WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative.
Date: 2001-01-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ABM Agreement, United Kingdom, United States, anti-missile defence, common foreign and security policy, defence policy, international security

C 235 E/102

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

for the manual handling of loads where there is a risk particularly of back injury to workers (9). Inspection
and monitoring of application of national legislation which transposes these directives is the responsibility
of the competent national authorities.

(1) OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.
(2) ECR 2000, p. I-1277.
(3) OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.
(4) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989.
(5) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992.
(6) OJ L 137, 24.5.1986.
(7) OJ L 393, 30.12.1989.
(8) OJ L 335, 30.12.1995.
(9) OJ L 156, 21.6.1990.

(2001/C 235 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0049/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 January 2001)

Subject: Common Foreign and Security Policy and the NMD initiative

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, is a great supporter of the National Missile Defense
(NMD) shield. The shield system is supposed to defend the US against a missile attack. However, the
initiative is a threat to security on the continent of Europe. The Russian government has pointed out that
the NMD system is incompatible with the ABM (anti-ballistic missile) Treaty of 1972. Robin Cook, Britain(cid:146)s
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has expressed fears of a new arms race. If the US Administration
really does want to create a missile shield it needs the support of the UK government. One part of the
shield would be situated in North Yorkshire.

1. What does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy think of the
National Missile Defence system?

Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy believe that the NMD

2.
system is compatible with the ABM Treaty of 1972? If so, on what grounds?

3.
Does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy share the fears of Robin
Cook, Britain(cid:146)s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, of a new arms race if the United States develops the
missile shield? If not, on what grounds does the High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security
Policy reject Mr Cook(cid:146)s views?

In view of its replies to questions 1, 2 and 3, does the High Representative for the Common Foreign

4.
and Security Policy support the siting of part of the missile shield in North Yorkshire?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

There is so far no Council position on the National Missile Defence System. Nevertheless at the 2000 Non-
proliferation Treaty Review Conference in New York, the European Union reaffirmed the importance of
the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed in 1972 by the US and the Soviet Union as one of the pillars
of strategic stability. Furthermore the EU stated that it wishes to see that Treaty preserved.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/103

The subject of National Missile Defense (NMD) has however been raised on several occasions during
discussions between M.
Javier SOLANA, the Secretary General/High Representative for the Common
Foreign and Security Policy, and his US counterparts. The Secretary General/High Representative has
echoed the views expressed by a number of Member States on the importance of maintaining global
stability through an agreed security framework. He has also underlined the need for full and transparent
consultations between the US and its European allies on this issue.

(2001/C 235 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0057/01

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 January 2001)

Subject: Examination of illegal subsidies to the Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte steelworks

1.
In 1993 the Land of Lower Saxony granted Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte steelworks (formerly Kl(cid:246)ckner, now
Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte GmbH) over DEM 80 million. This payment was judged illegal by the EU. At the start
of the year 2000 the Lower Saxony Government reported that DEM 46 million including interest had been
paid back by the steelworks.

(a) Can the Commission confirm that at the start of the year 2000 the amount of DEM 46 million was

paid back by the steelworks to the Land of Lower Saxony?

(b)

Is it true that the Commission judges the remainder of the amount paid as illegal?

2.
Parallel with the aid granted by Lower Saxony, Landkreis Osnabr(cid:252)ck and the town of Georgsmar-
ienh(cid:252)tte purchased land from the steelworks at exorbitant prices (approximately DEM 20 million). With
the reclamation of this land it has emerged that both municipalities have been left with considerable
deficits which were figured in from the outset as undisclosed subsidies. Has the Commission included these
real estate transactions in the examination of illegal subsidies?

3.
The (cid:145)H(cid:252)ttenbahn(cid:146) railway line has been sold backwards and forwards between the steelworks and
Landkreis Osnabr(cid:252)ck or its transport undertaking VLO, with a sizeable profit for the steelworks each time.
Has the Commission included these transactions in the examination of illegal subsidies?

Does the Commission plan,

4.
question and to set in train any necessary action? Will it notify any such action to MEP Breyer?

if it has not already done so, to follow up the information in this

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2001)

Following proceedings initiated in November 1993 (1) pursuant

to Article 6(4) of Commission
1.
Decision No 3855/91/ECSC of 27 November 1991 establishing Community rules for aid to the steel
industry (2), DEM 15 243 million in aid for Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte GmbH (GMH) was authorised by Commis-
sion Decision No 95/437/ECSC of 1 February 1995 (3).

On 15 July 1997 the Commission decided to initiate proceedings pursuant to Article 6(5) of Decision
No 2496/96/ECSC of 18 December 1996, establishing Community rules for State aid to the steel
industry (4) in respect of DEM 61,64 million in aid paid by the Land of Lower Saxony to Georgsmar-
ienh(cid:252)tte.

In its Decision of 29 July 1998, the Commission ruled that the aid was incompatible with the ECSC Treaty
and the common market (5).

On 3 November 1998 Georgsmarienh(cid:252)tte Holding GmbH lodged an appeal against this Decision with the
Court of First Instance of the Communities (T-181/98). The case is still pending.