WRITTEN QUESTION E-2746/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. EU fisheries agreement with South Africa.
Date: 2001-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Association Council (EU), European Union, South Africa, alcoholic beverage, fishing agreement, free-trade agreement, international negotiations

C 147 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

aggression before the International Criminal Court and to prosecute these crimes if the State of which the
alleged perpetrator is a national or the State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred is
one which has ratified the Rome Statute, or if the United Nations Security Council acting under Chapter
VII of the Charter of the United Nations has referred a situation to the Prosecutor of the Criminal Court.
The Court, however, will have jurisdiction only as regards acts committed after the entry into force of the
Rome Statute. The Council is wholly prepared to cooperate with the International Criminal Court as soon
as it is established.

(2002/C 147 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2746/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: EU fisheries agreement with South Africa

For years the EU has been attempting to conclude a fisheries agreement with South Africa, but in spring
2001 the South Africans gave a flat refusal. The fisheries negotiations then collapsed. The trade agreement
with South Africa did however come into force in January 2000.

It might however be feared that South Africa’s refusal to allow in foreign fishing fleets might in the longer
term have implications for the major trade agreement between the EC and South Africa, which took four
years to negotiate. There is a link between the trade agreement and the wrecked fisheries negotiations.
Duty-free entry for South African fisheries products is directly linked to the outcome of the fisheries
negotiations. Nobody is saying it outright, but there is also a degree of pressure from the EC with regard to
wines and spirits, negotiations on which have yet to be concluded. Out of the Member States only Sweden
and the Netherlands had ratified the trade agreement by May 2001. These two countries have no interests
in the fisheries or wine industries. The other Member States seem to be pursuing a wait-and-see policy. In
May 2001 no country had yet threatened to back out from the trade agreement, but the southern
European countries with the most negative views include those with the largest fishing fleets.

What is the Commission doing to encourage ratification of the trade agreement by the Member States?
Can it guarantee that no linkage is made between the failure of the fisheries negotiations and the fact that
the trade agreement with South Africa has not been ratified by all Member States?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The negotiations for the Trade Development and Cooperation Agreement (TDCA) with South Africa were
successfully concluded in 1999. Council Decision 1999/753/EC, of 29 July 1999 concerning the
provisional application of
the Agreement on Trade, Development and Cooperation between the
Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of South Africa, of the other part (1)
establishes provisional and partial application of the TDCA as of 1 January 2000, pending ratification by
the parties to the Agreement.

At the time of conclusion of the TDCA, negotiations were still under way in two specific areas: Wine and
Spirits and Fisheries.

Negotiations for the conclusion of a separate Fisheries Agreement were suspended earlier this year, as it
became clear that the Commission mandate was for the conclusion of an agreement that would include
access to South African fishery resources for European vessels, in addition to cooperation in a number of
fishery-related areas. The South African delegation was mandated only to negotiate an agreement that
would not include such access.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/49

The Commission feels that this state of affairs affects neither the provisional application nor the full entry
into force of the TDCA. It does not rule out the possibility that parties will return to the negotiating table
at a later stage.

Negotiations on the Wine and Spirits Agreements had shown only slow progress in the months preceding
the summer 2001, until
it was decided to hold a South Africa-Community Cooperation Council on
26 June 2001. At the Council it was agreed that a group of six high level officials would meet in order to
work out a solution for the outstanding issues: the phasing out of trademarks which conflict with
protected names, opening of the wine quota and access to the European markets for blended wines. The
group met on 25 July 2001 and agreed on a Memorandum of Understanding, which is to be the basis for
finalisation of the Wine and Spirits Agreements.

To date three Member States have ratified the TDCA: Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden. The
Commission trusts that a speedy conclusion of the outstanding Wine and Spirit Agreements will remove
any potential threat to the ratification and full application of the TDCA.

(1) OJ L 311, 4.12.1999.

(2002/C 147 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2757/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Classification of GHB as a narcotic

On 13 December 2000 the Swedish Government decided to classify GHB as a narcotic and banned it from
1 February 2000. All handling of GHB then became a criminal offence B in Sweden it was therefore
prohibited to buy, sell, possess or use GHB. The courts would decide the penalties for these offences. GHB
has caused a number of deaths in Sweden. It has mainly been used by young people as a party drug. An
attempt to get after the drug under the ‘doping law’ failed when the Gothenburg District Court gave an
acquittal in a case in December 1999.

However GHB is approved as a medicinal product in several EU countries. A Swedish ban on GHB is in
principle a technical barrier to trade. There might therefore be objections in other EU countries to its
classification. Sweden has told the Commission that it intends to classify it as a narcotic.

The Commission has not objected to Sweden’s decision. Can the Commission state what decision has been
taken in this matter in the light of Sweden’s announcement of its decision to classify GHB?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Sweden notified the Commission in December 1999 of her intention to classify Gammahydroxybutyrate
(GHB) as a narcotic drug according to Swedish legislation on illicit drugs. The need to notify the
Commission stems from the fact that GHB is in legitimate medical use in some Member States and
classifying it as a narcotic drug could be considered as a technical barrier to free trade. A derogation to the
principle of free trade has to be justified in line with the EC Treaty requirements e.g. on grounds of a
threat to public health.

GHB appeared in illicit markets in Sweden and GHB has been associated with 11 deaths in the Community
between September 1995 and January 2000 and, hence, the Commission did not object the Swedish
notification.