WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Understanding with respect to disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection of 18 May 1998 between the EU and the USA.
Date: 1999-09-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cuba, European Union, United States, extra-territoriality, international agreement, international trade, investment

1.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 219 E/21

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 1999)

The Commission is aware that present European and national legislation cannot deal properly with noise
and vibration generated in neighbouring Member States.
In particular, the Commission is aware of
industrial sites and airports that are causing problems across borders and about the difficulties faced by
local and national authorities handling these cases. The Commission believes that some harmonisation of
noise legislation would considerably simplify the tasks of these authorities in seeking improvements.

The Commission(cid:146)s green paper on future noise policy (1) gave many reasons to undertake some harmonisa-
tion of noise legislation. As a direct result the Commission is therefore considering presenting a directive
on environmental noise exposure that will provide a basis for such harmonisation. A major element of
such a directive would be the harmonisation of indicators and assessment methods. In order to have clarity
in discussion and information exchange, other elements will be European wide noise mapping, local action
plans, publication of data by the Commission and further improvement of the Community noise emission
policy. The Commission hopes to present a proposal for such a directive to Council and Parliament in the
course of 2000.

The Commission has no intention at this time to include vibrations in such a proposal or to prepare a
separate directive on that subject.

(1) COM(96) 540 final.

(2000/C 219 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1748/99

by Wolfgang Kreissl-D(cid:246)rfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 September 1999)

Subject:

(cid:145)Understanding with respect to disciplines for the strengthening of investment protection(cid:146) of
18 May 1998 between the EU and the USA

On 8 January 1999, Benjamin A. Gilman, Chairman of the US House of Representatives(cid:146) Committee on
International Relations, sent a questionnaire to Commissioner Sir Leon Brittan,
in which Mr Gilman
requested the trade commissioner, with regard to the granting of the waiver under paragraph II.4 of the
Understanding, to clarify certain (cid:145)ambiguous(cid:146) formulations.

1.
Has the Commission answered the above questionnaire and, if so, is it prepared to make it available
immediately to the members of the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (INDU)?
Irrespective of whether the questionnaire has been answered, can the Commission give a brief summary of
the progress made in this matter between EU and US institutions?

Has the Understanding entered into legal force and,

2.
authority? Have the national parliaments expressed their views on the Understanding?

if so, on what legal basis and/or by what

Has the US Congress granted the waiver in respect of Titles III and IV of the Helms-Burton Act and,

3.
if so, for how long? What commitments has the Commission entered into in return?

4. What implications does the Understanding have for any prospective accession of Cuba to a post-
LomØ Convention? What effects will it have within the European Union?

C 219 E/22

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

1.8.2000

Does the Understanding imply that the Commission accepts US extraterritorial legislation if European

5.
firms are not affected thereby?

6. What is the new Prodi Commission(cid:146)s position on the problematic issue of extraterritorial legislation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1999)

The former member of the Commission in charge of trade replied by letter of 4 June 1999 to Mr Gilman(cid:146)s
letter. A copy of this letter has been sent, at their request, to the members of the committee on industry,
external trade, research and energy.

Since the understanding on, inter alia, the Helms-Burton Act, reached with the United States on 18 May
1998 at the Community and United States Summit in London, the Commission has consistently pressed
the American Administration on the question of the waiver to Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act which is
the prime condition for the entry into force of
the understanding. The Commission remains very
concerned that no tangible progress has so far been made on this, without which the Community cannot
(cid:129) of course (cid:129) deliver its side of the bargain.

The understanding is of a political nature and does not in any way give validity to the illegal provisions of
the Helms-Burton Act. On 25 May 1998, the General Affairs Council took note of the decisions and
statements made at the 18 May Community and United States summit. As far as the Commission knows,
no national parliament has expressed any opinion on the understandings.

Accession to the LomØ Convention is a matter of negotiation between the applicant country and the other
members of the LomØ Convention. The Community supports Cuba(cid:146)s request to join the LomØ Convention
negotiations as an observer, without prejudice to any future decision on Cuban membership.

As is made clear in the Commission(cid:146)s reply to Mr Gilman, the Commission is opposed both in law and in
principle to the imposition of secondary boycotts and legislation with extraterritorial effect and retro-
activity. The understandings do not alter the Commission(cid:146)s conviction that the Helms-Burton Act is
contrary to international law and World trade organisation rules. This remains the Commission(cid:146)s position.

(2000/C 219 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1754/99

by Klaus-Heiner Lehne (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 October 1999)

Subject: Costs of employing Mr Hombach and his staff

On 10 June 1999 EU foreign ministers appointed Mr Bodo Hombach Coordinator of the Stability Pact for
South-Eastern Europe.

Can the Commission answer the following questions:

1. Which persons are on Mr Hombach(cid:146)s staff, and by which Member States have they been sent?

2. What are the staffing costs for employing Mr Hombach and his staff?

3. What proportion of the costs of employing Mr Hombach and his team comes from the EU budget?

4. What contribution does each Member State have to make towards the staffing costs?

5. Has the Federal Republic of Germany promised the other Member States that it will provide the

majority of staff and bear the main share of staffing costs?

6. Have individual Member States indicated that they will not contribute to staffing costs?

7. How are staffing costs to be financed in the next few years?