WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council. Intended response to the revision of the FSC and successor provisions.
Date: 2000-10-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United States, World Trade Organisation, firm governed by commercial law, foreign enterprise, international trade law

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/35

Local/regional centres are set up within existing bodies. For example, there are 128 Info-Points Europe
which are located in the Member States(cid:146) main cities and 130 Rural Information and Promotion Carrefours
which are located in rural areas or regions. The Commission awards these centres an agreed fixed annual
subsidy covering, on average, 20 to 25 % of their budget.

Finally, there are the large networks (cid:129) the International Federation of Europe Houses (IFEH) and the
European Movement. The IFEH receives subsidies for Europe-wide information seminars and other
activities organised in conjunction with the Europe Houses that are members of the network. The
European Movement organises many information and promotional activities on Union policies via the
national sections in several Member States. Since 1997 all the various actions are covered by an annual
programme which is decided, as in the case of the IFEH, following consultation of the Commission(cid:146)s
representations in the Member States concerned.

The information relays at local, regional,

inter-regional and national level are obliged, under the
2.
terms of the agreement, to submit a detailed activity report to the Commission every year. Annual renewal
of the subsidy is dependent on a positive assessment of this report.

A detailed report is required for each action by the external information networks for which funds are
provided.

A monitoring system has recently been developed for the continuous and transparent checking and
evaluation of the relays(cid:146) activities.

3.
Figures relating to the implementation of Article B3-301 are included annually in the accounts for
the preceding financial year. The Commission does not draw up a specific report on the use of
appropriations under this article.

4. and 5.
The information relays are accommodated within the host structures to which they belong,
and these structures are independent of the Commission. The Commission is not responsible for the
information they provide, nor is it responsible for managing them, with the exception of the large centres
set up in capital cities (Paris and Lisbon). Article 11 of the agreement which the Commission signs with
the host bodies specifies that the contracting parties shall act on their own behalf and assume full
responsibility for the information they provide to the public. The information process is fully decentralised
in line with the principle of subsidiarity.

(2001/C 163 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Council

(16 October 2000)

Subject: Intended response to the revision of the FSC and successor provisions

The US rules on foreign sales corporations are due to be reviewed by Congress very soon. Under these
provisions, the proceeds of sales transacted abroad are exempt from tax. According to the US Deputy
Secretary of the Treasury, Stuart Eizenstat, the WTO dispute settlement body has established that it is
entirely up to Members to decide whether or not to tax such earnings.

The Council:

1. Does it agree with the Member of the Commission responsible, Pascal Lamy, that the proposed

provisions are incompatible with WTO rules?

2.

If so, what form of measures to protect EU trade does the Council envisage taking?

3. What goods and/or enterprises would be affected by these measures?

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,