WRITTEN QUESTION E-3930/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) and Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Safeguarding the European shipbuilding industry.
Date: 2000-12-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Australia, EU financing, EU industrial policy, Portugal, application of EU law, public contract, shipbuilding, vessel

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/189

In 1996, the Council adopted a Joint Action to combat racism and xenophobia, the main objective of
which is to ensure effective judicial cooperation between Member States in the fight against
these
phenomena and to prevent the perpetrators of such offences from exploiting the differences in legislation
within the Union to avoid criminal proceedings.
It provides in particular, pending the adoption of
provisions to make this type of behaviour a criminal offence, for Member States to derogate from the
principle of double criminality in this area. Given the increase in the number of racist offences in the
Member States, and especially the growing use of the Internet to commit offences of this kind, as was
recently pointed out by two rulings by one French and one German court, the Commission intends to
strengthen European criminal provisions in this area by proposing to the Council the adoption of a
Council framework directive concerning racist and xenophobic activities both off-line and on-line. This
text will take account of the replies to the questionnaire to evaluate the implementation of the Joint Action
of 15 July 1996, which was sent to the Member States by the Presidency on 12 December 2000. This
point will also be mentioned in the forthcoming Commission communication on combating cybercrime.

On the other hand, on the basis of Article 13 (ex Article 6a) of the EC Treaty, the Council, on 29 June
2000, adopted Directive 2000/43/EC implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons
irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (1) and, on 27 November 2000, Directive 2000/78/EC establishing a
general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (2).

In this connection, on 27 November 2000 the Council adopted Decision 2000/750/EC establishing a
Community action programme to combat discrimination (2001 to 2006) (2), with the objective of
supporting and supplementing Community anti-discrimination legislation by improving the understanding
of the problem, strengthening the ability of the players to take action and raising awareness.

As part of the preparatory measures for the implementation of the action programme, in 1999 and 2000
the Commission published calls for proposals that make it possible to provide support, within the limits of
the resources available, for proposals which are conducted as part of a transnational partnership, cover at
least two forms of discrimination referred to in Article 13 of the EC Treaty, are useful for the Community
and can make a significant contribution to the future development and the implementation of Community
policy in this area. The result of the evaluation that is currently under way on the measures carried out in
1999 will be disseminated in March 2001.

The European Monitoring Centre also contributes to the combating of racism and xenophobia, and the
establishment of the European Racism and Xenophobia Information Network (raxen), which was launched
in 2000, will provide significant impetus to the work of the Community and the Member States in the
future.

Lastly, the Commission is in the process of incorporating the combating of racism into other Community
policies. An evaluation report drawn up by independent experts has just taken stock of the way in which
the anti-racism dimension has been taken into account in Community policies hitherto, and will thus make
it possible for the Commission to draw up a set of guidelines and proposals for implementation, in order
to, among other things, broaden the scope of the fight against racism in areas of the Commission(cid:146)s work
that have not yet been concerned, so that this dimension becomes a fully-fledged strategic objective.

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000.
(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2001/C 174 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3930/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) and Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Safeguarding the European shipbuilding industry

(13 December 2000)

The European Union(cid:146)s shipbuilding industry is known to be experiencing problems, especially in Portugal.
Nevertheless,
indifferent to this situation Soflusa, a company belonging to the CP group in Portugal,
responsible for the river link between Lisbon and Barreiro, decided to purchase, from an Australian
company (Austral Ships), eight new catamaran-type ships for a total value of approximately PTE 10
thousand million, 60 % of which is funded by the Community.

C 174 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

In response to the international invitation to tender the best bid was from Estaleiros Navais of Mondego,
Portugal, which was informed of the fact, but Soflusa decided to ignore it.

Can the Commission therefore say:

1. what position it will adopt regarding the decision of the Portuguese company Soflusa, which gave
preference to an Australian shipbuilding company, blatantly ignoring the results of an international
call to tender;

2. how it intends to safeguard the interests of European shipbuilders,

including Portuguese ones,

in

situations such as that outlined above?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

The information provided by the honourable Members does not permit the Commission to comment on
the correctness of the procedure followed by the Soflusa company of Portugal in connection with the
award of a contract for catamaran-type vessels to an Australian firm (Austral Ships).

Community law includes directives on the award of public contracts exceeding Community thresholds (1)
when the contracting body can be regarded as a (cid:145)contracting authority(cid:146) in accordance with these directives.
Contracting authorities are the State, regional or local authorities and bodies governed by public law. The
definitions of these can be found in the directives mentioned.

