WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/01 by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission. European Union Center.
Date: 2001-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, United States, research body

C 350 E/14

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

cases considered, a decline in production occurred in some years. It was nevertheless established that the
dumping found had caused material
In the absence of injurious
dumping, the decline in prices and profitability of the Community industry would have been much less
marked.

injury to the Community industry.

The Commission does not agree with the Honourable Member(cid:146)s interpretation of

4.
the Court
judgments. In Case T-210/95, the Court of First Instance states that: (cid:145)It follows that the profit margin to be
used by the Council when calculating the target price that will remove the injury in question must be
limited to the profit margin which the Community industry could reasonably count on under normal
conditions of competition, in the absence of the dumped imports(cid:146). This approach was applied by the
Commission in each case and in the case of ammonium nitrate from Lithuania, Poland and Ukraine, this
led to the determination of a margin of 8 % for the Community industry. For this exercise, the Commission
is not required to assess profit margins of other interested parties such as farmers.

5.
During the investigation periods chosen for the cases mentioned by the Honourable Member, prices
of nitrogen fertilisers were abnormally low due to dumping by third countries, leading to considerable
losses by the Community industry. Fertilisers are commodities that follow trends in the world market for
raw materials such as gas. They are therefore characterised by considerable price volatility. This accounts
for the bulk of recent price increases. At the same time the aim of anti-dumping duties is to eliminate the
effects of injurious dumping on the Community market. Anti-dumping measures may have therefore also
contributed to the recent increase in prices for nitrogen fertilisers.

(2001/C 350 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0313/01

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2001)

Subject: European Union Center

Further to its reply to Written Question E-3046/00 (1) of 8 December 2000, can the Commission indicate
the nature of the funding which facilitated the establishment of the European Union Centers in the United
States?

The literature offered by the one in California, bearing the European twelve-star flag, carries a panel
indicating that it was (cid:145)established with the support of the European Commission(cid:146).

What was the mission statement when that financial assistance was granted?

(1) OJ C 151 E, 22.5.2001, p. 47.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(11 May 2001)

Following a recommendation by the European Parliament, the Commission launched in 1998 a call for
tenders for the establishment of 10 European Centres in the United States. The Centres are devoted to
in particular concerning chapter IV (cid:129) building
promoting the New Transatlantic Agenda objectives,
bridges across the Atlantic. The initiative is funded within the New Transatlantic Agenda framework.

This initiative is designed to:

(cid:129) further the goals of the New Transatlantic Agenda through enhanced (cid:145)People-to-People Links(cid:146) among

the citizens of the Union and the United States;

(cid:129) promote greater understanding in the United States of the European Union as an evolving system of
governance and as an international actor, and increased knowledge of Community policies; and

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/15

(cid:129) increase awareness in the United States for the political, economic and cultural importance of the
transatlantic relationship, especially the increasing scope of Community-United States relations.

More information about the European Union Centres in the United States can be found in the internet at:
http://www.eucenters.org/.

(2001/C 350 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0342/01

by Reinhold Messner (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 February 2001)

Subject: Community contribution to tourist infrastructure in Valesia and on Monterosa

In its answer to my Written Question P-3610/00 (1), the Commission said that it was not aware of the
situation described and would take the appropriate steps to gather detailed information on the subject and
ensure compliance with Community law.

60 % of the Community contribution of ITL 4 943 billion for the cableway between Valsesia and Valle di
Gressoney has been allocated, with the remainder to be made available once the project has been
approved.

This contribution has actually been used for a road rising to a height of 2 500 m, which was built without
the necessary authorisations and about which the Committee for the Defence of Monterosa has lodged
regular complaints with the relevant authorities (without receiving any reply).

Does the Commission not think that the payment of the remainder of the Community contribution should
be suspended until the inquiry procedure has been completed, particularly as regards the protection of the
site of Community importance concerned by the project in question?

(1) OJ C 163 E, 6.6.2001, p. 179.

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

According to information received from the Piedmont Region authorities, no legal proceedings have been
initiated in respect of the project.

The road the Honourable Member refers to was built on the authorisation of the Direzione Economia
Montana e Foreste (cid:129) Settore Gestione Proprieta Forestali Regionali e Vivaistiche (1) and the Direzione
Pianificazione e Gestione Urbanistica (cid:129) Settore Gestione Beni Ambientali (2) of the Piedmont Region.

The Commission points out that those authorisations stipulate that once the works for the cableway are
completed, the road, which is temporary and necessary for the works in question, is to be covered over
with grass and the initial section replanted with beech.

As regards the cable-car project within the proposed Site of Community Importance (pSCI) under Council
Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and
flora (3), mentioned by the Honourable Member in his earlier Written Question P-3610/00 (4),
the
Commission has opened an own-initiative case and sent a request for information to the Italian authorities,
which have not yet replied.

Article 6 of the abovementioned Directive provides for protection requirements with reference to Special
Conservation Areas (SCA). Under Article 4(5) of that Directive, these requirements also apply to Sites of
Community Importance (SCI) where they are adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in