Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-18-Speech-2-204"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031118.7.2-204"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Question No 41 by Luisa Morgantini ():
Does the Commission consider that the notice to importers of November 2001, the information at the disposal of the Member States regarding settlement products and firms, and the provisions of Article 32 of the Association Agreement provide the Member States with sufficient legal and technical means to reliably deny preferences to imports of settlement products and products that contain substantial amounts of settlement-produced components and materials, including products that are commingled with essentially identical products originating in Israel?
Question No 42 by Jacques F. Poos ():
Will the Commission recommend the introduction of new cumulation provisions in the Association Agreement with Israel in connection with the implementation of pan-European cumulation while Israel continues to treat the settlements it has established in occupied territories as falling within the territorial scope of the applicability of its agreements with the EC? Will the Commission recommend the introduction of new cumulation provisions in the EC’s trade-related agreements with Israel and Jordan in connection with the so-called ‘Qualified Industrial Zones’ while this remains the case?
Question No 43 by Jan Dhaene ():
Is the Commission aware that prior to the November 2001 notice to importers, Member States failed to recover duties after receiving verification answers from Israeli customs confirming that the products in question were produced in settlements and reiterating Israel’s determinations that they were entitled to preferential treatment? Has the notice to importers eliminated the possibility that such failures to recover duties might reoccur?
Question No 44 by Johanna L.A. Boogerd-Quaak ():
Question No 39 by John Walls Cushnahan ():
In determining the origin of all products it exports to the European Community, in issuing proofs of origin and in verifying their validity, does Israel ever distinguish between production carried out in settlements established in occupied territories and production carried out in the territory of the State of Israel? Under the EC-Israel Association Agreement as it is currently being implemented, can the real origin of any product exported by Israel be determined?
Question No 45 by Bartho Pronk ():
In the plenary debate of 4 September on the ‘Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement’ the Commission was asked why it had not notified the Member States that Israel’s definition of territoriality is illegal. Commissioner Nielsen replied that the Commission had already done this in a notice to importers issued in November 2001.
Has the Commission indeed confirmed to the Member States that Israel’s customs authorities apply an illegal definition of territoriality to determine the origin of all products exported under that Agreement? Has the Commission confirmed to the Member States that Israel’s customs authorities do not distinguish between production carried out in settlements and production carried out in the territory of the State of Israel whenever they issue proofs of origin? Does the Commission expect the Member States to check the origin of all imports from Israel?
Press reports have recently stated that Member States have been faced with importers’ court actions challenging Member State moves to recover duty on suspected settlement imports which Israel’s customs authorities have maintained are eligible for preferential treatment.
Since Community law requires the importing country’s authorities to accept the legally-made determinations of the exporting country’s authorities, is the Commission confident that the Member States can sustain duty recovery against importers’ objections by relying on the fact that Israel’s verification answers fail to satisfy the Member State customs authorities’ requests to specify the locales in which the products in question were actually produced? Has Israel taken the position that its customs authorities’ verification answers are sufficient and must be accepted under the Agreement?
Question No 40 by Ulla Margrethe Sandbæk ():
In the plenary debate of 4 September 2003 on the 'Application of the EU-Israel Association Agreement' the Commission was asked why it has not notified the Member States that the definition of territoriality that Israel applies to determine the origin of all its exports under that Agreement is illegal. Commissioner Nielson replied that the Commission had already done what was asked when it published a notice to importers in November 2001. In that notice the Commission confirmed that 'Israel issues proof of origin for products coming from places brought under Israeli administration since 1967'.
Did the Commission also confirm 'the existence of certain substantial errors in the application of the Agreements, to the extent that the validity of all preferential certificates issued by Israel are put in doubt'? Does the Commission consider that it has provided information to the Member States that raises doubts about the real origin of all products exported by Israel?"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Subject: Application of EC-Israel Association Agreement"1
"Subject: Application of the EC-Israel Association Agreement"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples