Mr President, I should like to say a few introductrory words and then perhaps go on to explain our oral question. We have tabled an oral question on behalf of our group. The main reason for this is our group’s criticism of the way in which the Council used the procedure laid down in Article 133 as the basis for its decision to apply for the appointment of a panel to examine whether section 211 of the U.S. Trademark Act is incompatible with the TRIPS Agreement. We did not deal to any great extent with the substance of the Council’s case, although the substantive argument did meet with some opposition and engendered lively discussion in committee; we chiefly focused on the expression of our desire to be fully informed in future and to be included in the decision-making structures used by the Council and the special committee established under Article 133. We believe this is especially necessary in the realm of trade policy. As all of you here – honourable Members, Commissioner and representative of the Council – are aware, when it comes to trade issues, we in Parliament are only involved to a limited extent. For many years we have been crossing swords on this issue – mainly with the Council and only to a lesser degree with the Commission. In the case in question, it is a matter of initiating proceedings to examine whether, in a dispute between Pernod/Ricard and Bacardi, a primarily Euro-Cuban holding and a primarily U.S.-European corporation, the EU is entitled to lend support as it sees fit. The Council has come down clearly on the side of Pernod/Ricard in this dispute, and the Commission supports this position too. We in the committee did not pronounce ourselves on this dispute. All we said is that we should have wished to be informed before the institution of proceedings and before the appointment of the panel, so that we as a Parliament could have adopted a substantiated and well-founded position on the decision taken by the Council and the Commission. Let me add that the Commission, especially Commissioner Lamy, has kept us regularly briefed. Accordingly, none of our criticism in this case has been directed at the Commission. Perhaps the main point, and the reason why we attach so much importance to this issue, is that section 211 of the Trademark Act is one of those cases that relates to our long-running dispute with the United States over the Helms-Burton Act. It is about the extraterritorial application of domestic legislation. To that extent, we support the action taken by the Commission and the Council from a political point of view, but – as I have already mentioned – we do not condone the inadequate briefing of Parliament and its competent committee. Why is this so important? You will have noticed that legislators on both sides of the Atlantic have been coming under increasing pressure to support the decisions of their respective governments. It is very, very important to us to make it clear to the other institutions that they will only be able to secure our support in future if they provide Parliament and the responsible parliamentary committee with comprehensive information. You will see how necessary this is from the letter written by many Members of this House – I believe there were more than a hundred of us – and addressed to both the U.S. Government and the Council. The letter not only criticised the procedure adopted by the Council but also the substance of its decision. That is why I wish to make this urgent appeal to the Council to do everything possible in future to keep Parliament fully informed and to extend this obligation to cover any application for the institution of dispute-settlement proceedings, which means coming to the committee or the plenary chamber on such occasions and briefing Parliament in order to establish total transparency.

Political group: PSE