WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/00 by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Crisis in the European shipbuilding industry.
Date: 2000-07-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Korea, common commercial policy, control of State aid, shipbuilding

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/207

(2001/C 89 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2546/00

by Laura GonzÆlez `lvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Crisis in the European shipbuilding industry

(28 July 2000)

What specific and detailed measures has the Commission adopted, or will it adopt, to implement the
conclusions reached by the Council of the European Union at its meeting of 18 May 2000 in order to:

(cid:129) bring pressure to bear on the Republic of Korea fully to apply the agreements adopted and undertake

to improve the market situation, particularly as regards price levels and shipbuilding capacity;

(cid:129) call immediately for consultations on the matter with the Korean Government so as to introduce

monitoring of the principles laid down in the agreements;

(cid:129) gather further evidence on any damaging price-fixing and other conduct

in breach of market

mechanisms;

(cid:129) keep the IMF and World Bank informed of its findings and call for strict monitoring of the conditions

under which aid is granted to the Republic of Korea;

(cid:129) continue its efforts within the appropriate international organisations to standardise the rules

applicable to the shipbuilding sector?

Do the agreements reached by the Commission and the Korean Government offer sufficient legal basis to
ensure that the Republic of Korea will correct its policy? What trade policy instruments could be used to
bring additional pressure to bear on the Republic of Korea?

Is the Commission willing formally to propose an extension of state aid to shipbuilding beyond
31 December 2000, if the Korean Government fails to rectify the situation?

What steps has the Commission taken, or will
shipbuilding industry in order to help ensure its survival?

it take, to encourage the integration of the European

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(28 September 2000)

On signing the Agreed Minutes on 22 June, the Commission officially requested ad hoc consultations with
Korea, which it finally accepted.

The consultations, held in Seoul on 18/19 July, took place in an open, constructive atmosphere. The
outcome of the first round can be considered as fairly positive.

The Commission is currently analysing a considerable amount of legal, economic and financial information
and documentation provided by Korea as part of the transparency exercise.

Two further important results were also achieved:

(cid:129) agreement

in principle to conduct a survey in the shipyards on the basis of an antidumping
questionnaire to check that the prices of contracts offered by Korean shipyards are in line with
(cid:145)normal(cid:146) prices under the GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade) Anti-dumping Agreement;

(cid:129) agreement to hold a second round of consultations in September to examine the overall functioning
of the Agreement, and, more importantly, to concentrate on finding effective solutions in order to
resolve the bilateral dispute. To this end, the announcement by the shipyards of a 5 % to 10 % price
increase for certain ships and the price monitoring mechanism set up by the Korean authorities can be
considered as early encouraging signs.

C 89 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

The Commission has also written to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) informing it of the problems
posed by Korea(cid:146)s practices in this area and drawing its attention to the monitoring such practices require.

Although the Agreed Minutes do not contain any binding provisions for sanctions, they still constitute an
international agreement binding both parties legally. Korea has repeatedly expressed its intention to apply
all the Agreement(cid:146)s provisions in full. The second consultation meeting in September will show whether
Korea(cid:146)s goodwill gestures at the first meeting will be transformed into practical solutions. In any case the
Commission will remain vigilant regarding the implementation of Korea(cid:146)s commitments. Korea is perfectly
aware that if the results of the consultations do not fulfil the Community(cid:146)s expectations, the European
industry will probably lodge a complaint under the Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) (1). This procedure
could, if necessary, lead to World Trade Organisation (WTO) action to penalise the Korean use of subsidies
and dumping, and to remedy the situation.

The Commission does not plan to extend aid for contracts. However, Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98
of 29 June 1998 establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding (2) covers aid for modernisation, allowing
support for the European industry(cid:146)s efforts to adapt to world competition.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) 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,
(OJ L 349,
31.12.1994).

in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)

(2) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2001/C 89 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2567/00

by Imelda Read (PSE) to the Commission

(1 August 2000)

Subject: Experimental use and testing for generic medicines prior to patent-expiry

On 16 April 1996 the European Parliament passed a resolution on the (cid:145)Industrial policy for the
pharmaceutical sector(cid:146) (A4-0104/96 (1)) asking the European Commission and Member States to introduce
legislation that would enable generic medicines to be tested and registered in preparation for the expiry of
the original product(cid:146)s market monopoly (so-called (cid:145)bolar(cid:146) provisions).

Since that date the European Commission has commissioned a study on (cid:145)Policy relating to generic
medicines in the OECD(cid:146) (20/12/1998) that showed that without such provisions the EU active ingredient
industry alone will lose 13 000 jobs.

At the TABD in November 1997 the Commission acknowledged that the EU generic industry was at a
competitive disadvantage to the manufacturers outside the EU who benefit from such provisions. In its
Communication on the Single Market in Pharmaceuticals (COM(98) 588) the Commission indicated that
the licensing process should operate speedily to ensure that consumers have access to low-priced generic
medicines as soon as possible after the patent protection of the originator product expires.

The call for such provisions was also made at the TACD meeting in February in Washington.

Most recently a WTO Panel Ruling in EU v. Canada (WT/DS114/R) of 17 March 2000 clarified that these
Bolar provisions are compatible with TRIPS and are therefore in line with the EU(cid:146)s international obligations
with respect to intellectual property protection.

In view of these developments could the Commission explain what is being done to introduce such
provisions into EU law?

(1) OJ C 141, 13.5.1996, p. 63.