WRITTEN QUESTION E-0242/02 by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission. EU/ACP trade negotiations.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ACP countries, European Union, impact study, international negotiations, poverty, sustainable development, trade agreement

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/25

It has been reported that exceptions from this principle have been made for the medicinal products market
in the accession negotiations preceding the forthcoming enlargement of the EU. The outcome is said to be
to bar parallel imports of medicinal products from new Member States in many cases for transitional
periods of up to eleven years.

What is the reasoning behind these exceptions? What analyses have been made of the increase in the bill
for medicinal products in the Member States of the EU as a result of these exceptions, by comparison with
the situation if they had not been made?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

The Candidate Countries have introduced patent protection for pharmaceutical products between 1991
and 1995 apart from Cyprus and Malta which introduced patent protection in the 1920’s and 1900’s
respectively. Since the new patent laws have no generalised retroactive effects, all medicinal products
which were marketed in the applicant countries before the change in the legislation took place, will remain
unprotected there while they are still under patent in the Union.

In order to minimise potential problems resulting from this situation,
the Union has proposed a
mechanism which will only apply to patented products; the legally produced generic products will
continue to circulate freely within the enlarged Union. According to this mechanism the patent holder may
prevent, after accession, the import into the Union of a product patented in a Member State at the time
when a product patent could not be obtained in candidate countries for that product. It will therefore
avoid parallel imports and thus the detrimental effect these practices could have for the research and
development industry.

(2002/C 277 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0242/02

by Glenys Kinnock (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: EU/ACP trade negotiations

To what extent will the draft negotiating instructions for the ACP-EU trade negotiations, which are set to
start
in September 2002, allow the Commission to comprehensively address the concerns of ACP
governments in respect of:

3 the impact of the introduction of free trade with the EU on the fiscal revenues of ACP governments;

3 the impact of a reformed CAP on the development of ACP agricultural export sectors;

3 the supply side constraints in ACP countries which inhibit

their effective exploitation of trade

preferences;

3 a real improvement in ACP access to the EU market;

3 ensuring respect for the rights of least developed countries to non-reciprocal trade preferences under

the Commission’s economic partnership agreement proposals?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

The draft directives for the negotiation of Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are being finalised
within the Commission. It is therefore still too early, at this stage, to give a detailed answer to the
questions raised by the Honourable Member.

C 277 E/26

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

the Commission agrees

that EPAs are primarily designed to promote the sustainable
However,
development of
the African, Carribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries and to contribute to poverty
eradication in these countries. EPAs will therefore need to take account of the specific economic and social
constraints the ACP countries are facing as well as of their capacity to adapt to the liberalisation process.

In order to ensure that this objective will be achieved, the Commission will initiate, prior to the start of the
negotiations, a Sustainability Impact Assessment. This analysis will include the potential impact of trade
liberalisation on the fiscal revenues of ACP governments, the impact of market changes in the Community
on ACP export sectors and the potentials for tackling the existing, serious supply side constraints in ACP
thus provide an unique opportunity to combine analysis,
countries. The preparatory period will
negotiations and development co-operation in a most effective way to further the development of ACP
countries under future EPAs.

As far as least developed countries are concerned, the non-reciprocal preferences granted under the
‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) will, of course, continue to apply. However, it must be borne in mind that the
removal of barriers to trade between the parties is an essential building block for the achievement of the
objectives of EPAs, which is to enlarge the markets of the ACP countries in order to allow them to increase
their level of competitiveness and to help them to attract investment. Least developed countries wishing to
participate in EPA can therefore not be excepted from this rule, without depriving EPAs of their essence.

(2002/C 277 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0274/02

by Gian Gobbo (NI) to the Commission

(1 February 2002)

Subject: Repressive action against the Kurdish bilingualist movement in Turkey

Since the beginning of the year, a movement has emerged in Turkey, made up of students and parents
calling for Kurdish to be taught in schools under the slogan ‘bilingual education is possible’.

The Turkish police have arrested hundreds of Kurdish students who signed petitions in support of the right
to be taught in their mother tongue. These students have apparently been prevented from having normal
contacts with lawyers. Various human rights organisations have protested about these arbitrary arrests.

Would the Commission agree that
these actions by the Turkish state contravene the ‘Copenhagen
principles’, including respect for human rights and the rule of law, on which accession to the European
Union is dependent?

If it has not already done so, would the Commission now be prepared to make representations to the
Turkish authorities, calling for an end to the repressive action taken against the Kurdish minority in
response to its legitimate demand for bilingual teaching?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2002)

it is
In the context of the medium term priorities of the Union Accession Partnership with Turkey,
foreseen that Turkey ensures cultural diversity and guarantees cultural rights for all citizens irrespective of
their origin. Turkey is thus expected to abolish any legal provisions preventing the enjoyment of these
rights including in the field of education.

The Commission assessed in its November 2001 Regular Report on Turkey (1) the progress made on
cultural rights. The amendment of Articles 26 and 28 of the Turkish Constitution abolishing the provision
forbidding the use of languages other than Turkish was regarded as a positive step. It was considered that
it could pave the way for the use of languages other than Turkish, provided that changes in existing
restrictive legislation and practices were introduced.