WRITTEN QUESTION No. 656/98 by Stéphane BUFFETAUT to the Commission. Aid to shipbuilding
Date: 1998-03-10
Institutions: BUFFETAUT, European Parliament
Subjects: OECD, United States, aid for restructuring, building subsidy, international agreement, investment aid, modernisation aid, production aid, shipbuilding, terms for aid

C 354/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19. 11. 98

(98/C 354/44)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0654/98

by Esko Seppa¤nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(10 March 1998)

Subject: Restrictions on the use of antibiotics for animals in Finland and Sweden

In their EU accession negotiations, Finland and Sweden obtained the right to apply tighter restrictions on the use
of antibiotics for animals than in the other Member States. This was permitted because the misuse of antibiotics
makes  bacteria  resistant  to  many  antibiotics  which  humans  need.  Does  the  Commission  propose  to  continue
allowing  exceptional  provisions  for  Finland  and  Sweden,  or  is  it  ›  with  better  justification  ›  preparing
restricitons on the use of antibiotics in other countries too?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 1998)

The Commission cannot, under the terms of the Act of Accession, extend the period of validity of the special
arrangements governing the use of antibiotics in Finland and Sweden.

The Act of Accession requires that the Commission decide on the soundness of the arguments put forward by
Finland and Sweden as justification for a partial or total ban on the use of antibiotics permitted as additives in
animal feed by Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs (1).

If there is scientific proof of the risks alleged by Finland and Sweden, the Commission will have to prohibit the
use of the antibiotics concerned throughout the Community. In the absence of such proof it will have to ask the
two Member States to put an end to the current prohibitions.

The Commission will at all events consult the relevant scientific committee.

(1)  OJ L 270, 14.12.1970.

(98/C 354/45)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0656/98

by Ste·phane Buffetaut (I-EDN) to the Commission

(10 March 1998)

Subject: Aid to shipbuilding

The  US  authorities  have  announced  their  intention  of  reopening  the  Philadelphia  Navy  Yard  with  the  aid  of
massive  subsidies,  in  flagrant  breach  of  the  OECD  agreement  which  contains  a  standstill  clause  on  aid.
The Commission  regarded  this  provision  as  being  sufficiently  binding  not  to  have  raised  the  aid  ceilings  for
shipbuilding in Europe.

Does the Commission intend to apply restrictions in Europe, on the basis of an OECD agreement rejected by the
French National Assembly, which its trading partners are not themselves applying?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 1998)

The  so-called  standstill  clause  to  which  the  Honourable  Member  refers  is  not  part  of  the  Organisation  for
economic co-operation and development (OECD) agreement itself, which has not yet entered into force, but part
of the final act of the negotiations concluding that agreement. According to its provisions, the parties agreed not
to  increase  existing  subsidy  levels  or  to  introduce  new  measures  of  support  pending  entry  into  force  of  the
agreement.  The  Commission  shares  the  Honourable  Member(cid:146)s  concern  about  the  apparent  breach  of  these
arrangements  by  the  United  States.  The  Commission  has  written  to  the  American  authorities  and  asked  for
further  explanations  and  details  on  the  content  of  the  arrangements  and  their  conformity  with  the  standstill
clause.