WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/04 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State.
Date: 2004-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Holy See, Italy, agricultural trade, beef, bilateral agreement, cane sugar, database, export monitoring, export refund, fraud against the EU, sucrose, trade volume

C 84 E/522

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0598)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4079/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(14 January 2004)

Subject: Bird trapping on Cyprus

Birdlife International alleges that illegal bird trapping on Cyprus, using both mist nets and lime sticks, has
increased by 100 % over the past year, despite Government assurances to the contrary.

Will the Commission state whether the trapping of migratory birds in these ways will be contrary to EU
law after the accession of Cyprus on 1 May 2004?

If so, has the Commission indicated to the Government of Cyprus that infringement proceedings may
commence rapidly if the situation continues after the date of accession?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

As an acceding country, Cyprus will be required to fully implement and enforce the Birds Directive (1) on
1 May 2004. No transition period has been given and no specific derogations have been requested by
Cyprus. In October 2003 Cyprus adopted national legislation to transpose the requirements of both the
Birds and Habitats Directives (2).

More specifically, the Commission clearly pointed out during the negotiation for accession that certain
bird-trapping methods, like the ones involving the use of mist nets and lime sticks, are incompatible with
the provisions of the Birds Directive. The practice is illegal in Cyprus and the Cypriot authorities have
assured the Commission that they would step up efforts for effective enforcement of the law in question.

The Commission continues to monitor the situation and the progress made by Cyprus in working towards
meeting its obligations under Community law, not just in transposition but also in implementation and
enforcement. Should problems be observed, then the Commission will raise them with the national
authorities to seek their resolution. The Commission wishes to assure the Honourable Member that it will
in order to guarantee the correct application of
not hesitate to take all the appropriate measures,
Community environmental law by its Member States.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora,

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2004/C 84 E/0599)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0001/04

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(9 January 2004)

Subject: Refunds for exports to the Vatican City State

Since questions P-3279/03 (1) and E-3280/03 (1) incorrectly stated the value of exports to the Vatican City
State (cid:1) because it was not specified at the end of the extracts from the CATS database (answer to question
P-3202/02) (2) that the figures represent the general total (cid:1) the questioner acknowledges that the correct
amount of export refunds for the period 1998-2001 is EUR 4 000 813,01.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/523

The answer to question P-3279/03 confirms the figures given in point (d) and hence, since the correct
total of payments is EUR 321 711 242,39, the proportion of payments made in cases where the product
and/or the unit of measurement is not indicated is 30,26 % of the total, rather than 15,13 %.

In reply to question E-3280/03 the Commission said that it did not consider the questions relevant, in
view of the error made in stating the amount of refunds for exports to the Vatican City State, and stressed
the following:

1.

in point (c) or the supplementary answer to questions E-1477/03-E-1480/03 (3) it is stated 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.

2.

in point (d) it is stated that 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’.

Can the Commission therefore say, as it was originally asked in question E-3280/03:

(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 78 E, 27.3.2004.
(2) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 172.
(3) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 45.

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to his Written Question P-3279/03.

The Commission points out that the figures given in the answer to Written Question P-3279/03 were not
confirmed (1) as indicated by the Honourable Member in this written question. The correct total of
payments for the period 1998-2001 for various destinations including the Vatican State City (VA) is
EUR 321 711 242,39.

C 84 E/524

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

For the amount of EUR 9 066 774,47 (instead of EUR 9 067 116,01 as stated by the Honourable Member)
the CATS database does not contain an indication of the product and of the unit of measurement.

For the amount of EUR 23 236 120,85 (instead of EUR 14 173 353,56) the CATS database does not
contain the product code.

For the amount of EUR 83 188 136,82 (instead of EUR 74 115 436,13) the CATS database does not
contain the unit of measurement.

However, it must be made clear that no payments are made on the basis of the CATS database. These are
made by the national paying agencies respecting the provisions of Commission Regulation (CE) No 800/
1999 of 15 April 1999 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of export
refunds on agricultural products (2).

The calculated percentage of 30,26 % of missing information in the CATS database is an average for the
whole period (1998-2001). Due to substantial improved quality controls, the calculated proportion of data
fields with missing information went down from 62,63 % for financial year 1998 to 6,77 % for financial
year 2001 (3).

