WRITTEN QUESTION P-0479/02 by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and the Interim Agreement between the EU and the Russian Federation — principle of non-discrimination.
Date: 2002-02-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, cooperation agreement, equal treatment, import tax, interim agreement (EU)

C 277 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

What is the Commission’s position on the need to promote a new international financial architecture and
what contribution has it made on behalf of the EU as a whole to improve the mechanisms that could help
the IMF to respond more positively than it did during the abovementioned Asian and Argentinian crises?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 April 2002)

The Commission, in its recent report ‘Responses to the Challenges of Globalisation % A study on the
International Financial and Monetary System and on Financing for Development’, analyses a number of
reform proposals of the international financial architecture.

The report notes that the system has functioned well over the past half century. It has contributed to the
global economic growth and has allowed countries embracing sound policies to raise the living standards
of their population. The system has also been able to cope with periods of disequilibria in balance-of-
payments and has ensured monetary stability in times of crises, as recently demonstrated in the case of the
11 September 2001 attacks.

The report acknowledges, nevertheless, that the changing environment poses new challenges to policy
makers. The international financial crises in the nineties have initiated a debate on how the international
community, in particular the International Monetary Fund (IMF), can reduce the occurrence of such crises
and the likelihood that problems originating in one country can spread to others and even destabilise the
system as a whole. The Commission’ report looks into these problems and reviews the main solutions
under discussion, ranging from very modest ones, such as increasing the flow of information to market
participants, to very ambitious ones such as the creation of a single world currency. It also focuses on the
involvement of the private sector in the prevention and resolution of financial crises.

The Council has welcomed the Commission report and will use it in its further deliberations.

(2002/C 277 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0479/02

by Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(13 February 2002)

Subject: The Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and the Interim Agreement between the EU

and the Russian Federation % principle of non-discrimination

The above-mentioned Interim Agreement was accepted on 17 July 1995 and came into force on
1 February 1996.

Like the Amsterdam Treaty (Article 90), the agreements between the EU and the Russian Federation also
include the principle of mutual non-discrimination.

Are these articles in the latter agreements also directly binding on EU Member States Courts and other
authorities?

An example would be where an EU Member State’s court finds that the national import tax legislation
violates in some way the principle of non-discrimination as regards the importation of certain goods.

Under these circumstances is it possible for the court to accept an appeal by company A importing such
goods from other EU Member States by reference to Article 90 of the Amsterdam Treaty, but not to accept
the appeal of company B, which imports similar goods from Russia based on the argument that the non-
discrimination rules of the PCA and the Interim Agreements are not binding on the tax authorities like the
Amsterdam Treaty non-discrimination rules?

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/53

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2002)

According to Article 300(7) of the EC Treaty, agreements with third countries concluded by the Council,
pursuant to the provisions of the EC Treaty, are binding for the Community institutions and the Member
States. Agreements with third countries may be invoked by individual operators if the agreements are
considered to be directly effective. An agreement might be considered to be directly effective if the
provisions lay down a sufficiently clear and precise obligation which does not require the adoption of any
subsequent measure for its implementation (see eg. Case 12/86 Demirel and, with respect to the World
Trade Organisation Agreement, Case C-149/96 Portugal v Council).

The question of whether these agreements are directly effective, and can therefore be relied upon by
is for the Community Courts to determine. To the best of the Commission’s knowledge,
individuals,
neither the European Court of Justice nor the Court of First Instance have been asked to determine
whether the provisions of the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) and the Interim Agreement
between the Community and the Russian Federation are directly effective.

(2002/C 277 E/055)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0481/02

by Marie Isler Béguin (Verts/ALE), Nicole Fontaine (PPE-DE),
Catherine Guy-Quint (PSE), Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL), Catherine Lalumière (PSE),
Ari Vatanen (PPE-DE) and Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Participation of east European republics in Community education programmes

The Community education and training programmes such as Socrates, Jeunesse and Leonardo da Vinci are
attracting increasing participation from young people in the EU, on whom they exert a strong motivating
effect. These programmes encourage cultural exchanges and the creation of a common educational area,
thus laying the foundations for the development of a common European consciousness and identity and,
by the same token, of mutual understanding and shared practices.

In the context of EU enlargement, these three Community programmes have been extended to the
applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the EFTA/EEA associated countries and Turkey.

This planned expansion, which is already under way, will draw a new eastern frontier of the Union,
bordering directly on the republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova. These republics are not yet official
applicant countries, but are indisputably part of the European area and identity, while the leaders and
governments of all three have stressed their desire for closer links with the EU.

The prospect of the forthcoming EU enlargement, coupled with the development of closer links with the
neighbouring countries, must surely, both inevitably and for strategic reasons, imply the expansion of the
above-mentioned programmes, including all of their various components (Socrates, Jeunesse, Leonardo da
Vinci and others such as Culture 2000 or the Jean Monnet chairs), to bring in the citizens of Ukraine,
Belarus and Moldova, who are as things stand able to benefit only from the rather more limited Tempus
programme.

Does the Council not consider that such an extension of this European educational area would reinforce
the dynamic of the European integration and harmonisation process, while also helping raise awareness in
these three east European republics among the younger generation who will form their future civil society
and ruling class?

Is the Council willing to earmark, under each of these programmes, a specific budget for each of these
republics, designed so as to take account of and compensate for the economic gap between their
populations and those of the EU Member States and associated countries, given especially that this
additional cost would be purely marginal for programmes which are already open to over thirty countries?