WRITTEN QUESTION E-3758/00 by Jaime Valdivielso de Cué (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Shipbuilding.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Korea, bilateral agreement, restriction on competition, shipbuilding

C 163 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

What deficiencies did the EU Food and Veterinary Office(cid:146)s investigation detect?

What implications do the deficiencies observed have for consumer and animal health?

What steps does the Commission intend to take to ensure that hygiene conditions relating to farmed
poultry are improved?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2001)

A mission on poultry meat was carried out in Greece from 28 February 2000 to 10 March 2000. This
mission addressed a number of issues with regard to the production of poultry meat and laying hens.

including those regarding hygiene, or hygiene supervision,

All the deficiencies that were found by the Food and veterinary office (FVO) are listed in detail in that
report,
in poultry slaughterhouses and/or
cutting plants, as well as all the recommendations made to Greece to ensure their complete correction.
The measures taken by the Greek authorities to rectify the deficiencies, from the date of the visit until the
publication of the final report are listed in the Addendum to the report. The report of this mission to
Greece has been published in the Internet, at the address:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/vi/reports/greece/vi_rep_gree_1133-2000_en.pdf.

A follow up FVO mission to Greece to verify the result of the measures taken by the competent authorities
is provisionally scheduled for 2001.

(2001/C 163 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3758/00

by Jaime Valdivielso de CuØ (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Shipbuilding

On 24 October 2000 the Committee of EC Shipbuilders(cid:146) Associations (CESA) submitted a formal
complaint to the Commission against the unfair competition which South Korea has been practising for
over two years now. This situation is documented and proven in the Commission(cid:146)s reports on the subject,
notably that of 14 April 2000.

Can the Commission state what benefits have arisen from the (cid:145)friendship agreement(cid:146) between the EU and
South Korea?

Can the Commission state how it intends to support the shipbuilding industry in the face of the long-term
damage inflicted on it by South Korea(cid:146)s unfair trade practices?

Can the Commission state how the industry will be compensated for the damage suffered?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 2001)

The bilateral dialogue with Korea led to the signing of the agreement known as the Agreed Minutes on
22 June 2000, under which Korea made important commitments to stabilise the situation in the world
shipbuilding market.

Within this framework, Korea first of all recognised the political
Community.

importance of

this issue for the

It then acknowledged that mistakes might have been made in the past and undertook in future to prevent
the recurrence of the unfair practices objected to by the Community.

6.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 163 E/209

It also recognised its responsibilities as the major player in the world market and agreed that a price
increase was necessary to stabilise the situation and move towards commercially viable price levels.

During the ensuing consultations, this fairly positive outcome was tarnished by the lack of an agreement
on concrete measures to implement the bilateral agreement, ensure compliance and monitor the results.

It was against this background that the European industry lodged its complaint under the Trade Barriers
Regulation (TBR) (1). The Commission upheld the complaint and an enquiry was officially opened on
2 December 2000.

At its meeting on 29 November 2000 the Commission decided that if it was not possible to reach a
satisfactory solution with Korea under the TBR procedure,
it could take the case to the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) with a view to penalising Korea(cid:146)s unfair practices. In conjunction with action in the
WTO, the Commission also suggested to the Council that a temporary defence mechanism be introduced
for the period required to complete the WTO trade procedure. This measure, allowing support for
Community shipyards, would be concentrated on market segments directly affected by unfair competition
from Korean shipyards.

On 5 December 2000, the Industry Council asked the Commission to take all possible steps to stop the
Korean practices and report on the results of action already taken no later than 1 May 2001.

It also noted the Commission(cid:146)s initiative to introduce an appropriate temporary measure to fight against
the unfair practices until the end of the WTO procedure, in the absence of a satisfactory agreement with
Korea.

(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, in particular those established under the auspices of the World Trade Organisation (OJ L 349, 31.12.1994).

(2001/C 163 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/00

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: Progress reports

On 8 November 2000 the Commission published progress reports on the 13 countries with which talks
are being held with a view to membership of the European Union. However, few of these countries were
pleased with the Commission(cid:146)s conclusions. For example, the Czech republic, through its Foreign Minister
Mr Kavan, reacted angrily and was disappointed that the country had been placed behind Poland, Hungary
and Estonia.

This very negative reaction, like those of the other countries, is perhaps also due to the excessive optimism
created by the various announcements made from time to time by the Commission. Perhaps it should
reconsider the strategy it is pursuing concerning candidate countries(cid:146) expectations in order to avoid similar
disagreeable reactions in the future, since these have a negative effect on the European Union(cid:146)s image in
third countries?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2001)

On 8 November 2000, the Commission has adopted its third series of Regular Reports on Progress (1)
made by the candidate countries towards accession. These reports have subsequently been presented to the
Parliament and the Council, as well as to the candidate countries.