WRITTEN QUESTION E-2782/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Anti-dumping measures against non-Community steel products.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, economic survey, import (EU), iron and steel industry, iron and steel product, operation of the Institutions, plate, third country

C 330 E/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

Does the Commission not consider that the indirect effect of measures of this kind may be to destroy the
Neapolitan tradition and inventiveness that has made the region(cid:146)s pizza the best known and most highly
appreciated in the world, and that there will be repercussions in terms of employment given that at this
point pizzas and breads produced by hand in the traditional way are at risk of disappearing from the
market?

Lastly, does the Commission not consider that it should present new legislation which, rather than
penalising, would secure the legality and protect the specific characteristics of traditional quality products
from all the Member States of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2000)

The Commission is aware of the reports in the Italian press and other Italian media about an alleged
European hygiene directive which could lead to a ban on traditional Italian wood fired pizza ovens. The
Commission can confirm that these reports are completely inaccurate and in fact there are no existing or
proposed hygiene requirements relating to wood burning pizza ovens.

The European hygiene legislation covering the cooking of traditional pizzas is Council Directive 93/43/EEC
of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1). However there are no provisions in this Directive that
would require wood burning pizza ovens to be banned. In fact, neither ovens, nor any other specific food
preparation equipment are mentioned. The Directive covers many different types of food businesses using
a wide range of preparation and cooking equipment and therefore it establishes very broad principles for
food hygiene. It requires food equipment that comes into direct contact with food to be in good order,
repair and condition so as to minimise the risk of contamination to food. Equipment must be cleaned, and
where necessary disinfected, and the area surrounding should be cleanable.

The Commission is currently considering a proposal for a recast and consolidation into a single text of all
14 food hygiene directives, including Directive 93/43/EEC. This exercise does not include any changes to
the current
focus on
legislation covering the preparation and cooking of pizzas. The measure will
addressing risks to health from foodstuffs, their production and preparation at all stages from the farm
to the consumer.

Where specific unacceptable risks to health are identified, linked to the production, preparation or cooking
of any foodstuffs and these can best be addressed by measures at the European level, the Commission will
continue to seek the most effective course of action necessary so as to protect consumer health.

(1) OJ L 175, 19.7.1993.

(2000/C 330 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2782/99

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Anti-dumping measures against non-Community steel products

Before his resignation, Commissioner Leon Brittan strangely did not take the decision required of him to
impose temporary anti-dumping tariffs on imports of hot rolled coil from Bulgaria, India, Iran, South
Africa, Taiwan and Yugoslavia despite the fact that the Commission had found that they were damaging
the European steel industry, but referred the final decision to the new Commission to be taken six months

21.11.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 330 E/51

later. The increase in imports from these countries gave rise to surplus stocks which were constantly sold
off to the extent that European steel producers(cid:146) earnings fell from 17-18 % in early 1998 to (cid:141)3 % by the
end of the year and to (cid:141)10 % during the early months of 1999.

Examining 1998 as a whole, the Commissioner drew the conclusion that the damage sustained by the end
of the year was slight. Article 6(1) of Decision ECSC 2277/96 (1) states, however, that (cid:145)for the purpose of a
representative finding, an investigation period shall be selected which,
in the case of dumping shall,
normally, cover a period of not less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of the proceeding.(cid:146)
If this Decision is observed in spirit and to the letter, the conclusion to be drawn is that the damage to the
European steel industry was enormous. (European steel producers(cid:146) earnings fell from 17-18 % in 1998 to
(cid:141)10 % in the early months of 1999). Anti-dumping measures should,
therefore, have been taken
immediately as the rules provide that such measures may be imposed no later than nine months after
the initiation of the investigation.

Will the Commission, therefore, say:

1. on what grounds this tactic was pursued,

2. whether the provisions of Article 6 of Decision 2277/96 on protection against dumped imports from

countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community were complied with, and

3. whether it will take definitive anti-dumping measures within the prescribed period of six months

commencing from 8 October 1999?