The Commission wants to stress, that the CATS database has been established and designed as a control
tool, and that no payments are made on the basis of the data contained therein.

The Commission would like to draw attention to an obvious translation mistake. In the joint answer to the
Written Questions E-1477/03 to E-1480/03 it should read ‘beet’ and not ‘beef’ as it has been erroneously
published only in the Italian version of the answer.

In light of the above:

(cid:1) The exports of beet and cane sugar and chemically pure sucrose in solid form from Member States to
the Vatican City with export refunds to the Vatican City are according to Council Regulation
(EC) No 386/90 of 12 February 1990 on the monitoring carried out at the time of export of
agricultural products receiving refunds or other amounts (4) subject of a mandatory physical control of
at least 5 %. No specific problem was brought to the attention of the Commission that would have
lead to requesting a change with regard to specific checks on the exports from Member States to the
Vatican City. If the Honourable Member is in the possession of any evidence which would presume a
non-regulatory situation, he is requested to transmit it to the Commission which will then assure the
appropriate follow-up.

(cid:1) On a list of the Holy See institutions and offices located outside the Vatican, the Commission asks the
Honourable Member to refer to what is said about these in the Lateran Treaty itself, which is to be
found annexed to the Italian ratifying act, Law No 810 of 27 May 1929.

(cid:1) The Lateran Treaty was concluded between Italy and the Holy See in 1929. It is therefore covered by
Article 307 of the Treaty of Rome dealing with agreements concluded before 1 January 1958 between
one or more Member States and one or more third countries. Relations between the Community and
Italy are governed by the Community legislation in force.

the European Customs Association (ECA) No 2/93 (5) where it

(cid:1) The Commission has based its assumption that the exports to the Vatican City appear reasonable on
the findings of the European Court of Auditors. In this context reference is made to the Special Report
is stated under point 6.22:
of
‘The persons eligible to benefit from the customs exemptions of the Vatican State are the permanent
residents of the City State itself (some 600 people) and the persons who reside permanently or
temporarily in the other buildings (on average some 20 000 in any one year are there for study
purposes, religion training, official reasons, etc.). In addition Italian citizens employed by, or pensioners

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/525

of, the agencies of the Holy See and the governorship of the Vatican City State and their families have
the right to use the Vatican shops. This is estimated to be about 12 000 persons.’ It can be reasoned
that these figures are still valid or possibly even higher. For such a factual population the quoted
figures appear reasonable.

(1) Answer to P-3279/03, second paragraph: ‘In fact each amount quoted in the written question is inaccurate and can,
therefore, not be confirmed by the Commission and it is not certain how and from where the Honourable Member
extracted these figures.’

(2) OJ L 102, 17.4.1999.
(3) 1998 was the starting phase of the CATS database.
(4) OJ L 42, 16.2.1990.
(5) OJ C 347, 27.12.1993.

(2004/C 84 E/0600)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0011/04

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(16 January 2004)

Subject: Tunis summit and immigration policy

The 5 + 5 Dialogue summit took place on 5 and 6 December 2003 in Tunis. According to the few reports
that have appeared in the press, the main topic of discussion was strengthening cooperation in the
Western Mediterranean, together, presumably, with the question of the migratory flows from North Africa
to European countries, which are one of the most important factors in this cooperation. Since the 1999
Tampere summit, the European Union has been trying to devise a common migration policy. However,
individual Member States are enacting legislation which differs substantially. Italy, for example, following
an agreement with Tunisia, signed a bilateral agreement with Libya in July 2003 as many illegal boatloads
of immigrants arrive from Libya.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. What issues were on the agenda of the Tunis Summit?

2. Were any conclusions reached concerning the joint management of migratory flows to the Union in

order to avoid a massive influx of illegal immigrants?

3. Did the summit consider proposals to step up security against terrorism for the Mediterranean
countries and, at the same time, enhance economic development opportunities for the African
countries bordering the Mediterranean?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Since the 5 + 5 Dialogue Summit in Tunis was an informal meeting, there was no formal agenda as

1.
such. A number of discussion topics (which were reflected in the final declaration) were proposed:

(cid:1) security and stability in the Mediterranean;

(cid:1) regional integration and economic cooperation;

(cid:1) migration;

(cid:1) dialogue between cultures and civilisations;

(cid:1) the new EU neighbourhood policy.