WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/00 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. Less Developed Countries in the WTO.
Date: 2000-03-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, generalised preferences

C 374 E/150

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

To clarify this matter I should be grateful for answers to the following questions:

1. Were chemicals enterprises in Belgium involved in manufacturing of the defoliant Agent Orange,
which was subsequently used by the American army as a chemical weapon in Vietnam, as the Belgian
Deputy Minister has said?

2. Were chemicals enterprises in other EC Member States involved in manufacturing the defoliant Agent
Orange, which was subsequently used by the American army as a chemical weapon in Vietnam?

Reply

(25 May 2000)

The issue, to which the Honourable Member refers in his question, has never been raised within the
Council.

The Honourable Member will recall that the TEU, setting up the common foreign and security policy, has
been concluded and has entered into force much later than the events referred to in his question.

(2000/C 374 E/177)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0772/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Lesser Developed Countries in the WTO

The Commission has recently announced a package of trade concessions to the Lesser Developed Countries
in the WTO. This package consists of a tariff-free access to (cid:145)essentially all(cid:146) products from LDCs.

Could the Commission specify exactly which products are not covered by these concessions.

(2000/C 374 E/178)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0778/00

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Less Developed Countries in the WTO

The Commission has recently announced a package of trade concessions to the Less Developed Countries
in the WTO. This package consists of tariff-free access to (cid:145)essentially all(cid:146) products from LDCs.

In a separate question I have asked the Commission to specify exactly which products are not covered by
these concessions.

Could the Commission also specify the value of trade in those products not covered by the package, for
both the LDCs in question and the EU (by Member State).

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0772/00 and E-0778/00
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2000)

The Honourable Member refers to the Community initiative granting free access to industrialised countries(cid:146)
markets for essentially all products from the least developed countries (LDCs), and greater access to
developing countries(cid:146) markets. His question follows on from Oral Question H-206/00 made by Mr Howitt
at Parliament(cid:146)s plenary part-session in March (1).

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/151

The mandate given to the Commission in 1997 and confirmed in 1999 covers (cid:145)essentially all(cid:146) products
exported by the LDCs. At present 99 % of LDC exports enter the Community market freely. All non-
agricultural LDC exports have free access to the Community. An initial measure in December 1998
introduced arrangements equivalent to the LomØ Convention for all LDCs (2). The Commission is drawing
up additional proposals which will be put before the Council when they are ready. Only then can a
quantitative evaluation be made.

These proposals will concern additional unilateral concessions for agricultural exports from the LDCs to
the Community market. It should be noted that under the current mandate which covers virtually all or
(cid:145)essentially all(cid:146) agricultural exports the LDCs will have greater quota and tariff free access for agricultural
products.

The few agricultural products which will not be fully liberalised under the Commission proposal to the
Council will be covered by preferential access arrangements.

As the Member of the Commission responsible for trade told Parliament in March, other developed
partners do not provide anything like the same access, although their markets are much more attractive to
LDCs primarily because the rate of penetration of their products on these markets is extremely small.

(1) Debates of the European Parliament (March 2000).
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2820/98 of 21 December 1998, OJ L 357, 30.12.1998.

(2000/C 374 E/179)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0776/00

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(16 March 2000)

Subject: Subsidised filling station prices in the Dutch border region

1.
Is the Commission aware that in the area of the Netherlands bordering Germany there are state
subsidies for a two-stage reduction (between 0 and 10 km and between 10 and 20 km from the border) in
fuel sales prices?

2. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the fact that these subsidies mean that in some cases the fuel sales
prices are below the delivered price of wholesalers on the German side of the border?

3.

Is it true that these subsidies were abolished on 1 March 2000?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1.

The Commission has already taken a decision on the aid referred to by the Honourable Member.

On 3 June 1998 it launched an investigation under Article 88(2) (former Article 93(2)) of the EC Treaty
into the state aid granted by the Netherlands to Dutch filling stations in the region bordering on
Germany (1). It took its decision on 20 July 1999 (2).

The decision stated that the aid provided to 450 filling stations was incompatible with the common
market and must be repaid. Subsidies to 183 smaller filling stations were covered by the (cid:145)de minimis(cid:146) rule
and did not constitute s aid.

For further details, the Commission would refer you to the published texts.

2.
As in the above-mentioned case, the Commission would point out that aid is incompatible with the
common market if it distorts competition and affects trade between Member States. It noted the distortions
of competition referred to by the Honourable Member in its decision and took them into account.