WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/03 by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Missing persons in Cyprus.
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cyprus, EU relations, Türkiye, accession to the European Union, international issue, war victim

C 88 E/426

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Yes. The Commission is aware that some contracting parties to the HS Convention, such as the United
States and Norway, classify the two main components of ostomy appliance, namely the adhesive wafer and
the pouch, under HS heading 3962 when made of plastics.

None. When the Commission adopts classification measures, this is done to ensure a uniform application
within the Union of the Common Customs Tariff as foreseen by Article 23 of the consolidated version of
the EC Treaty. In order to adopt such measures, the Commission applies the rules for the interpretation of
the nomenclature to the product concerned on the basis of
the available documentation including
laboratory controls.

The products to be classified are the adhesive wafer and the pouch. The Honourable Member will find the
answer in the Explanatory Note referred to above.

At international level the Commission envisages two types of action.

The first will address part of the classification issue by suggesting a transfer of the adhesive wafers from
Chapter 39 to Chapter 30. A transfer of products from one HS heading to another will unfortunately not
resolve all economic issues resulting from the classification of products.

Therefore, a second action will be envisaged when reviewing tariff levels on all products in the context of
the next round of multilateral market access negotiations for industrial products to take into account
demands from European industry.

(1) Commission Decision 2000/41/EC of 29 December 1999 concerning the validity of certain binding tariff

information, OJ L 13, 19.1.2000.

(2) OJ C 256, 23.10.2002.
(3) The CCT rates for 2003 are published in the OJ L 290, 28.10.2002.

(2004/C 88 E/0432)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2661/03

by Ian Hudghton (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Missing persons in Cyprus

While Cyprus prepares to join the EU next year, and Turkey is an applicant state, the issue of missing
persons, believed to have been killed or apprehended at the time of the Turkish invasion of the island in
1974, is as yet unresolved.

With reference to the Commission’s response of 2 May 2001 to Question E-0506/01 (1), when it was
stated that the ‘matter can be further addressed in the framework of the Union’s enhanced political
dialogue with Turkey’, can the Commission report on what progress has been made on this issue?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 130.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2003)

Mr Clerides and Denktash met in June and July 2002 to exchange proposals on the issue of missing
persons. The basis for this exchange was their agreement of 31 July 1997. The Greek Cypriot side
proceeded with its programme of exhumations and identifications in areas under its control. Investigations
are carried out by the United States (US) funded bi-communal Institute for Neurology and Genetics. The
Turkish Cypriot side has not yet designated scientists who would work with the Institute. Currently, the
United Nations tries to resume work of the Committee of Missing Persons.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/427

In its set of measures vis-à-vis the Turkish Cypriots of 30 April 2003 the Government of the Republic
announced several measures regarding relatives of missing and killed Turkish Cypriots (Appendix E). The
measures provide inter alia for access to information, meetings between relatives of missing persons and
Government officials, exploratory excavations of burial places, and arrangements for the establishment of a
DNA Bank. A list of 500 Turkish Cypriots whose cases have been submitted to the Committee of Missing
Persons was published by the Government of the Republic in Turkish Cypriot newspapers on 14 June
2003. The Commission has also learned that information concerning the fate of 201 missing Turkish
Cypriots was officially conveyed to the International Committee of
the Red Cross by Government
authorities.

(2004/C 88 E/0433)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2667/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Illegal timber trade (Indonesia) and the FLEGT

In May 2003, the European Commission launched an action plan to combat illegal logging and the trade
in illegal timber: the ‘Action Plan for Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade’ (FLEGT).

This will seek to combat illegal logging and the trade in illegally harvested timber. Measures set out in this
Plan include support for improved governance in wood-producing countries, voluntary partnerships with
wood-producing countries to ensure only legally harvested timber enters the EU market, and efforts to
develop international collaboration to combat the trade in illegally harvested timber.

Indonesia is home to 10 % of the world’s remaining tropical forest and is experiencing an illegal logging
crisis. More than 80 % of the logging in Indonesia is carried out in breach of the law. The EU is providing
funding to Indonesia and is seeking signed agreement to help tackle the problem.

Indonesian ramin continues to be traded illegally.

Indonesian ramin is being illegally
Despite this,
laundered through Malaysia (cid:1) the only other country where ramin grows (cid:1) and is continuing to reach
the EU market. Seizures of illegal ramin have occurred in Italy and the UK.

Why has the European Commission delayed placing ramin on Annex B (as requested by the Indonesian
Government) and will the European Commission be placing ramin on Annex B at the earliest possible
opportunity, which will be the European Union CITES Committee meeting?

Does the Commission support the principle that legislation should be introduced to make it illegal to
import illegally logged timber into the EU?

Does the Commission plan to propose co-decision legislation to support the Action Plan and thereby seek
to impose stricter penalties for those who trade illegally logged timber and timber products into the EU?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission and Member States remain to be convinced that unilateral listing of ramin on Annex B of
Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 of 9 December 1996 on the protection of species of wild fauna and
flora by regulating trade therein (1) (which implements CITES in the Community) will be any more effective
than the present régime, in which ramin is listed on Appendix III of CITES and the corresponding Annex C
of the Regulation. Under the present provisions, importers of ramin must produce an export permit (cid:1)
if the consignment comes from Indonesia (cid:1) or a certificate of origin from the exporting country if it
originates elsewhere. The only additional requirement that would be obtained if ramin were listed on