WRITTEN QUESTION P-0977/00 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Situation of the European shipbuilding industry.
Date: 2000-03-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Japan, South Korea, United States, common commercial policy, restriction on competition, shipbuilding, tariff negotiations

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/195

At its meeting on 21 March 2000, taking the view that the projects were not being carried out in
compliance with the above-mentioned Directives, the Commission decided to pursue the case under
Article 226 (ex 169) of the EC Treaty.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.

(2000/C 374 E/229)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0977/00

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Situation of the European shipbuilding industry

(22 March 2000)

During February and March a delegation from the European Commission met with the South Korean
authorities to express once more the grave concern in the European shipbuilding sector regarding the well-
documented unfair practices employed by this country, which have brought the industry to the brink of
destruction.

Will the Commission explain which issues were discussed and why no agreement was reached?

Knowing the desperate situation of the sector, what action does the Commission intend to take next?

Given that this question does not just affect Europe, do the United States and Japan share the European
Union(cid:146)s concerns?

If South Korea maintains its inflexible position, does the Commission, with the support of the European
shipbuilding industry, intend to take up the issue with the World Trade Organisation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Commission shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member in regard to the European
shipbuilding industry.

In line with the Industry Council(cid:146)s conclusions of 9 November 1999, the Commission has initiated a
dialogue with Korea aiming to halt the unfair practices of Korean shipyards. The Commission has had
three bilateral meetings, one in Paris in December 1999, the second in Seoul in February 2000 and the
third in Brussels from 14 to 16 March 2000. The aim of
the discussions was to obtain definite
commitments from Korea with a view to stabilising the world shipbuilding market, which would help to
bring prices up. To achieve this, Korea should undertake not to aid shipyards in difficulty and not to
subsidise the sector either directly or indirectly. It should also make commitments to financial transparency
and compliance with international accountancy standards.

On 29 March 2000 Korea sent (cid:145)agreed minutes(cid:146) accepting the Commission(cid:146)s proposals, with some
exceptions. If an agreement is reached in the near future, the Commission (cid:129) together with the European
industry and the Member States (cid:129) will check very carefully that Korea fulfils its commitments.

However, should Korea not deliver or if there are no tangible results on the market, the European industry
has said that it will file a complaint with the Commission (under the Trade Barriers Regulation, i.e. Council
Regulation No 3286/94 of 22 December 1994 laying down Community procedures in the field of the
common commercial policy in order to ensure the exercise of the Community(cid:146)s rights under international
trade rules, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation) (1) against
Korean subsidy practices. If the complaint provided sufficient evidence the Commission would be prepared

C 374 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

to initiate an investigation. This could end up before the WTO Disputes Settlement Body, thus offering the
Community the prospect of Korea(cid:146)s practices being penalised.

The Commission is prepared to propose using all the trade policy instruments available to find a solution
to the sector(cid:146)s problems, consistent with its international obligations.

The shipbuilding industry in Japan, also affected by aggressive Korean competition, has noted the
possibility of WTO action against Korea. The Japanese authorities have said that they will participate in
any WTO proceedings initiated by the Community. The American industry has written to its authorities to
demand trade action of this kind against Korea.

The Commission is paying particular attention to this issue and to the effects of unfair competition by
Korean shipyards on the Community shipbuilding industry.

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.

(2000/C 374 E/230)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0978/00

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 March 2000)

Subject: T5 forms

Further to my previous question (P-2817/99) (1), will the Commission base its answer on the fact that
responsibility remains with the exporter, whereas, after stamping, the form is in the possession of the
authorities and, therefore, under their sole control.

Will the Commission take steps to ensure that responsibility for returning T5 forms is transferred to the
authorities since they are in possession of the form?

(1) OJ C 225 E, 8.8.2000, p. 209.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The Commission maintains that it is not necessary to transfer responsibility for returning T5 forms to the
competent authorities since it is already legally their responsibility. As far as it is aware the situation
described by the Honourable Member is not usual in one or more Member States.

If in a particular case it is found that the competent authorities have not fulfilled their obligation to return
the original control copy T5, the exporter still has the option, as the Commission pointed out in its
Answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question P-2817/99, to seek confirmation that the goods
comply with their intended use or destination. As a last resort, exporters can exercise their rights,
including through the courts, notably where a Member State may have failed to fulfil its Community
obligations and particularly where they may have suffered injury as a result.

While it is not for the Commission to interfere in individual cases such as these, it will nonetheless remind
Member States of their obligations in this matter with regard to general compliance with Community law.