WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/00 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage.
Date: 2000-03-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South West (England), United Kingdom, agricultural guidance, eligibility criteria, utilised agricultural area

C 46 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

The WTO dispute rather relates to the treatment of American trademarks which were abandoned by their
previous Cuban owners and which can be registered, renewed and enforced in the United States by the
new owner only under certain conditions. These conditions are contained in Section 211 which was
adopted by the United States almost 40 years after the Cuban revolution. Section 211 does not contain or
reinforce the principle, cited by the Honourable Member, of non-recognition of foreign expropriations.

After a detailed analysis of Section 211, the Commission came to the conclusion that Section 211 violates
certain provisions of the WTO TRIPs Agreement, notably its national treatment provisions, the trademark
provisions and the enforcement provisions. This analysis was shared by all Member States.

Concerning the discriminatory effects of Section 211, the Commission would reiterate that the WTO
dispute does not concern the question of uncompensated expropriations of trademarks. The conditions for
trademark registration and enforcement contained in Section 211, in the view of the Community and its
Member States, violate the TRIPs Agreement, notably in so far as Section 211 affects only so-called
(cid:145)designated nationals(cid:146), including Cubans and Cuban companies. The United States did not demonstrate
during the WTO consultations held in September 1999 and December 1999 that similar conditions are
placed upon nationals from the United States or third countries other than Cuba.

In the WTO dispute, the main aim of the Commission remains the proper implementation and application
by the United States of the WTO TRIPs Agreement bearing in mind that Section 211 can potentially affect
all European companies dealing with Cuba. It should be in the interest of the Community and its Member
States to ensure that the provisions of the WTO TRIPs Agreement are respected by all WTO Members.

The Community and its Member States raised the incompatibility of Section 211 with the WTO TRIPs
Agreement with the United States on various occasions, including at the past three EU-US summits and in
the WTO TRIPs Council in order to find an amicable solution to the matter. However, the American
administration constantly refused to engage into any substantive discussion. The Community and its
Member States requested consultations under the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding in July 1999.
Two rounds of consultations were held in September 1999 and December 1999, but the United States
maintain the view that Section 211 is compatible with the American international obligations.

Having evaluated the outcome of the WTO consultations and the economic and political interests involved,
the Commission came to the conclusion that the only course available to the Community and its Member
States to ensure the proper application of the WTO TRIPs Agreement by the United States in this instance
is the request for a WTO Panel.

Finally, with reference to the alleged impact on the Commission decision making procedure of the
expression by a European company of its interests in the dispute, the Commission would like to reiterate
that it remained concerned about the proper implementation and application by the United States of the
WTO TRIPs Agreement. Although Section 211 has, so far, only been applied once, it has the potential to
affect all European companies dealing with Cuba. The Commission assures the Honourable Member that it
continues to resist all attempts by any interested party to manipulate its position.

(2001/C 46 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0829/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Field margin regulations leading to environmental damage

More than 50 % of the field margins in my constituency (the South West of England) are over two metres.
The Commission and the Court of Auditors have recently instructed MAFF to reduce the amount of

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/53

subsidies given to farmers whose field margins are over two metres. If farmers in the south-west do not
wish to lose an average of £ 969 per year, they will have to plough right up to, and possibly cut back,
their hedges. This will damage wildlife and remove land vital for preventing soil erosion on steep fields. It
will run counter to the environmental goals adopted by the EU.

The UK has asked the Commission to increase the (cid:145)set-aside(cid:146) margin to three metres for the UK. In the
interests of promoting environmental conservation, will the Commission agree to rethink its approach, at
least in the case of farmers who have traditionally maintained wide field margins?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

The situation to which the Honourable Member refers is not new. The recommendations concerning the
maximum width of field borders have existed since 1994 and have since been applied throughout the
Community.

The Commission is of the opinion that the question of whether and to what extent areas planted with
hedgerows can be considered as part of agricultural parcels eligible for arable areas support, needs to be
clarified by means of a regulation. Obviously, such an amendment to Community legislation will not enter
into force sufficiently early to apply to support for the 2000 harvest. Therefore,
for this year, the
Commission has suggested to the authorities of United Kingdom, that the practice concerning the rules
on area measurement employed in previous years be maintained, as laid down in paragraph 2 of the
Commission Working Document VI/8388/94 a copy of which is sent direct to the Honourable Member
and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat.

(2001/C 46 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0830/00

by Maria Berger (PSE) to the Commission

(10 March 2000)

Subject: Interception of international telecommunications

the hearing on (cid:145)Data protection in the European Union(cid:146) held at

At
the European Parliament on
22/23 February 2000, Duncan Campbell, the STOA representative, reported on the status quo of the
Echelon international electronic eavesdropping system, revealing that information of economic importance
was being intercepted by Echelon in Europe and that this harmed the European economy.

John Mogg, Director-General at the European Commission, and Martin Bangemann, Member of the
European Commission, denied this, maintaining that Echelon was only (cid:145)press rumours(cid:146), but their claims
were clearly refuted by the statements of high officials such as Martin Brady, Director of the Australian
Secret Service(cid:146)s Defence Signal Directorate.

There is a great deal of evidence that the Council and the Commission were very well aware of this
eavesdropping system but took no action and deliberately did not inform the European Parliament.

Regardless of all this, the Council and Commission went so far as to change the European legislation to
make it more favourable to the USA by following the main lines of an American statute passed in 1994
(CALEA) and taking into account that country(cid:146)s wishes in the Council Resolution of 17 January 1995 (1) on
the lawful interception of telecommunications.