WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Trade barriers for candidate countries.
Date: 2000-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, non-tariff barrier, tariff barrier, trade restriction

C 40 E/2

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

programming period will soon be presented by Greece as part of the final report on implementation
of the (cid:145)Rail(cid:146) operational programme.

(1) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.

(2002/C 40 E/002)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3941/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 December 2000)

Subject: Trade barriers for candidate countries

Will the Commission state what proportion of the total exports of each candidate country and what
proportion of the country(cid:146)s exports to the EU are currently subject to some form of trade restriction
(quotas, tariffs) on entry into the European Union?

Is the Commission of the view that non-tariff barriers in the EU may be a significant obstacle?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(22 March 2001)

Trade between the Community and the candidate countries is governed by the Europe Agreements (EAs) in
the case of the 10 Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs), Association Agreements with Malta
and Cyprus and a Customs Union (CU) with Turkey.

Trade liberalisation between the candidate countries and the Community has taken place progressively and
in an asymmetric manner, with the Community liberalising trade towards the candidates immediately after
the signature of the agreements and with the candidates opening their markets to the Community
progressively.

With regard to the first question, the Honourable Member is reminded that tariffs should not automatically
be equated to trade restrictions, as long as they are not set at prohibitive levels, and are applied in a
manner which is transparent and consistent with World Trade Organization (WTO) rules and obligations.
Insofar as tariff quotas are concerned, the quotas applied to Community imports from the candidate
countries are far from being quantitative restrictions. On the contrary, they are preferential quotas, at tariff
rates which are reduced or even zero, and are designed specifically to foster exports from the beneficiary
countries.

For the countries which concluded the first EAs in the early 1990s, free trade in industrial goods has been
established. By 1 January 2002 all trade in industrial goods between the Community and the EA countries
will be fully liberalised, with no tariffs and no quotas applicable between the partners. Overall,
approximately 94 % of all candidates(cid:146) exports to the Community will be fully liberalised by this date.

As regards agricultural products, liberalisation of trade has taken place in a more progressive manner. In
addition to the initial provisions of the Europe Agreements, under which agricultural imports took place at
a reduced tariff rate within tariff quotas initially based on traditional trade flows, but were increased
annually since the entry into force of these Agreements, agreements were concluded with the candidates in
the course of 2000, aiming at further liberalisation of trade in agricultural products. As a result of these
agreements approximately 80 % of agricultural products from the CEECs enter the Community free of
import duties. At the same time, negotiations aiming at the full liberalisation of fish and fisheries products
are currently underway.

Furthermore, negotiations on the liberalisation processed agricultural goods will increase the percentage of
duty free products entering the Community from the candidates duty free.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/3

With regard to the second question, the answer depends on how the term (cid:145)non-tariff barrier(cid:146) is defined.
Such clear non-tariff barriers as quantitative restrictions or import levies are inconsistent both with the
WTO obligations of the Community and with the terms of the Europe Agreements and Association
Agreements, as well as with the CU with Turkey. On the other hand, sanitary or phytosanitary standards
are frequently perceived as non-tariff barriers, but they are merely measures to protect human, plant or
animal life or health, and as such are fully compatible with the bilateral and multilateral obligations of the
Community. Such measures are not discriminatory as they apply equally to domestic production for the
internal Community market. Any effect on candidate country exports will of course disappear as soon as
they conform to Community standards.

With regard to technical standards, certification of conformity with Community standards may be
perceived as a non-tariff barrier, or at least as hindering the free flow of goods. In this respect, the
Community is in the process of negotiating with the candidates Protocols to the EAs on Conformity
Assessment (PECAs). The PECA is a mutual recognition agreement in which the mutual recognition is
based on the Community acquis. The PECA provides the opportunity to extend certain benefits of the
Internal Market in certain sectors already aligned with the Community technical legislation. PECAs are
based on progress made by candidate countries in implementing the acquis communautaire: as soon as the
national legislation and practice of the applicant country in a given sector is aligned with those of the
Community, manufacturers may have their products certified either in the country of origin or of
destination, on the basis of the same standards, technical requirements and procedures.

PECAs have been signed so far with Hungary and the Czech Republic, and a (cid:145)framework(cid:146) agreement has
been signed with Latvia. Negotiations are ongoing with Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia and Slovenia.

(2002/C 40 E/003)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-4158/00

by W. G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Discrimination in the conclusion of mobile telephone subscriptions

People, such as Members of the European Parliament, who work a few days a week in EU Member States
other than the country in which they live, are unable to take out a subscription for a mobile telephone in
some EU Member States, Belgium for instance, because they do not have a Belgian identity card or lease.

Does the Commission not agree that this is an infringement of the free movement of persons, goods

1.
and services enshrined in the EU Treaty?

2.
Does the Commission not consider that any proof of identity with an indication of an address and
bank or giro account in an EU Member State should be sufficient to allow a mobile telephone operator to
conclude a contract?

3. What measures will the Commission take to stop this abuse and thus promote full freedom of
movement in the EU in this sphere?

4.
There is also one mobile operator in Belgium that first demands a guarantee and then does not allow
customers to make calls with the EU and not just in Belgium until after three monthly bills have been paid:

(a) does the Commission consider that a mobile operator can be justified in imposing restrictions on
customers with standard subscriptions with regard to mobile calls within the EU? If not, on what
Treaty provisions or directives does the Commission base its opinion?

(b) what measures can the Commission take to remove restrictions of this kind?