WRITTEN QUESTION P-1024/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Competence of the European Court of Justice in competition proceedings in applicant countries.
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, accession to the European Union, associated country, competence of the institution

C 53 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.2.2001

What plans does the Commission have to improve the capacity of, for example, the WTO to enable it to
support those governments that lack the necessary technical expertise and require support in order to
improve their negotiating capacity?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 May 2000)

The issue of access to medicine is indeed complex and covers a wide variety of aspects, such as
development, health care, funding, transfer of technology, production capacity, and education. Intellectual
property rights, and in particular the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights
(TRIPs) continue to be given a prominent place in this debate.

The Commission considers that the issue of access to medicine has evolved towards a much wider issue of
access to health. This problem can only be considered as a general health problem and not as a pure
intellectual property rights issue. The key is probably the lack of purchasing power in developing
countries.

The Community recognises the need to address the issue of access to medicine in a broad context and to
promote a broader dialogue aimed at enhanced action which will have direct impact on the availability
and access to essential medication for developing countries. It is also important that both the research and
development (R&D) based pharmaceutical industry and generic producers are involved in finding solutions.

The Commission believes that in order to develop access to medicinal drugs for developing countries a
global strategy should be considered including innovative financing mechanisms for drugs, more invest-
ment for R&D for diseases most affecting developing countries, and technical assistance to attain full
benefit of the TRIPs provisions.

(2001/C 53 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1024/00

by Paul R(cid:252)big (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Competence of the European Court of Justice in competition proceedings in applicant countries

One of the purposes of the pre-accession strategy is to prepare the EU(cid:146)s applicant countries to deal with
the rules and procedures of the single market, and particularly to ensure that the national authorities are
familiar with the (cid:145)acquis communautaire(cid:146).

Under the principles of administrative procedures a Union citizen or business can appeal to the European
Court of Justice when the powers of the European Union are affected (cid:129) as in the case of merger controls.

In the Commission(cid:146)s view, can the Court also be invoked in proceedings in applicant countries, for
instance on the basis of association treaties or other agreements?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the EC Treaty clearly provides that the courts of the Member States
alone may request the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on questions concerning the validity and
interpretation of Community law. This means that a court of a third country, even if that country has
applied for accession, may not ask the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

20.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 53 E/59

However, there is nothing to prevent a court of an applicant country from being guided by decisions given
by the Court in a specific area, where an Association Agreement concluded between the Community and a
third country contains a provision referring to Community law. For example Article 63(2) of the Europe
Agreement establishing an association with Poland states: (cid:145)Any practices contrary to this Article shall be
assessed on the basis of criteria arising from the application of the rules of Articles [81, 82 and 88] of the
Treaty establishing the European Community(cid:146).

All this reference means is that the concepts of agreements restricting competition, abuse of a dominant
position or state aid must be understood in accordance with Articles 81, 82 and 88 (formerly Articles 85,
86 and 93) of the EC Treaty. The reference to the Articles of the EC Treaty does not have the effect of
giving the Court jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on disputes originating in countries which have
applied for accession. The national courts of the applicant countries remain the only ones with jurisdiction
to settle in those countries disputes relating to the application of the Association Agreements.

The Court could acquire jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on a question of interpretation of the
Association Agreement at the request of a court of a country which has applied for accession if the
Agreement itself contained a clause giving it such jurisdiction. However, no Association Agreement with
an applicant country has yet contained such a jurisdiction clause.

In general, a dispute relating to the application of an Association Agreement between the Community and
a third country may be referred to the Association Council if the Agreement itself provides for such a
procedure, as in the case of the Europe Agreements, and in particular the Association Agreement with
Poland: Article 105 thereof provides that either Party may refer any dispute relating to the application of
the Agreement to the Association Council, which may settle the dispute by means of a decision. If it is not
possible to settle the dispute in this way, either Party may notify the other of the appointment of an
arbitrator.

Lastly, the Commission wishes to point out that nationals of third countries, including those which have
applied for accession, may institute proceedings before the Court of First Instance against the Community
institutions if the conditions for admissibility of such proceedings are satisfied. The means of instituting
direct proceedings under Articles 230, 232 and 235 of the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 173, 175 and 178)
do not require the plaintiff, if he is a natural or legal person, to be a national of a Member State.

(2001/C 53 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1029/00

by Fernando FernÆndez Mart(cid:237)n (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2000)

Subject: Banana dispute

Various sources have indicated in recent weeks that there may have been a rapprochement between the
respective positions of the European Commission and the United States Government with a view to
resolving the banana dispute.

Agreement would seem to hinge on a proposal regarding the allocation of the quota by the Commission,
which would allocate 80 % of the A and B quotas to what are known as primary operators, i.e. those
operating prior to 1993 (for the most part those which introduced dollar bananas before this date, in other
words mainly American multinationals). The remaining 20 % all would be divided up between other (new)
operators.

According to various sources, one of the main elements of the proposed agreement submitted to the
United States could be an automatic switch to a tariff system at the end of a transitional period.

What is the current state of these negotiations, particularly as regards the allocation of quotas and the
length of the transitional period?

Is the Commission aware that an automatic switch to a tariff-only system could lead to the end of
Community banana production?