WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/03 by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission. Slovakia.
Date: 2003-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union membership, Hungary, Slovakia, intra-EU relations, motorway, road building, trans-European network

C 88 E/112

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Equally, there is no reciprocal obligation on the part of current Member States to allow citizens of
Acceding Countries entry onto their territory on simple presentation of an identity card.

The Honourable Member may be aware, for example, that the United Kingdom currently imposes a visa
requirement on citizens from the Slovak Republic.

(2004/C 88 E/0117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2743/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Slovakia

Does the Commission agree that, where possible, frontier and customs officials should be able to speak the
language of the neighbouring country whose border they are supervising? Is the Commission aware that
Slovak border officials on the frontier with Austria refuse to speak German, or indeed any language other
than Slovak or Russian?

In view of Slovakia’s imminent accession to the EU, will the Commission encourage Slovakia, and indeed
all Member States, to ensure that at least some frontier officials are able to converse in languages likely to
be useful on the frontier concerned?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

The Commission agrees that, whenever possible, customs officials both in the Union and in the candidate
countries should be able to communicate in the language of the neighbouring country whose border they
are supervising. With reference to candidate countries, the Commission has been advising their Customs
the administrative and
Administrations to provide language training to customs officials. However,
organisational aspects of the customs services do not fall within the Commission’s competence and are
fully within the national competence of the existing and future Member States.

As for the case mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission is not aware of any specific
problem, neither as regards customs officials nor border guards. Indeed co-operation between Slovak and
Austrian authorities at the border is considered as satisfactory. Concerning customs,
it is also worth
stressing that, as from the day of accession in 2004, all customs controls between the existing and future
Member States will be abolished and customs offices at the future ‘internal’ border will have to be
dismantled by that date. Consequently, there will be no more presence of customs officials between
Slovakia and Austria, and Slovakia will only manage part of the future Union external border with
Ukraine.

(2004/C 88 E/0118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2744/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Slovakia

Can the Commission confirm that the Bratislava authorities refuse to allow the town of Kosice to be linked
by motorway to the nearby Hungarian motorway network (and thereby connect easily to the Austrian and
other networks) until a motorway via the north of Slovakia has been completed linking Kosice to
Bratislava?

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/113

If so, is this because the Bratislava authorities wish to hinder close connections between southern Slovakia,
with its Hungarian-speaking minority, and Hungary? Does the Commission consider such an attitude to be
compatible with the spirit of a Europe without internal frontiers which is implicit in EU membership?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2003)

Concerning the decision of the Slovak Government on the construction of a motorway connecting Kosice
to Bratislava, the Commission has taken note of the remarks of the Honourable Member. The Commission
can only confirm that the above motorway as well as the road between Kosice and the Hungarian border
have been identified as forming part of the trans-European transport (TEN-T) network and that the
consequent priority that will be given to these routes has been agreed between Slovakia and the Union.
Within this framework it is up to the national authorities to establish their own priorities and to propose
projects for funding to the Commission.

(2004/C 88 E/0119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2759/03

by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 September 2003)

Subject: Method of calculating financial assistance to traditional ACP banana suppliers

the technical and financial assistance measures for traditional ACP banana suppliers,
As part of
the Commission determines the annual funding for each country by a method of calculation allowing for
the ‘competitivity gap’ between ACP recipient countries and third country banana suppliers and for the
importance of banana production for the economy of the supplier concerned (Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1609/1999 (1)).

The Commission measures competitiveness according to the difference between the average cif
(cost, insurance, and freight) price of third country bananas and the average price of bananas from each
ACP country at the Union’s frontiers. These figures, which are compiled by Eurostat, are obtained from the
customs declarations of importers in the individual Member States. Unfortunately, however, they do not
appear to correspond to any single definition, resulting in serious errors.

Even when the bananas come from the same place of origin, the cif price may vary widely in a given
Member State, whereas in other Member States the cif price of all bananas is the same. Because there is no
harmonisation, the Commission does not employ the proper tools to gauge the competitiveness of ACP
banana suppliers, and the aid called for by the Council and Parliament is thus largely wasted.

Can the Commission explain what relationship is considered to exist between the market value of bananas
and their competitiveness? Could not the competitiveness of bananas be gauged more accurately if
production costs were taken into account? Can the Commission give an assurance that, instead of drawing
inferences from the market price, it will measure the competitiveness of ACP bananas on the basis of a real
cif (cost, insurance, and freight) price and do its utmost to put right the injustices that have been found to
occur?

(1) OJ L 190, 23.7.1999, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 2003)

As the Honourable Member correctly points out, the individual amounts allocated annually to each
traditional African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) banana supplier are calculated in accordance with the
criteria set out in Commission Regulation No 1609/99 (1). In particular, the Cost, Insurance and Freight
(CIF) price as shown in Eurostat statistics is used as a benchmark to measure the competitiveness gap
between ACP and Third Countries suppliers. Such figures (cid:1) where they exist (cid:1) are collected through the
customs authorities of each Member State, in accordance with the values given in the declaration for
release for free circulation. Since bananas are not subject to ad-valorem duties, the values are declared for