WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1965/97 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. Turkish 'free zones' and action by the Commission
10. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/131 (98/C 45/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1965/97 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (9 June 1997) Subject: Turkish áfree zonesí and action by the Commission Since I failed to receive a fully satisfactory answer to my Question No H-0317/97 (1), I should like to raise the subject of áfree zonesí in Turkey once again. The answer I received states that Commission and Member State representativesí visited several áfree zonesí and adds that áthe situation appears to be satisfactoryí. Will the Commission say exactly which áfree zonesí were monitored and whether it is considering the possibility of new spot checks in these zones by the UCLAF, since this is an exceptionally serious matter involving a breach by Turkey of its obligations under the Customs Union Agreement and the illegal export to the EU of textile products originating from third countries which are passed off as Turkishí? (1) Verbatim report of proceedings, 16. 5. 1997. Answer given by Mr Van den Broek on behalf of the Commission (8 July 1997) The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to his Oral Question H-317/97 during question time in the May 1997 sitting of Parliament in which the Commission pointed out that a Community team had gone to Turkey in October 1996 to ascertain that the functioning of Turkish free zones complies with that countryís obligations under the customs union. At the time the team inspected the Istanbul and Mersin free zones, in which it found no failure to comply with the rules of the customs union. Since it was a monitoring mission, the unit responsible for the coordination of fraud prevention was not involved. The Turkish authorities, moreover, told the Commission that they wished to be informed of any case of fraud that might be uncovered by the Community. The Commission reserves the right to raise such cases with Turkey, should duly substantiated complaints be put to it. Specifically, it is prepared to consider or examine any hard facts relating to fraud which may be brought to its attention. In any event, the Community and Turkey agreed as part of the recommendations adopted by the Community-Turkey Association Committee on 24 April this year to keep a constant watch on this matter in order to prevent any evasion of the rules of the customs union. (98/C 45/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1971/97 by Roberta Angelilli (NI) to the Commission (9 June 1997) Subject: Construction of Rome Underground line Cí and the Casaletto to Largo Argentina high-speed tramway In her answer to Written Question E-1273/97 (1) Mrs Bjerregaard stated, on behalf of the Commission, that both the matters dealt with in that question, namely the construction of Rome Underground line Cí and the Casaletto to Largo Argentina high-speed tramway, came under Annex II to Directive 85/337/EEC (2) on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment and that, owing to the failure to transpose that Directive, the Commission had approached the Italian authorities in connection with both of the above projects. Can the Commission state exactly what approaches were made and to which authorities? Can it say what effect such approaches have had? Lastly, should Rome City Council continue to disregard the provisions of Directive 85/337/EEC and proceed with work on the above projects, how would the Commission react? (1) OJ C 367, 4. 12. 1997, p. 109. (2) OJ L 175, 5. 7. 1985, p. 40