WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Lack of specific monitoring of product quantities exported from Member States to the Vatican City State under the export refund system.
Date: 2003-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, Holy See, beef, cane sugar, database, export (EU), export refund, sucrose

C 78 E/252

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

3. The previous general enquiries that were carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) in this
matter were conducted on its behalf by the Italian authorities as detailed in the answer given to the
Honourable Member’s Written Question E-2299/02 (7).

Currently, OLAF does not have any specific cases of investigation into the export of agricultural
products to the states listed by the Honourable Member.

As for the Court of Auditors, the question must be addressed directly to this institution.

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.
(2) See page 223.
(3) Swiss Confederation, the Principality of Andorra, the Principality of Liechtenstein, the Republic of San Marino and

the Vatican State City.

(4) Commission Regulation (EC) No 2390/1999 of 25 October 1999 laying down detailed rules of the application of
Regulation (EC) No 1663/95 as regards the form and content of the accounting information that the Member States
must hold at the disposal of the Commission for the purposes of the clearance of the EAGGF Guarantee Section
accounts, OJ L 295, 16.11.1999. Annexes I, II and III of this Regulation are updated annually.
‘Clearance Audit Trail System’.

(5)
(6) Each payment record can contain up to 128 different data fields.
(7) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0253)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3280/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Lack of specific monitoring of product quantities exported from Member States to the Vatican City

State under the export refund system

Knowing that:

(a) Extracts from the European Commission’s Clearance Audit Trail System (CATS) database, which
contains data from the Member States on refunds for exports of Community agricultural products to
third countries, were annexed to the supplementary answer to Written Question P-3202/02 (1).

(b) Consultation of the CATS database shows that in the period 1998-2001:

(cid:1) 321 711 242,39 euro were refunded for exports to the Vatican;

(cid:1) 281 866 767,22 euro were refunded for exports to Switzerland;

(cid:1) 35 414 204,76 euro were refunded for exports to Andorra;

(cid:1) 429 415,48 euro were refunded for exports to Liechtenstein;

(cid:1) and 41,92 euro were refunded for exports to San Maríno.

(c) The supplementary answer to Written Questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (2) states that:

(cid:1) There is no specific monitoring of the quantities of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure
sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State. The quantity of
exports to this country appears reasonable.

(cid:1) In the case of exports of agricultural products with refund from the Community to the Vatican
City, the Vatican City authorities certify that they have been released for consumption in the
territory of the Vatican City or the institutions and offices of the Holy See.

(cid:1) As regards the special provisions for products exported with refund to the Vatican, the customs
agreement between Italy and the Vatican City and Community legislation on export refunds …
apply

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/253

(d) Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty, which governs the relations between the Vatican City State and the
Italian Republic guarantees the central bodies of the Catholic Church exemption from ‘any interference
on the part of the Italian State’.

In the light of the above, can the Commission indicate:

(cid:1) why no specific checks are conducted on the quantities of beef, cane sugar and chemically pure

sucrose in solid form exported from Member States to the Vatican City State?

(cid:1) whether it has a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican to which the

goods are exported?

(cid:1) whether any infringement of the Community rules on export refunds should be exempt

from

interference on the part of the Italian State within the meaning of Article 11 of the Lateran Treaty?

(cid:1) which assessments provide the basis for its statement that the quantity of exports to the Vatican

appears reasonable?

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.
(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 December 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question P-3202/02 (1)
which include a listing with aggregated refunds paid for various destinations including the Vatican State
City (VA).

The Honourable Member wrongly quotes from this answer. The correct amount for the Vatican State City
(VA) is EUR 4 000 813,01 and not EUR 321 711 242,39 as claimed by the Honourable Member.

In the light of the exact amount (EUR 4 000 813,01) for the Vatican State City (VA) the Commission
considers the questions to be without relevance.

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003.

(2004/C 78 E/0254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3281/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE), Maria Martens (PPE-DE)
and Albert Maat (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Follow-up to question E-1740/02 on the free movement of captains

On 30 September 2003 the European Court of Justice gave his decision in the Anave case (C-405/01).
This case concerned the relationship between Article 39 of the Treaty and the free movement of captains.
The Commission deferred answering Written Questions E-1022/02 (1) and E-1740/02 (2) pending the
outcome of the case.

Now that the Commission knows the Court’s decision in the Anave case, can it provide detailed

1.
answers to questions E-1022/02 (and the associated question E-2069/01 (3)) and E-1740/02?

2.
Does the Commission not also consider that the position it expressed in answer to Written Question
E-2069/01, namely the obligation to sail under a captain of the same nationality as the flag does not
violate Community rules on the free movement of workers, is no longer tenable following the Court’s
judgment in the Anave case?