WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/00 by Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) and Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission. ASEM summit and support for NGOs.
Date: 2000-10-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, company constituted under civil law, international meeting, non-governmental organisation

C 163 E/36

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

4. What alternatives to measures to protect EU trade under Article 133 of the TEU would the Council

consider?

5. Does the Council consider that the individual Member States of the European Union have the power

to determine the taxation of earnings for themselves?

If not, how does the Council justify its interpretation of the law?

Reply

(26 February 2001)

Following a procedural agreement with the European Union, the United States on 29 September 2000
asked the WTO(cid:146)s Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) for a one-month extension (until 1 November 2000) of
the deadline for implementation of the appellate body(cid:146)s recommendations on the FSC dispute. The DSB
granted the request.

The Honourable Member will be aware that the United States were not able to approve the new legislation
until 15 November 2000.

Under these circumstances, in keeping with the Understanding on Rules and Procedures governing the
Settlement of Disputes, the European Union filed a request on 17 November 2000 for suspension of
concessions worth USD 4 043 thousand million and an initial list of products which might be subject to
sanctions. The United States then requested that the level of the proposed suspension be referred to
arbitration.

The European Union remains of the opinion that the recent American legislation is not WTO compliant.
Nevertheless, having always held that WTO compliance cannot be assessed unilaterally, the Union also
entered into formal consultations with the United States, following which, on 7 December 2000, it decided
to request establishment of a panel to assess whether the said legislation is in compliance. The arbitration
procedures will be suspended by joint request of the parties, pending the panel(cid:146)s report.

(2001/C 163 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3121/00

by Elmar Brok (PPE-DE), Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE)
and Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: ASEM summit and support for NGOs

Is it true that groups representing civil society are participating in events on the margins of the
1.
ASEM summit in Seoul with the help of funds from the EU budget, and/or are organising such events
partly on the strength of such funding?

2.
Is the Commission aware that groups representing civil society have applied to the South Korean
government for funds for that purpose, and is it true that they have claimed that the Commission knew of,
and supported, their action?

Has the Commission received any indication that funds such as those referred to in my first question

3.
(above) were also provided in connection with the Seattle and Prague conferences?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(9 November 2000)

The People(cid:146)s Forum in the margins of the Asia Europe meeting (ASEM) Summit in Seoul was the
1.
third of
the previous summits in Bangkok and London. The
Commission supports civil society dialogue between Europe and Asia, and feels that events in Bangkok

following similar events at

its kind,

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/37

and particularly in London gave rise to useful, well-prepared and constructive discussions. The Korean
summit hosts together with the host of ASEM IV (Denmark) plus other interested partners had a useful
meeting with meet People(cid:146)s Forum representatives in Seoul in the margins of the summit.

Non governmental organisations (NGOs) organising the People(cid:146)s Forum in Seoul had asked the
2.
Commission for financial support for this event. However, the request was received too late for the
Commission to process it in time for the summit. When requesting financial support from the Commis-
sion, NGOs indicated that they would ask the Korean government for support. The Commission has no
further details as to what support the organisers may ultimately have received.

3.
Concerning the NGO presence at Seattle (WTO) and Prague (IMF) the Commission did not contribute
financially to NGOs. The Community delegation to Seattle included a number of NGO participants but
their costs were borne by these people or their organisations.

(2001/C 163 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3122/00

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 October 2000)

Subject: Leak at Kozloduy and construction of new reactors in Ukraine

A dispatch from the French News Agency dated 6 September 2000 states that a radiation leak was
reported at the Bulgarian nuclear power plant in Kozloduy, and that two workers were contaminated by
radiation. This was also confirmed by the Bulgarian authorities. Although they did not divulge the exact
time of the incident, or the extent of contamination to personnel, the authorities nevertheless admitted that
there were safety defects at the nuclear electricity plant. It is well-known that the Council is urging the
immediate closure of all dangerous and obsolete nuclear plants in the pre-accession and applicant
countries, while the Commission has been pursuing a similar policy, until recently. According to the
Guardian, a reliable British newspaper, it now seems to be abandoning this policy. The Guardian reports
that Commissioner Chris Patten, responsible for the EU(cid:146)s external relations,
is pressing the Ukrainian
authorities to replace the Chernobyl nuclear reactor, due to cease operating at the end of the year, with
two new nuclear reactors, even though Ukraine itself stopped requesting such a move some time ago.

1. What action did the Commission take in response to the radiation leak from Kozloduy, an incident
which endangered the health of Bulgarian citizens and also citizens of neighbouring countries, such as
Greece?

2. Who is monitoring the application of the Sofia Memorandum (1999) on the closure of dangerous
reactors (first generation VVER-440/20-type)
in Kozloduy and how will the Commission ensure that
decommissioning of dangerous reactors is carried out in parallel with the Euratom loan payment of
€ 212,5 million to upgrade reactors 5 and 6 (VVER-1000)?

Does the Commission know whether Bulgaria has drawn up a decommissioning programme for

3.
dangerous reactors, as it is obliged to under the Sofia Memorandum (1999)?

4. What appropriations were granted from the PHARE programme for the support of measures relating
to decommissioning reactors 1 and 2, and how will the Commission intervene with the Bulgarian
authorities if the reports in the Bulgarian press on the upgrading of reactors 3 and 4 prove true, despite
the fact that these reactors are earmarked for definitive decommissioning?

Could the Commission state whether it is really pressing for new nuclear reactors to be built in

5.
Ukraine?