WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3078/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. US extra-territorial laws
Date: 1997-10-02
Institutions: CABEZON ALONSO, European Parliament
Subjects: United States, World Trade Organisation, agreement (EU), application of the law, economic sanctions, extra-territoriality, international economic law, international sanctions, international trade, investment

3. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 102/163

This  has  been  the  case  with  all  questions  concerning  the  introduction  of  the  single  currency,  for  example  as
regards  the  search  for  a  common  position  on  the  part  of  consumers  and  retailers  on  delicate  matters  such  as
parallel listing of prices, the date for the switch-over to the physical currency and, in general, the preparation of
sales outlets for the provision of assistance to consumers. In the same way, the legal framework of payment cards
has been the subject of exchanges of views between the two committees.

For that reason, the Commission does not consider it useful to set up a new committee. On the other hand, the
Commission intends to continue the dialogue between consumers and businesses which started in December
1996.  To  this  end,  talks  are  under  way  between  the  Commission,  the  Union  of  Industrial  and  Employers’
Confederations of Europe (UNICE), the European Bureau of Consumers’ Unions (EBCU) and Eurocommerce,
with a view to defining the framework for sharing information and improving awareness of the questions of
common interest.

(98/C 102/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3078/97

by Jesu· s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 1997)

Subject: US extra-territorial laws

What stage has been reached in cooperation between the European Union and the United States with a view to
reaching a clear understanding on the need for the US to repeal or desist from implementing its extra-territorial
laws?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1997)

An  example  of  the  Community’s  efforts  to  convince  the  United  States  to  cease  to  resort  to  legislation  with
extraterritorial effects is the understanding reached between the Community and the United States on 11 April
1997  on  the  dispute  between  the  Community  and  the  United  States  on  the  Helms-Burton  and  D’Amato  Acts
adopted by the United States. This legislation has extraterritorial effects in that it has the intention or effect of
influencing the behaviour of companies in the Community because of their involvement in Cuba, Libya or Iran.

Under  this  understanding,  the  Community  agreed  to  suspend  the  World  trade  organization  (WTO)  panel
procedure which it had initiated against the United States because of its Helms-Burton legislation. On the United
States side, there is a presumption of the continuation of the waiver of Title III and a commitment to work with
the Congress to permit a waiver under Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act. On D’Amato, the United States has
agreed to work with the Community toward the objectives of meeting the terms for granting the Community a
waiver.

At the same time, the understanding calls for the Community and the United States to develop disciplines which
should  inhibit  and  deter  the  future  acquisition  of  investments  from  any  state  which  has  expropriated  or
nationalised  such  investments  in  contravention  of  international  law,  and  subsequent  dealings  in  covered
investments. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the United States to
work  together  to  address  and  resolve  through  agreed  principles  the  issue  of  conflicting  jurisdictions  and
secondary investment boycotts with extraterritorial effects.

(98/C 102/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3081/97

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(2 October 1997)

Subject: Violation by Turkey of its international commitments

Having signed the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 concerning special status for the islands of Imbroz and Tenedos
giving  them  a  degree  of  autonomy  and  local  self-government,  Turkey  has  consistently  disregarded  its