WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Oil pipeline from Odessa to Brody.
Date: 2001-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Ukraine, oil pipeline, technical cooperation, technology transfer

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/17

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(24 October 2001)

The proposal for a moratorium or ‘due restraint’ on recourse to dispute settlement procedures in regard to
measures for the protection of public health is one of many proposals which came out of the trade-related
aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Council’s Special Discussion on Intellectual Property and
Access to Medicines, which took place in Geneva on 20 June 2001. The TRIPs Council
is now
systematically examining all the provisions and issues which were raised with a view to clarifying the
flexibility available under the TRIPs Agreement.

At an informal meeting of the TRIPs Council on 25 July 2001, the Commission confined itself to pointing
out that the mandate of the TRIPs Council
is limited and does not extend to the imposition of a
moratorium, which would necessitate an amendment to Article 64 of the TRIPs Agreement.

More specifically, the Commission believes that careful examination of all the possible implications of such
a proposal is required first. The weakness of a moratorium is that it does not address the real issue, which
is to ensure that the TRIPs Agreement is implemented in a way which allows developing countries to set
up an intellectual property regime that meets their policy needs and is capable of responding to public
health concerns. For this reason, the Commission considers that it is more constructive to attempt to
clarify issues of substance than to paper them over with a procedural expedient. If, as is to be hoped, the
discussions in the TRIPs Council give rise to a consensus on these issues, then arguments as to the merits
or otherwise of a moratorium will no longer be relevant. In the meantime, the position of the least-
developed WTO Member countries will not be affected since they do not have to apply the provisions of
the TRIPs Agreement until 1 January 2006.

(2002/C 160 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2501/01

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2001)

Subject: Oil pipeline from Odessa to Brody

In Ukraine, an oil pipeline has been completed from Odessa to Brody. The Commission had been assisting
the construction of the pipeline since 1995. How much money did the EU provide for the pipeline project,
either directly or indirectly?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

The Commission has been assisting Ukraine’s energy sector since 1995 by providing technical assistance
and transfer of know how to Ukrainian national energy companies with an objective of accelerating
reform of the energy sector as well as improving the Ukrainian energy efficiency and security.

As regards the Odessa-Brody oil pipeline, the Commission, through the Inogate programme (Interstate Oil
and Gas Transport to Europe) and the TACIS national programme, has assisted the Ukraine in checking
the safety and integrity of the pipeline as well as the Druzhba pipeline (TACIS national programme € 3,2
million). This project was also instrumental in the transfer of know how to Ukrainian experts in modern
maintenance techniques for the operation of all pipelines crossing Ukraine.

No direct investment from Community funds has been made in the Odessa Brody pipeline.

C 160 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Several additional pipeline-related energy assistance projects are currently being prepared or implemented
in Ukraine, including the construction of gas metering stations compatible with international standards in
Grebenyky and Kaushany (Inogate € 4 million) and a regional gas calibration centre for Ukraine, Belarus
and Moldova (Inogate € 7,5 million C should start shortly).

(2002/C 160 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2521/01

by Diemut Theato (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2001)

Subject: Detailed rules for the implementation of the Financial Regulation

Pursuant to Article 139 of the Financial Regulation, the Commission is to adopt implementing measures
for the Financial Regulation in consultation with the European Parliament and the Council.

On 21 August 2001, the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 1687/2001 (1) amending the detailed
rules implementing the Financial Regulation. The majority of the amendments called for by Parliament at
its sitting of 15 May 2001 to the Commission’s original proposal (SEC(2000) 1890) were not incorporated.

1. Will the Commission state:

(a) Why it did not attempt to seek an agreement between Parliament, the Council and itself on the

amendments to be made?

(b) Why it did not consult Parliament again, as Parliament asked in its resolution of 15 May 2001?

2. Will it also state:

(a) Why it did not incorporate Parliament’s calls for the safeguarding and strengthening of the internal
auditor’s independence (in particular as regards a right to bring action similar to that of the financial
controller?

(b) Why it went back on its original proposal and failed to include provisions pursuant to which the
internal auditor, in addition to evaluating the effectiveness of management and control systems, was
also to have verified the regularity of financial operations and the soundness of financial management?

(c) Why it has not acted in accordance with the new Article 24a of the Financial Regulation (2), under
which implementing measures are to be laid down pursuant to Article 139 on the verification, by
means of internal audit, of the regularity of budget management?

(1) OJ L 228, 24.8.2001, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 111, 20.4.2001, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Parliament adopted ten amendments in its opinion of 15 May 2001 to the Commission’s proposed
Regulation amending Commission Regulation (Euratom, ECSC, EC) No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993
laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation of
21 December 1977 (1). This opinion was drawn up after discussions and contacts in particular with
Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control and its rapporteur. Extensive discussions took place also
with the Council, the Court of Auditors and the Economic and Social Committee who each adopted
opinions.