WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/00 by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Corus steel plants.
Date: 2000-09-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: control of State aid, iron and steel industry, multinational enterprise

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/159

(2001/C 136 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3015/00

by Lord Bethell (PPE-DE), Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE)
and Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Gibraltar(cid:146)s access to telephone networks in Spain

Prior to December 1995 the Spanish telephone operator Telefonica (at that time the only GSM operator
offering a service in Spain) refused to conclude a roaming agreement with GIBTEL, in apparent violation of
competition and single market rules. As a consequence once GIBTEL GSM customers cross into Spain and
move outside the area of coverage of their own base stations, they are not able to use their GIBTEL mobile
phones until they cross into Andorra, France or Portugal, despite the fact that GIBTEL has concluded
roaming agreements with GSM operators in every other EU Member State.

In June of this year it is our understanding that a letter signed by Commissioners Bolkestein, Liikanen and
Monti was sent to the governments of Spain and the United Kingdom instructing them to arrive at a
solution to both the numbering and the roaming complaints by the end of July 2000, the deadline later
being extended to the end of August 2000. This second deadline has now expired with the problem
unresolved.

Spanish territorial claims to Gibraltar notwithstanding, could the Commission indicate whether it believes
that the citizens of Gibraltar are entitled to equal protection under the European treaties as every other
citizen of the European Union, and whether the discriminatory treatment of GIBTEL by Telefonica is legal,
and, if so, what measures the Commission proposes in order to uphold the treaties?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 November 2000)

The question raised by the Honourable Members concerns the inability of Gibtel, the mobile telephone
operator in Gibraltar, to sign a roaming agreement with a telecommunications operator in Spain,
in
particular Telef(cid:243)nica.

The Commission is looking at this question in the broader context of Spain(cid:146)s refusal to recognise
Gibraltar(cid:146)s international prefix, (cid:145)350(cid:146). As the Honourable Members point out, one of the consequences of
this refusal is that Gibtel is unable to sign a roaming agreement with a Spanish operator.

The Commission confirms that letters were sent to the Spanish and United Kingdom authorities in June,
urging them to seek an amicable solution to this dispute as quickly as possible. As the Honourable
Members are aware, Article 299(4) (former Article 227) of the EC Treaty stipulates that the provisions of
the Treaty apply to the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible, and
hence to Gibraltar. Other pieces of primary and secondary legislation have defined the extent to which
Community law applies to Gibraltar.

At this stage the Commission must maintain a reservation pending its examination of the matter. It will
make its conclusions public as soon as possible.

(2001/C 136 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3019/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Corus steel plants

Can the Commission confirm that none of the Corus steel plants are in receipt of unfair Member State
support?

C 136 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2000)

The Community rules on aid to the steel industry oblige the Member States to notify in advance to the
is for the
Commission any plans to grant or to transfer state resources to steel undertakings.
Commission to decide whether such measures constitute state aid and in the affirmative whether the aid
is compatible with the common market.

It

The Commission can confirm that, at present, none of the Member States where the Corus steel plants are
located have notified it of any project to grant state aid to those plants.

(2001/C 136 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3020/00

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2000)

Subject: Anti-dumping duties on ammonium nitrate imports

Is the Commission taking into account the injury that will be imposed on EU farmers and the mandatory
requirements of the CAP spelled out in Article 33 of the Treaty establishing the European Community if it
continues to impose anti-dumping duties on ammonium nitrate imports from Poland and the Ukraine?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

One precondition for the imposition of anti-dumping measures is the Community interest test. Indeed,
according to the provisions laid down in the basic Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (1), the Community
institutions are obliged to assess the economic situation of the economic operators concerned (i.e. the
Community industry, users and consumers). Even if injurious dumping is established, measures shall not be
imposed if there are compelling reasons of the Community interest against such measures, i.e. when the
negative economic effect to be expected would be disproportionate by comparison to probable beneficial
effects. In this context, as in the current proceeding, the possible effects on farmers would thus be
evaluated taking due account of all economic interests involved. In the current proceeding, no findings
have been made which would indicate any contradiction with the spirit of Article 33 (ex Article 39) of the
EC Treaty.

Indeed, after the opening of the current anti-dumping case concerning ammonium nitrate, questionnaires
have been sent, inter alia, to the European farmers(cid:146) organisations. The Commission did not receive any
reply to these. Therefore, the Commission provisionally concluded there were no compelling reasons of
Community interest not to impose provisional measures. On the basis of the best information available,
the Commission reached the provisional conclusion that fertilisers appear to represent a small part of total
production costs of farmers so that the possible negative effects on farmers through increased ammonium
nitrate prices are unlikely to offset the positive effect of measures against injurious dumping.

After the imposition of provisional measures the National Farmers Union (NFU) of England and Wales
made itself known and expressed its views on the case. The NFU attended a special hearing organised by
the Commission and subsequently submitted data on the importance of fertilisers in the production cost of
farmers. The Commission is currently analysing this submission.

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)s Secretariat a detailed
explanatory note on the technicalities of the anti-dumping procedures.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 384/96 of 22 December 1995 on protection against dumped imports from countries
not members of the European Community (OJ L 56, 6.3.1996), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 905/98 of
27 April 1998 (OJ L 128, 30.4.1998).