WRITTEN QUESTION P-3315/00 by José García-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Mandarins ‐ satsuma and segmented in general.
Date: 2000-10-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community of Valencia, European Commission, United States, World Trade Organisation, citrus fruit, customs duties, export, import restriction, settlement of disputes

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/83

(2001/C 163 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3298/00

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco sponsorship of Formula One

In view of the payment of GBP 1 million to the British Labour Party prior to the last UK general election
by Mr Bernard Ecclestone,
the organiser of Formula One racing which is sponsored by tobacco
manufacturers, and in view of allegations that tobacco interests may have made similar donations to the
CDU in Germany, will the Council initiate an inquiry into the influence on political decision-taking across
the European Union of tobacco manufacturers seeking to support the continued promotion of tobacco
products?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Council is fully conscious of the great importance of, and public interest in, the issue of tobacco
promotion. We note, however, that your examples relate to the funding of national political parties. We
are obliged to emphasise that the funding of national political parties is strictly a matter for the Member
States. The Council has no competence in this area.

(2001/C 163 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3304/00

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Remuneration of the experts assessing the situation in Austria

A group of three experts was set up by one of the EU institutions to assess the possibility of lifting the
sanctions against Austria. The group reported that it would indeed be possible to lift the sanctions. Which
institution remunerated the experts, and how much did they receive?

Reply

(12 February 2001)

The Council was not involved in setting up this group nor in its functioning; it has never taken a position
on the matter raised by the Honourable Member nor committed any appropriations allocated to it in the
Community budget for the expenditure in question.

(2001/C 163 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3315/00

by JosØ Garc(cid:237)a-Margallo y Marfil (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Mandarins (cid:129) satsuma and segmented in general

(18 October 2000)

The Valencia region produces 90 % of Spain(cid:146)s satsuma mandarins, a fruit which only Spain produces in
the EU.

C 163 E/84

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

In view of the EU(cid:146)s refusal to market US hormone-treated meat, the US has decided to penalise certain EU
products. The US Trade Secretary has proposed that the total value of the products affected should be
USD 380 million; the WTO has limited this total to USD 118 million.

This blacklist includes mandarins (satsuma and segmented in general), exports of which account for
USD 24 million, or 20 % of the above-cited figure. The penalty consists of a doubling of import prices for
mandarins (satsuma and segmented in general). The logical consequence would mean it being impossible
to export to the US: Spain, and the Valencia region in particular, would be restricted to the European
market, which cannot absorb the entire production.

What action does the Commission intend to take for the exclusion of satsuma mandarins from the
blacklist, given that Spain is the sole producer of this fruit in the EU and that the penalties on satsuma
mandarins alone represent 20 % of the total?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

From 29 July 1999, the United States applied 100 % tariffs on imports from the Community (except the
United Kingdom) of a range of mainly agricultural products by way of retaliation in the hormones dispute.
Although (cid:145)prepared or preserved satsumas(cid:146) under American Harmonised Tariff System numbers 20083042
and 20083046 were initially considered in 1999 for 100 % punitive duties, they were not included in the
final retaliation list at that time.

On 18 May 2000, American legislation (often referred to as the (cid:145)carousel legislation(cid:146)) entered into force,
which provided for the American Administration to rotate the list of products subject to American trade
retaliation. In this context, the United States republished on 26 May 2000 the list of products originally
considered for the application of sanctions in the bananas and hormones dispute. Prepared or preserved
satsumas were included in the hormones list.

The Commission is very concerned by the United States(cid:146) counterproductive action both with regard to the
use of retaliatory measures in these disputes and the attempt to increase damage by use of carousel. This is
why the Commission has consistently argued that in order to reduce trade friction in the hormones
dispute, the trade-disrupting American retaliation should be replaced at the earliest opportunity by trade-
expanding (cid:145)compensation(cid:146) in the form of increased access to the Community market.

The Commission, with the unanimous support of
immediately started dispute
settlement proceedings in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) against the carousel legislation, which
the Commission considers illegal. Since then, the United States has refrained from actually implementing
the legislation.

the Member States,

(2001/C 163 E/090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3318/00

by Gorka Kn(cid:246)rr Borr(cid:224)s (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(25 October 2000)

Subject: Arrests in Turkey

On 23 September this year 11 members of the pro-Kurdish Popular Democratic Party (HADEP), including
the party chairman, were arrested in the Turkish city of Simak. They were charged by the police with
possession of weapons and grenades. It should be borne in mind both that HADEP has always advocated
peaceful solutions to the Kurdish conflict and that once again the Turkish security forces have acted in an
underhand way.

Does the Council know about this incident? What view does it take of it? What measures does it propose
to settle the Kurdish conflict?