stands at only
44,2 % and, even taken together, the remaining Annex I countries (Liechtenstein, Monaco, and Australia,
whose combined total is 2,1 %) will not raise the figure above the 55 % threshold unless either Russia
(17,4 %) or the United States (36,1 % of the Annex I countries’ emissions) can likewise be persuaded to give
its support. The US has already publicly distanced itself from the Protocol. Russia thus holds the key.

From a climate change perspective the Protocol naturally needs if nothing else to enter into force on
schedule. It might in any case be strategically better for the purposes of the negotiations to be conducted
with Russia and helpful to all sides if Russia agreed to participate, but as regards entry into force of
Protocol this is not absolutely essential.

Has the Commission thought of taking immediate steps in order to amend Article 25(1) of the Protocol in
accordance with the procedure under Article 20 with a view to replacing the requisite 55 % with, say, just
45 % of the Annex I countries’ emissions, thus ensuring that, whatever happens, the Protocol can enter
into force?