WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1833/97 by Fernando FERNÁNDEZ MARTÍN to the Commission. Basis for the Commission's appeal against the WTO's final report
Date: 1997-05-21
Institutions: European Parliament, FERNANDEZ MARTIN
Subjects: EU law, European Commission, World Trade Organisation, appeal, report, tropical fruit

C 45/110

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

10. 2. 98

(98/C 45/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1833/97

by Fernando Ferna·ndez Mart(cid:14)·n (PPE) to the Commission

(21 May 1997)

Subject: Basis for the Commission(cid:146)s appeal against the WTO(cid:146)s final report

From the very start the COM in bananas contained in Regulation 404/93 (1) has been constantly opposed in all
areas  and  by  means  of  every  conceivable  stratagem.  The  sector  is  once  again  under  threat  on  account  of  a
complaint made to the WTO by the USA, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras and Mexico. The WTO(cid:146)s final report
was issued on 30 April 1997. What basis will the Commission select for its appeal against that report?

(1)  OJ L 47, 25.2.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 June 1997)

The  report  of  the  panel  of  the  World  trade  organization  (WTO)  on  the  Community(cid:146)s  banana  regime  was
circulated to WTO members on 22 May 1997. It is likely to come up for adoption at the WTO dispute settlement
body in June. On that occasion, the Community will notify its intention to appeal the panel report to the WTO
appellate body.

The Commission is examining the panel report very closely. It would be premature at this stage to indicate the
basis for the Community(cid:146)s appeal. All that can be said at present is that the Commission is deeply dissatisfied
with the panel(cid:146)s conclusions, both as regards the more specific findings on the banana regime, and as regards the
broader  implications  of  the  panel(cid:146)s  interpretation  of  the  General  agreement  on  tariffs  and  trade  and  WTO
provisions, and will take all appropriate steps to ensure that such issues are considered by the WTO appellate
body.

(98/C 45/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1852/97

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(30 May 1997)

Subject: Equalization of pensions between men and women, Mr Farmer, Stanford-le-Hope, UK

In response to a complaint from my constituent, Mr Farmer of Stanford-le-Hope, who was forced to retire by
P  &  O  Distribution,  Barking  and  Tilbury  Depot  when  their  pension  scheme  was  equalized  to  take  effect  at
63 years for men and women, was it the Commission(cid:146)s intention and is it in compliance with the directive, that
employees can be forced to retire earlier than previously applied? What remedies are available to Mr Farmer in
this respect?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(2 July 1997)

The  Commission  wishes  to  inform  the  Honourable  Member  that  Council  Directive  96/97/EC (1),  adopted  on
20 December 1996, amended Directive 86/378/EEC (2) to bring it into line with Article 119 of the EC Treaty, as
interpreted by the Court of Justice in its judgment in the Barber case and in subsequent related judgments. The
Member States were required to take the necessary steps to comply with this Directive by 1 July 1997 at the
latest. The Commission will ask all the Member States to supply information on the measures taken to implement
this Directive and will not hesitate to initiate the proceedings provided for in Article 169 of the EC Treaty, if
necessary.