(1) OJ L 308, 29.11.1996, p. 11.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission would like to point out that in addition to the anti-dumping proceeding concerning
imports of certain flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Bulgaria, India, Iran, the
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, South Africa and Taiwan to which the Honourable Member refers, a
parallel anti-subsidy investigation with regard to India, South Africa and Taiwan was also initiated.

In the framework of these proceedings, the Commission, based on the information available in September
1999, provisionally concluded that the results of the analysis were mixed and there would need to be
further evidence of material injury before any action could be taken. In these circumstances, an affirmative
determination of injury could not be made at that time, namely within the deadline for the imposition of
provisional measures. Consequently it was decided to pursue the investigation and to collect further
information.

The mixed picture that emerged in September 1999 was that on the one hand prices and profits (on an
annual basis) in the period 1997 to 1998 increased, whereas on the other, imports had surged and other
factors related to the Commmunity industry(cid:146)s economic situation had deteriorated.

Article 6(1) and 11(1) of the basic decisions (anti-dumping and anti-subsidy respectively) exclude the
possibility to change the length of the investigation period (IP) after the initiation of an investigation. The
one-year period (1998) selected by the complaining industry as the IP in its complaint was well known by
all interested parties in the above proceedings. This was never the subject of dispute. In these cases, any
change in the length of the IP would have suggested a manipulation which would be contrary to
proceedings being carried out in an objective manner. Nevertheless, after the deadline for the imposition
of provisional measures, the Commission continued and completed its investigation and analysed the
additional information received.

This supplementary analysis was carried out in particular on a quarterly basis, per main product categories
and per type of sales contract. As a result it was found that the economic situation of the industry

C 330 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.11.2000

deteriorated seriously during the investigation period. Indeed, it was found that profitability, sales volume,
sales prices, production, etc, during the second half of the investigation period developed so negatively that
it had to be qualified as material injury. In addition, it was found that this bad situation persisted in 1999.

information also provided concrete explanations as to why there has been a time-lag
The additional
between the surge in dumped and subsidised imports and the beginning of the deterioration of the
economic situation of the Community industry during the IP. The Commission concluded that no other
factors other than dumped and subsidised imports were the cause of the injury.

The evaluation of all the interests involved on the Community market, the so called Community interest
test, showed that no compelling reasons existed against the imposition of measures.

On this basis the Commission decided to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing measures in
the framework of the above proceedings (1).

(1) Commission Decision No 283/2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-Dumping) Commission Decision No 284/

2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-subsidies) (OJ L 31, 5.2.2000).

(2000/C 330 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/99

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement

Farmers in the province of Malaga (Spain), one of the main centres for avocado production in the
Community, have expressed their concern at the possible consequences of the recent signing of the trade
agreement between the EU and Mexico.

At present the EU import duty on Mexican avocados is 4 % from January to May, 7,5 % from June
to November and 5 % in December. Under the free trade agreement these duties will disappear, causing
serious damage to the EU avocado sector.

How will the Commission protect the interests of Spanish avocado producers in the face of Mexican
imports of this product, given the serious consequences they will suffer as a result of the liberalisation
brought about by the entry into force of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2000)

Under the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, avocados from that country will indeed benefit from a
gradual, linear reduction in ad valorem customs duties on imports into the Community from July 2000
and from the complete abolition of such duties from 2008. This reduction will be applied to basic duties
of between 2,7 % and 5,1 % (depending on the months involved). In addition, a 20 000 tonne duty-free
quota will apply to Mexican imports during the period from 1 June until 30 September, which is outside
the traditional Community production period (October to May).

Community production will, therefore, have a substantial period of time to adapt to the dismantling of
duties on Community imports of Mexican avocados. Furthermore, since the ad valorem duties currently in
force are already low (between 4 % and 5,6 %, depending on the months involved), it seems unlikely that
the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico could have a detrimental effect on
Community avocado production, which is characterised by a very high degree of competitiveness.