WRITTEN QUESTION P-3551/01 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Situation of the European shipbuilding industry.
Date: 2001-12-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: South Korea, World Trade Organisation, commercial arbitration, restriction on competition, shipbuilding

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/81

rail, road and inland waterway (3), the Dutch authorities could include in its contract with the Railway
Undertaking (i.e. NS/KLM) tariff reductions for specific groups, such as students or persons with reduced
mobility, or even all passengers.

The Commission takes note of this fact, but can not express a view on it, on the basis of the

4.
information currently available.

The Commission does not have information on the future of

5.
the current services between
Amsterdam and Brussels over Roosendaal and Antwerp. In principle, this is a matter of the Railway
Undertakings, which operate services on this link. This service could be made subject to a Public Service
contract
to be concluded between Belgium and the Netherlands on the one hand and Railway
Undertakings on the other. In its White Paper on ‘European transport policy for 2010: time to decide’ (4),
the Commission has set as objective to maintain the modal share of rail transport in 2010 at the level of
1998, notably to manage the expected increase in transport demand. It notes that international services are
frequently inadequate in volume, quality and reliability in comparison with national services. The White
Paper also announces that the Commission will table proposals to safeguard the quality of rail services and
users’ rights, and it will develop those and other proposals in close co-operation with the main actors and
stakeholders involved.

(1) HSL Zuid: High Speed Link South: the section from the Dutch/Belgian border to Amsterdam of the Paris-Brussels-

Amsterdam High Speed Link.

(2) OJ L 75, 15.3.2001.
(3) OJ L 156, 28.6.1969.
(4) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2002/C 172 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3551/01

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Situation of the European shipbuilding industry

(20 December 2001)

On 5 December the Council of Industry Ministers failed to agree a common position on the temporary aid
to be granted to the European shipbuilding industry in order to enable it to withstand the unfair
competition being practised by South Korea. Such competition has a detrimental effect on the industry,
which, unless the situation changes, is likely to see many of its constituent companies go out of business.

Will the Commission say why it has not complained (and, apparently, is not going to complain) to the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) about South Korea’s unfair practices? Will the Commission provide
information regarding its latest plans (following the rejection of temporary aid by the Council of Ministers)
to tackle the situation in which the European shipbuilding industry currently finds itself, since that industry
cannot continue passively accepting the damage done to it by unfair South Korean competition?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(31 January 2002)

The Commission took note that
the Council of 5 December 2001 was not ready to endorse the
Commission’s proposal for a temporary defence mechanism. On the other hand, as the Honourable
Member certainly knows, the Commission has received and accepted an industry request to update the
Trade Barriers Regulation (TBR) investigation to cover the period from December 2000 to November
2001. An update of the report is currently being prepared by the Commission.

Any complaint
the further
investigation. The updating of the injury part of the TBR report indeed appears appropriate; it would allow
the Commission to rely on more recent and accurate injury data at the time of WTO action.

to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) must await

the outcome of

C 172 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

In conclusion, the Commission will consider the situation in particular in the light both of the results of its
further TBR investigation and of its twin-track strategy. The Commission has no intention to change its
strategy vis-à-vis Korea, as set out in its reply to written question E-2142/01 (1).

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 68.

(2002/C 172 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3553/01

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Revision of the 1976 EC Bathing Water Directive

There are millions of water users who use Europe’s coastal and inland waters each year. Would the
Commission agree that a number of changes to the legislation should be made in order that these water
users get the protection they deserve?

Will the Commission ensure that when this directive is revised, the following will be incorporated:

1.

2.

3.

4.

a broadening of the concept of ‘bathing waters’ to take into account those waters heavily used by
citizens participating in water contact recreation;

acknowledgement of the year round nature of water use at certain locations;

the development of a standard and methodology that will give the best possible health protection;

accessible, up to date information to enable the public to make an informed choice about which
waters they use, and when.

Will the Commission take into account that the above proposals will not only benefit the water user but
also the tourism and leisure industry?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2002)

In order to protect the health of numerous bathers the Commission currently revises the Council Directive
76/160/EEC of 8 December 1975 concerning the quality of bathing water (1) hereafter the ‘1976’ Directive.
When preparing this revision, the Commission published in December 2000 a Communication (2) to the
Parliament and the Council and has organised a wide public and stakeholder consultation.

From this consultation it is apparent that the scope of the 1976 Directive should be reviewed in the
‘bathing and

In fact, nowadays water activities are not

1.
light of modern recreational practices.
swimming’ but encompass several water sports.

just

2.
The bathing season may vary according to geographical and regional conditions. However, during
the consultation no consensus could be reached to formally extend bathing seasons throughout the year,
because at most locations the number of bathers would be very limited during the ‘colder’ months. As a
consequence, the revised Bathing Water Directive will not foresee bacteriological monitoring of beaches
throughout the entire year. The general water quality of inland and coastal waters is however subject to
the Urban Wastewater Directive (3), the Nitrates Directive (4), the Water Framework Directive (5) and the
relating monitoring schemes. Moreover, the Water Framework Directive foresees the concept of ‘Good
Ecological Status’ for all European waters.

3.
The revised directive will foresee a standard for monitoring and analysis. Scientific research indicates
that stringent bacteriological parameter thresholds are only meaningful in conjunction with a standard
testing methodology.