WRITTEN QUESTION P-3099/01 by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Steel industry, US state aid and import restrictions.
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: State aid, United States, import restriction, iron and steel industry, protective clause, restriction on competition, trade policy

C 172 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

(2002/C 172 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3099/01

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Steel industry, US state aid and import restrictions

Is the European Commission aware of a major import restriction, in the form of a special 30 % import
duty, which the US intends to impose on steel imported into that country, and can the Commission state
what adverse impact this import restriction will have on exports by the European steel industry to the US?
What impact will this US import restriction have on imports of steel into the EU from third countries and
what problems will this create for the European steel industry?

In a newspaper report of 23 October 2001 (US steel: EU expresses concern over US International Trade
Commission findings) Commissioner Lamy stated the following:

We disagree with the ITC’s findings. We shall continue to watch this matter closely. As I have said
before, if the US decides to close its market as a result of this investigation, it should be in no doubt
that we will take this matter up in the WTO.

What protective measures does the European Commission plan to take in order to forestall or offset this
undesirable situation, and what practical steps, apart from watching developments closely, does the
Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the WTO?

What steps does the European Commission plan to take in the WTO or in other fora should the US
authorities decide to make large volumes of state aid available to the US steel industry, with the distortion
of competition that implies, and when does the Commission plan to take practical steps to deal with the
problems threatening the European steel industry?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

On 23 October 2001, the United States (US)’ International Trade Commission (ITC) issued the results of
the first stage of its investigation in the US steel industry. Following this report, the ITC now has two
months to make recommendations on remedies to the US President. Under US legislation, it is for the
President to determine whether and what type of relief to provide. At this stage, it would therefore be
premature to respond to suggestions of an import duty or any other restrictive measure. However, any
restrictions could have a very significant impact on the Community industry, as Community trade covered
by the ITC determination amounts to some $ 2,5 billion.

The Commission has already played an active role in defending Community interests in the context of this
procedure. It will continue to set out the case against unfair US restrictions which would have a damaging
effect on American steel consuming industries, shift the cost of American steel industry restructuring to
the rest of the world and risk provoking a spiral of restrictive trade measures. Unless and until measures
are taken, however, it is not possible to begin World Trade Organisation (WTO) action. However, as the
it would have no hesitation in challenging WTO incompatible actions
Commission has made clear,
whether they concerned restrictions on steel
the
Community has already taken action using WTO dispute settlement procedures against several existing US
restrictions on steel imports, some of which have already been completed successfully.

imports or subsidies to the US industry.

Indeed,

In addition to bilateral contacts with the US, the Commission is playing its full part in the meetings
organised by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
to address the
problems faced by the world steel industry.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/27

At the meeting held on 17-18 September 2001,
situation of its industry and consider:

it was agreed that each country would analyse the

= the technology and economics of the steel sector;

= the response of the industry to the changed economic situation following the South Asian crisis;

= those facilities which are largely non-competitive;

= the principal issues that could impede closure of uneconomic capacity.

The results of these studies will be discussed at a further OECD meeting on 17-18 December 2001.

The Commission is also holding bilateral discussions with other leading steel producers, including the
candidate countries, Japan, Korea, Russia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan with a view to addressing problems
faced by the world steel industry.

(2002/C 172 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3125/01

by María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission

(14 November 2001)

Subject: Eighty-five per cent funding of a new line for the Madrid underground

According to reports in the Spanish press, 85 % of the funding for work on a new line linking the Nuevos
Ministerios and Mar de Cristal stations on the Madrid underground is to come from the Cohesion Fund. I
have been told that hitherto no such funding has been requested.

Furthermore, residents’ associations in the area along the route of the new underground line have
complained that the President of the Community of Madrid opposes building another station on the line
between Nuevos Ministerios and Mar de Cristal on the grounds that funding for work on the line cannot
be obtained from the Cohesion Fund unless it can be shown that the line is to serve as a link between the
city and Barajas airport.

Given that projects eligible for funding under the Cohesion Fund can be submitted at any stage, will the
Commission say whether or not Spain or the Community of Madrid has presented a request for funding
for work on the Nuevos Ministerios-Mar de Cristal line?

If not, could the work already undertaken possibly become eligible for funding from the Cohesion Fund
upon submission of the relevant request? Or, on the contrary, would it be considered ineligible for
funding?

Is it indeed the case that, pursuant to the criteria governing funding under the Cohesion Fund, funding for
work on the line would not be forthcoming unless the line itself were to serve as an airport link?

According to the criteria established by the Commission and the Cohesion Fund Regulation, could building
another station along the line prevent the latter from being considered overall as an airport link?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The Commission has not yet received any request for part-financing from the Cohesion Fund for the
extension of the underground railway line between ‘Mar de Cristal’ and ‘Nuevos Ministerios’ and so has no
the Cohesion Fund’s rules on eligibility (1),
views about an intermediate station. Moreover, under