WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/01 by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Council. Duties imposed by Brazil on canned peaches.
Date: 2001-03-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Brazil, cannery, fishery product, import policy, import tax

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/49

promote technology transfer of the Communities(cid:146) research results and access to its research facilities. These
actions may be summarised in the following: a technology transfer capital fund, an extended incubator,
access to large scale facilities and education and training initiatives.

Within this ETTI(cid:146)s last action, there is an indirect support that the JRC can provide to its researchers: an
entrepreneurship training programme aimed mostly at young staff on short-term contracts. Pilot versions
of this programme were run successfully in 1999 and 2000.

No specific direct Community funding is available for JRC researchers, either long term or short term
contract holders,
they have access to the
Community programmes for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

to start a company. As any other European researcher,

As regards paid or unpaid leave in order to set up a company, only Commission officials according to the
staff regulations can apply for unpaid leave for a period of one year, renewable twice for one year periods.
In any case if officials wish to exercise a paid or unpaid external activity while they are employed by the
Commission, they have to ask for authorisation of such activity.

(2001/C 340 E/056)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0589/01

by Alexandros Baltas (PSE) to the Council

(2 March 2001)

Subject: Duties imposed by Brazil on canned peaches

The Brazilian authorities have imposed duty of 55 % on canned peaches. This duty is a discriminatory levy
on canned peaches exported from Greece to Brazil and was imposed by the Brazilian authorities some five
years ago.

It was to be reduced, however, each year until:

(cid:129) by December 2000 it would stand at 23 %, and

(cid:129) from 1 January 2001, it would be limited to 17 %.

I am informed, however, that in October 2000, the Brazilian authorities increased the duty to 55 % once
again. At the same time, they launched an anti-dumping inquiry, though without imposing an interim
duty. According to the Brazilian authorities, the duty was of a temporary nature and would be abolished
on 31 December 2000 when the original arrangements would be reintroduced and the applicable duty
reduced (on 1 January 2001) to 17 %. On 2 January 2001, however, the Brazilian authorities extended the
validity of the 55 % duty until 30 June 2001 with a view to discussing the rate within Mercosur.

As a result Brazil(cid:146)s action, producers and exporters of canned peaches lost the holiday period business and
suffered a serious setback. In general, the pressure exerted on EU canned peaches from third countries is
growing, threatening an important sector of European industry with disaster, which may snowball into
negative repercussions for society as a whole (higher unemployment), the farming community and, by
extension, the common agricultural policy, the environment, etc.

In the light of the above, will the Council say:

(cid:129) What measures it has taken to protect the canned peach sector and with what results?

(cid:129) What measures does the Council propose to take next?

(cid:129) To what extent are the practices adopted by Brazil taken into account and to what extent do they
influence the policy pursued by the Council in talks and negotiations with Mercosur, of which Brazil is
a member?

C 340 E/50

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Reply

(10 July 2001)

The Council is aware of the difficulties faced by the Community(cid:146)s canned peaches industry in some South
American countries, including Brazil.

is concerned,

As far as Brazil
it must be noted that the 55 % duty referred to by the honourable
is consistent with Brazil(cid:146)s WTO obligations.
parliamentarian is within the tariff level and, as a result,
Consequently, any measures aiming at a reduction of this duty level will have to be addressed in other
fora than the WTO (cid:129) for instance in the current bilateral negotiations between the EU and Mercosur,
which are also mentioned in Mr Baltas(cid:146) question. In this context, the Council wishes to underline that it
included in the mandate given to the Commission for these negotiations, an explicit call for trade
liberalisation and for the dismantling of duties and charges on substantially all trade.

Regarding the Brazilian anti-dumping investigation launched on 25 October 2000, the Council will as
a matter of course study very carefully its eventual outcome and, if necessary, react forcefully to any
Brazilian action which would be in breach of Brazil(cid:146)s WTO obligations.

(2001/C 340 E/057)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0599/01

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 February 2001)

Subject: Freedom of movement for workers

The conditions governing the repayment of student
loans negotiated in Sweden vary enormously
depending on the country in which the borrower subsequently takes up residence. For a person working in
Sweden, the annual repayments amount to a maximum of four per cent of annual income. If, however,
a person works in another Member State, completely different terms apply. Up to five per cent of the total
loan must be repaid every year irrespective of income. Taken over a year, the difference may amount to
several thousand Swedish crowns. Obviously, the main groups to suffer under these provisions are low and
middle-income earners, and part-time workers living in another Member State.

In March 2000, I asked the Commission whether the above rules were contrary to the fundamental
freedom to seek work, and to live and work in another Member State.

The answer given by Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulos dated 12 April 2000 states that
the
Commission had urged Sweden to provide details of the Swedish provisions and that it would notify me
of the outcome of the inquiries.

Now, almost a year later, I have still not been notified of the outcome of the Commission(cid:146)s inquiries.
Neither have there been any changes to Swedish law on the rules concerning the repayment of
government student loans. People living in another Member State continue to be treated unfairly compared
with those living in Sweden.

In the light of the foregoing, will the Commission say:

1. Whether the Swedish Government has replied to the Commission(cid:146)s inquiry. If so, what was Sweden(cid:146)s

reply and is the Commission satisfied with the reply?

2. Whether it intends to initiate formal proceedings to enforce compliance with Union rules and
regulations or take other measures if it is not satisfied with the reply (or has not received a reply)?