WRITTEN QUESTION E-1905/98

by Jesús Cabezón Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(16 June 1998)

Subject: EU-US agreement on the Helms-Burton Act

Does the agreement made public on 18 May 1998 between the EU Presidency, the Commission and the US Presidency imply that, despite this agreement, those contents of the Helms-Burton Act which remain in force are to be incorporated into Community law?

Does the Commission consider that this agreement guarantees the national sovereignty of all the Member States?

Joint answer to Written Questions E-1904/98 and E-1905/98 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 1998)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its joint answer to written questions E-1343/98 and 1344/98 by Mr Sanchez-Neyra(1) and to the reply it gave to oral question H-573/98 by Mr Marset Campos during question time at Parliament's June 1998 part-session(2) for a detailed explanation of the main elements of the agreement reached between the Community and the United States at the Summit in London on 18 May 1998. The agreement reached is a package of elements that offer the real prospect for a lasting resolution of the differences with the United States over the Helms-Burton Act and the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act, and the broader problem of extraterritorial sanctions.

However, in spite of this agreement, the Commission's position on these Acts remains that they are contrary to international law. At no point did the Community acknowledge their legitimacy. The Commission has fully reserved its right to resume the World trade organisation (WTO) case in the event of action being taken against Community citizens or companies under these Acts. The agreement is of a political nature and does not in any way give validity to the illegal provisions of the American laws in question.

The full implementation of the agreement reached between the Community and the United States at the Summit in London on 18 May 1998 depends on the support of the American Congress. It does contain elements that form the basis for paving the way for a permanent neutralisation of the Helms-Burton Act and avoiding similar acts from being enacted in the future. But the Community and Member States as well as the United States will have to implement the deal once the presidential waiver authority under Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act is adopted and exercised.

The agreement fully guarantees the national sovereignty of the Member States. The understanding on disciplines regarding investment in illegally expropriated property provides that it is the Member States and notably their agencies responsible for deciding on government commercial assistance and support which will carry out the main part of the agreed disciplines. As for countries that have engaged in repeated expropriations, including Cuba, the Commission has agreed to be especially careful when assessing the possibility of providing government assistance in such cases.

Existing investments are not affected by the disciplines, and with respect to future investment in property expropriated in the past, such as in Cuba, there will be no investment ban, only some restraints on government assistance.

(1) See page 115.

(2) Debates of Parliament (June 1998).