WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/00 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Progress reports.
Date: 2000-12-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, accession to the European Union, enlargement of the Union, report

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.

C 163 E/210

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2001

the reports(cid:146)

In the candidate countries, the Commission(cid:146)s reports have generally been well received. In particular, the
objectivity of
thirteen candidate countries without
exception, including by the authorities of the Czech Republic, to which the Honourable Member makes
explicit reference. In early December 2000, the Czech authorities have provided a detailed written reaction
to the report, which says, inter alia, that (cid:145)The Czech Republic considers the Regular Report to be a well-
balanced document and accepts it as such.(cid:146)

findings has been welcomed by all

As the Honourable Member indicates, it is true that there has been some disenchantment in the Czech
Republic, immediately following the publication of the Commission(cid:146)s enlargement strategy paper (2), over
the economic conclusions included in that document (which repeat the conclusions of the individual
Regular Reports in this regard). However, in the Commission(cid:146)s view this was not the result of excessive
optimism of earlier utterances of the Commission; on the contrary, this year(cid:146)s report on the Czech
Republic is definitely more favourable than in previous years,
including on the country(cid:146)s economic
performance. The objectivity of the Commission(cid:146)s analyses has been recognised by all candidate countries,
including by the Czech Republic. The initial disenchantment mentioned above may have arisen because a
summary of the economic conclusions was misconstrued as an overall ranking in terms of readiness for
accession.

(1) COM(2000) 701 final to COM(2000) 713 final.
(2) COM(2000) 700 final.

(2001/C 163 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3771/00

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(4 December 2000)

Subject: The Ilios People of the Chagos Archipelago

Further to the answer given by Commissioner Pinheiro to my question concerning the Ilios People of the
Chagos Archipelago (H-0833/98) (1), can the Commission indicate its response, and the action it intends to
take in the light of the UK court ruling of Friday, 3 November that the original inhabitants of the islands
of the Chagos Archipelago, which forms part of the EU associated territory of British Indian Ocean
Territory, were unlawfully evicted to make way for a US air base, forcibly exiled outside the EU to
Mauritius and have the right to return to their homeland?

The British Judge, Lord Justice Laws, ruled that a British ordinance of 1971 used to evict the islanders had
been an (cid:145)abject legal failure(cid:146). Lord Justice Laws stated in his ruling, (cid:145)I cannot see how the wholesale removal
of a people from the land where they belong can be said to conduce the territory(cid:146)s peace, order and good
governance(cid:146).

What action, if any, will be taken by the EU against the UK for its continued violation of the human rights
of the evicted islanders which occurred while the UK was a Member State of the EU?

(1) Oral answer of 6 October 1998.

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(5 January 2001)

The Commission is aware of the Chagos issue, but has never taken part in official discussions on this
matter. The United Kingdom is the public authority responsible for its British Indian Ocean Territory.
Chagos Islanders are British subjects, and the islands fall under British sovereignty.