A contracting authority is free to allow access to contracts to economic operators from non-member
countries under the same conditions as those laid down for economic operators from the Community.

In the case to which the honourable Members refer, although the value of the contract is well above the
thresholds of the Community directives on public contracts, there is no information concerning the status
of the Soflusa company to indicate whether or not it can be regarded as a contracting authority and thus
required to comply with the directives. Even if the directives in question were applicable, however, the lack
of full information on the matter means that it is not possible to offer an opinion on the correct conduct
of the procedure.

The Commission is fully aware of the critical situation in world shipbuilding, mainly caused by unfair
South Korean business practices, and its potential impact on Community shipyards.

In its report adopted on 15 November 2000 (2), the Commission concluded that the availability of
operating aid under Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998, establishing new rules on aid
to shipbuilding (3), had not provided a solution to the problem of South Korean practices. However, among
the various actions proposed, it committed itself to examining the possibilities of proposing measures to
address the Korean problem in accordance with the Regulation.

Subsequently, at its meeting on 29 November 2000, the Commission reaffirmed that it was against any
prolongation of operating aid. It also indicated that if, in the framework of the Trade Barriers Regulation
(TBR) procedure, it did not achieve a negotiated solution with Korea satisfactory for the Community, the
Commission would report to the Council by 1 May 2001 and would propose to bring the case to the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) in order to seek remedy against unfair Korean practices. In addition the
Commission would, at the same time, propose a defensive temporary support mechanism specifically
designed to counter unfair Korean practices for a period necessary for the conclusion of the WTO
procedure.

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/191

The Commission also declared its willingness to allow greater use of State aid for research and
development (R&D) in the shipbuilding sector and recalled that substantial funding was also available
under the Community research framework programme. In addition Community shipyards would continue
to be able to benefit from other aid possibilities such as investment aid for innovation, regional investment
aid for the modernisation of existing shipyards, as well as restructuring and closure aid, where necessary,
to help in the process of structural adjustment and reconversion to other activities.

These views were presented to the Industry Council on 5 December 2000, which welcomed the
Commission(cid:146)s determination to tackle the problem of unfair Korean competition and took note of the
Commission(cid:146)s proposals in this regard.

The operational programme for the Lisbon and Tagus Valley region includes under Priority III-Measure
3.17 projects to improve river connections between the banks of the Tagus at Lisbon. These projects have
not yet been submitted to the Commission, which is not therefore in a position to confirm or deny the
figure of 60 % of Community funding claimed by the honourable Members. The average rate of funding
for the measure is only 48,8 %, however, and in view of the fact that these projects are likely to generate
income, the actual figure in the case of this project could in no event exceed 50 %.

(1)

If appropriate, the directive relevant to the contract in question is Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 14 June 1993
coordinating procedures for the award of public supply contracts (OJ L 199, 9.8.1993), as amended by European
Parliament and Council Directive 97/52/EC of 13 October 1997 amending Directives 92/50/EEC, 93/36/EEC and
93/37/EEC concerning the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts, public supply
contracts and public works contracts respectively (OJ L 328, 28.11.1997).

(2) COM(2000) 730 final.
(3) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998.

(2001/C 174 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3931/00

by Sylvia-Yvonne Kaufmann (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 December 2000)

Subject: Introduction of the Euro in the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro

1.
Is the Commission aware whether and, if so, how and by what concrete means and to what extent
the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Bundesbank have supported and
promoted the introduction of the Deutschmark in the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro?

2. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the declared intention of the Government of the Yugoslav
Republic of Montenegro of introducing the Euro as its sole currency as of 1 January 2002?

Does the Commission take the view that the Yugoslav Republic of Montenegro is currently fulfilling,
3.
or can fulfil by 1 January 2002, the stability criteria for membership of the single currency set out in the
Treaties (in particular, in Article 121 of the EU Treaty and Protocols 11 and 12 to the Amsterdam Treaty)?

4. What concrete measures to prevent the introduction of the Euro in Montenegro will be taken by the
Commission, which states in section III.3 of its most recent strategy paper on enlargement that the
introduction of the Euro in new Member States (as in the case of the original Euro-zone participants) will
only be decided when it has been ascertained, in accordance with Article 121 of the EU Treaty, whether a
high degree of sustainable convergence has been achieved?

5.
Does the Commission know whether the Euro is also to be introduced in the Yugoslav region of
Kosovo from 2002 and, if so, does Kosovo, in the opinion of the Commission, fulfil the stability criteria
enshrined in the EU Treaty and applying to all States participating, or wishing to participate, in the single
currency?