WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/99 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Aid to the European ship-building industry.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU industrial policy, Italy, common commercial policy, control of State aid, dumping, shipbuilding, third country

C 280 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

Information will be disseminated regularly through a magazine for the fishing industry and other interested
groups, which is to be published in the eleven official Community languages for distribution free of
charge. The information will be available also, with links to fuller details, on the CFP website on the
Europa server, which is currently undergoing expansion.

(2000/C 280 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2795/99

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Aid to the European ship-building industry

In the European Parliament(cid:146)s recent plenary debate on 19 November 1999 concerning the Commission(cid:146)s
statement on the ship-building industry, Members took the opportunity to denounce the dumping
practised by countries such as Korea, who hamper fair competition in the shipbuilding sector worldwide,
and to point out that aid must be maintained in Europe until world markets are stabilised.

According to certain reports,
the Commission authorised State aids for ship-building in Italy on
16 November, more precisely for the creation of two new shipyards, one in Oristano (Sardinia) and the
other in Belvedere Mar(cid:237)ttimo (Calabria).

1.
Can the Commission say whether this authorisation of European State aids is part of its global
strategy to continue subsidising this important industry, which has such a great impact on social and
regional issues in similar cases in other Member States?

2.
Following the conclusions of the Council of Industry Ministers of 9 November, has the Commission
devised any short-term global strategy for this very important sector and, if so, can it state what the
contents of the strategy are?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2000)

It should first be explained that the first of the two Italian cases to which the Honourable Member refers,
relating to investment aid for the new shipyard at Oristano, was approved by the Commission under
Article 6 of Council Directive 90/684/EEC of 21 December 1990, on aid to shipbuilding (1), which allowed
investment aid for new capacity provided that this is offset by a corresponding irreversible reduction of
capacity at other yards in the same Member State over the same period. In the Oristano case this capacity
reduction was provided through the closure of the Clemna yard. In the second Italian case, involving the
Belvedere yard, the Commission concluded that this new yard(cid:146)s activities involving the construction of
vessels of less than 100 gross registered ton (GRT) would not constitute shipbuilding as defined under the
directive.

Council Directive 90/684/EEC has now been superseded by Council Regulation 1540/98 of 29 June 1998
establishing new rules on aid for shipbuilding (2), which came into force on 1 January 1999. Under this
Regulation, contract-related operating aid will be abolished at the end of the year 2000. However the
Regulation also provides for a range of other aids that may be granted to shipbuilding subject to certain
conditions up until 2003, including closure and restructuring aids, aids for research and development, aids
for innovation, and regional investment aids for upgrading or modernising existing yards. In adopting this
approach, the Council took the view that these aids would be more cost-effective in helping Community
yards to improve their competitiveness than continued operating aid.

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/133

In accordance with Article 12 of the Regulation, the Commission is keeping the market situation under
regular review and will,
if appropriate, propose measures to address the situation if it is found that
Community yards are suffering injury from unfair competition practices. The Commission(cid:146)s report to the
9 November 1999 Industry Council was the first such report.

The Commission considers that the various actions decided by the Council represent a balanced package of
measures to tackle the problem of unfair competition. These are now being pursued and the Commission
has now engaged Korea in bilateral dialogue with a view to halting injurious practices. At this stage there
are no plans for other measures.

The Commission will continue to keep the market situation under review and evaluate all the information
and evidence collected pursuant to the Council conclusions. It will submit its findings to the Council and
to the Parliament as soon as necessary.

(1) OJ L 380, 31.12.1990.
(2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2000/C 280 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2799/99

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(7 January 2000)

Subject: Treatment of Leonard Peltier

On Thursday, 11 February 1999 former EU Commissioner Brittan stated that (cid:145)the Commission, through its
delegation in Washington, is looking into the circumstances of the medical condition of Mr Peltier and will
do its utmost to support the actions of the European Parliament in this regard. We will carefully follow up
this case (cid:133)(cid:146)

Parliament subsequently adopted a resolution on the treatment of Mr Leonard Peltier (B4-0169/1999 (1)),
in which it called for presidential executive clemency, appropriate medical treatment and an investigation
into the judicial improprieties involved in Mr Peltier(cid:146)s conviction.

Has the Commission(cid:146)s office in Washington obtained information on Mr Peltier(cid:146)s medical condition,

1.
as promised on 11 February 1999 by former Commissioner Brittan?

(a)

(b)

If so, following the inquiries made by its office in Washington, what are the Commission(cid:146)s conclusions
concerning Mr Peltier?

If not, why did the Washington office not make inquiries about Mr Peltier(cid:146)s condition, as promised by
former Commissioner Brittan?

On the basis of the information obtained from its Washington office, does the Commission feel that

2.
Mr Peltier should be moved to a hospital?

(a)

(b)

If so, has the Commission asked the American authorities to move Mr Peltier to a hospital? If not, why
not?

If not, how does the Commission put across Parliament(cid:146)s position, as contained in its resolution of
11 February 1999, to the American Congress, the President of the United States and the State
Department? What were the responses to the requests for (a) the granting of presidential executive
clemency, (b) appropriate medical treatment and (c) an investigation into the judicial improprieties
involved in Mr Peltier(cid:146)s conviction?

3.
In what way, and when, did the Commission put across Parliament(cid:146)s position, as contained in its
resolution of 11 February 1999, to the American Congress, the President of the United States and the State
Department? What were the responses to the requests for (a) the granting of presidential executive
clemency,
improprieties
(b) appropriate medical
involved in Mr Peltier(cid:146)s conviction?

treatment and (c) an investigation into the judicial

(1) OJ C 150, 28.5.1999, p. 384.