However, the Commission Has Taken Greece Before the Court

C 92 E/6 Official Journal of the European Union EN 17.4.2003

However, the Commission has taken Greece before the Court in an infringement case based on Article 228 of the Treaty (non-implementation of a Court decision) since the Commission considers that the method of applying the tax discriminates against second-hand vehicles brought in from other Member States, in spite of the Court decision of 23 October 1997 in case C-375/95 against Greece.

Concerning second-hand imported cars already fitted with anti-pollution technology, and their exclusion from the reduced rates of the special consumer tax, the Court found that this was a violation of Article 90 of the EC Treaty.

From the information in the Commission’s possession it would seem that Greece initially extended to second-hand cars the same tax reductions as those applicable since 1989 to new cars which included anti- pollution technology as an integral component but that, as from 1 January 2001, it reintroduced tax discrimination by applying a higher rate of the new registration tax to imported second-hand cars than to second-hand cars on the domestic market already including anti-pollution technology as an integral component.

In the Commission’s view Greece only partially implemented the decision handed down at the time. The infringement proceedings for non-implementation brought on the basis of Article 228 of the Treaty concern this aspect.

As to the method of calculating the depreciation on second-hand cars, following the 1997 Court judgement, Greece changed its legislation and adopted a new system for evaluating actual wear and tear on second-hand cars. However, thereafter, the Court judgement in the Gomes Valente case (C-393/98 of 21 February 2001) clarified earlier case law on the tax base applicable to second-hand cars. It is in the light of this subsequent judgement that the Greek system has to be reviewed. The Commission is currently considering whether further infringement proceedings on the basis of Article 226 need to be brought.

(2003/C 92 E/007) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0366/02 by Marco Cappato (NI) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: The case of a member of the Bolivian Congress, Evo Morales Ayma

Over the last few years the policy designed to eradicate coca growing in Bolivia has provoked violent incidents which have resulted in the deaths of over 40 people, including women and children although no member of the forces of law and order has ever been tried in connection with such incidents.

Following the violent demonstrations on 17 and 18 January 2002 near the Bolivian city of Cochabamba, a member of the Bolivian Congress, Evo Morales Ayma, was stripped of his parliamentary immunity, since he was deemed to be the ‘moral author’ of the violent acts committed by the coca growers.

Mr Morales Ayma, the coordinator of the ‘Six Federations of coca-growing peasants’ organisation, immediately began a hunger strike, calling for the government decree banning the sale of coca leaves (even for licit purposes) to be revoked.

Has the Commission formally asked Bolivia’s ambassador for clarification regarding the situation? If not, why not? If so, what reply has it received?

Does the Commission not think that, as a matter of the utmost urgency, full consideration should given to the effect which the violence triggered by the eradication programmes has on the local people?

Does the Commission not think that it should carry out an analysis of its alternative-development programmes applicable to Bolivia in order to assess the effectiveness and the soundness thereof, with a possible view to suspending them? 17.4.2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 92 E/7

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2002)

On 22 January 2002, a meeting took place between the Heads of diplomatic missions accredited to Bolivia and the Bolivian Minister for Foreign Affairs who presented the position of his Government on the events that resulted in the death of three ‘cocaleros’ farmers and four soldiers in Sacaba near the provincial capital of Cochabamba, i.e. not in the coca-growing region of Chapare. As far as Mr. Morales is concerned, legislative and judicial institutions are dealing with the withdrawal of his parliamentary status and immunity in the framework of relevant Bolivian law.

The Commission’s methodological approach to the issue of coca in Bolivia is based on promoting an alternative development in order to define the measures aimed at mitigating the socio-economic impact of coca eradication. The Community programmes are compatible with the policy of the Government, but the Community is not involved in the eradication campaign, and has not conditioned its assistance to a specific calendar in terms of coca eradication. The Commission aims to improve conditions for the people of the coca-growing zones and the migration zones, and to support the sustainable socio-economic development of these areas. For this reason the Commission does not feel it would be appropriate to consider suspending its alternative development programmes, which are to the benefit of the population in the coca growing areas.

The Commission has a two-pronged approach: alternative development, and prevention of migration from zones facing economic problems to coca-production regions.

The following programmes are being implemented:

Praedac (Programa de Apoyo a la Estrategia de Desarrollo Alternativo en el Chapare), alternative development in the main coca production zone of Chapare (Cochabamba Department), EUR 19 million;

economic development in the poor mountain valleys in order to avoid migration towards the coca- growing regions, EUR 11 million.

Regular evaluations of the Community programmes are carried out. The mid-term review of the Community ‘Praedac’ programme is currently under way.

(2003/C 92 E/008) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0386/02 by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 February 2002)

Subject: Accession of Slovenia and Estonia to the EU

1. Is it true that Slovenia and Estonia have virtually satisfied the accession criteria and that they are therefore in the ‘waiting room’ until other countries to comply with the criteria?

2. Is the same true of other applicant countries?

3. Why can these countries not have priority for accession, or why have they not already joined the EU?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

1. Following the principles of the enlargement process each candidate country is judged on its own merrits, in accordance with the principle of differentiation. As the European Council from Laaken concluded last December, both countries belong to the group of 10 countries that could by ready to conclude negotiations by the end of 2002 and to become a member of the Union in 2004 provided that the present rate of progress of the negotiations and reforms is maintained. Consequently, it is not true that Estonia and Slovenia have already virtually satisfied the accession criteria and kept ina ‘waiting room’.