WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/02 by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council. EU-Mercosur relations.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mercosur, Mercosur countries, common commercial policy, negotiation of an agreement (EU), trade agreement (EU)

C 309 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Cabinet of the Member of the Commission responsible for Personnel and Administration to confirm that
he was ‘interested in leaving the Commission in an orderly manner before the end of this Commission’s
mandate’ and indicated that ‘a timing towards the middle of 2002 -alternatively middle of 2004- will turn
out to fit best into my own intentions for the future’. He also hoped ‘that this could be taken into
consideration in any conclusion that the Commission may want to draw in the meantime’. The Member of
the Commission responsible for Fisheries and Agriculture for his part made it clear that, while he was not
seeking to replace Mr Smidt, he could accept Mr Smidt’s departure provided it could take place before or
after the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy and the best part of its implementation. Currently,
Mr Smidt is still Director General for Fisheries. The post has been advertised on 8 May 2002. After a
successor is appointed, Mr Smidt will take on the duties of an ‘hors classe’ Advisor to the new Director
General. Well before the drafting of the reform proposals, Mr Schmidt had been the subject of a smear
campaign in various Spanish newspapers, among them ‘Industrias Pesqueras’, about his conduct as Director
General. He had at some stage a rough time with the Parliaments Committee on Fisheries. However, the
Member of the Commission responsible for Agriculture, Rural Development and Fisheries, stood always by
his Director General and refused to give in to outside criticism.

4.
The discussion of the proposals for the reform of the CFP in the Commission produced a number of
additional questions which had not come up in the framework of the preliminary internal consultations.
These additional questions related to the functioning of the future fleet policy and the relation to the
MAGP’s (multi-annual guidance programmes), to the biological status of a number of important fishstocks
in Community waters, to the relation between scientific advice and measures to be taken, to industrial
fishing, to the role and functioning of the Joint Inspection Structure, to the future structural policy in
fisheries,
to agreements with third countries and to the role and functioning of Regional Advisory
Committee’s in particular in connection with the institutional framework of the Community. In particular
it was deemed necessary to expand the socio-economic impact analyses made in order to show the effects
of the reform proposals on the fishing sector. There was also an intensive discussion on the need for
additional financial means for scrapping fishing vessels and for socio-economic measures to help the
fishing industry adjust to structural changes. The revealed need for additional information and additional
work to be undertaken showed clearly that, although the substance was right, some more time was
necessary to improve the wording of the draft proposals. The postponement by several more weeks was,
however, due to the schedule of the Member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries and Agriculture,
who in fact missed a few Commission meetings due to the informal meeting of the Agriculture Council in
Spain and one important meeting, which had long been scheduled with the Prime Minister of Germany.

5.
None of the positions expressed by the various interests concerned in the late stages of the reform
preparations, after the conclusion of the formal consultation period (Greenpaper) (cid:1) orally, in writing and,
most often, through the media (cid:1) had any impact whatsoever on the Commission’s determination to act
pursuing only the general
interest and on the decision of the Commission, which approved those
proposals without substantive change.

In proposing the reform of the CFP, the Commission has made full use of its right of initiative and
6.
proved its independence as established by the Treaties. While open to input from consultations, which
have provided a number of good ideas, the Commission has proved impervious to any suggestion that
could have led the draft proposal tabled by the Member of the Commission responsible for Fisheries and
Agriculture to deviate from the general interest. Therefore asking it to restore its credibility is a ‘procès
d’intention’ that is totally unsubstantiated and unjustified.

(2002/C 309 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1434/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: EU-Mercosur relations

Rodrigo Rato, the Spanish Minister of the Economy, recently highlighted the importance of a trade
agreement between the EU and Mercosur, calling for a firmer attitude on the part of the Union. What are
the obstacles preventing the signing of this agreement, given that the EU has already signed one with

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/125

Mexico, and is intending to do so with Chile on the occasion of the forthcoming Madrid European and
Latin American summit? Why can an agreement with Chile be signed, and not with Brazil, Argentina,
Uruguay and Paraguay as members of Mercosur?

Reply

(30 September 2002)

1.
As you are probably aware, the Council formally approved the EU-Mercosur negotiating directives on
13 September 1999, based on the political compromise reached in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999. This
compromise instructed the Commission to start negotiations on non-tariff elements immediately and to
begin negotiations on tariffs and services on 1 July 2001 in the light of the results of the WTO round. The
Commission has a mandate to negotiate with Mercosur and it is fully in charge of these negotiations.

It is recalled that the Council, at its meeting on 28 January 2002, reiterated the importance it
2.
It also
attaches to the establishment of an Association Agreement between the EU and Mercosur.
welcomed the progress already achieved in those negotiations and reiterated the EU commitment to
continue to make further progress.

3.
At the EU-Mercosur Summit in Madrid on 17 May, the Heads of State and of Government of both
regions, in the light of their objective to make rapid progress and conclude the negotiations as soon as
possible, agreed to give a new impetus to the economic/trade negotiations under the interregional
association agreement. With this in mind, they agreed that before the next meeting of the Bi-regional
Negotiating Committee, there will be a meeting between EU and Mercosur negotiators at ministerial level.
This meeting is expected to take place in Brasilia during the month of July 2002.

(2002/C 309 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1436/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Torture in the EU

A recent Amnesty International report denounced the practice of torture in Spain, involving foreigners and
ethnic minorities. It cited 321 cases in the last seven years, 32 of them documented in detail, including 6
deaths and 5 rapes or sexual assaults. Is the Council aware of this type of inhuman practice in Member
States other than Spain? What measures has it taken, if appropriate, to disavow the practice of torture?
What measures has it taken to investigate claims of torture, prevent torture and punish it where it has
been proven to exist?

Reply

(3 October 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that each Member State is responsible for the respect
for and safeguard of fundamental human rights, including the right of any person to a fair trial.

The Union’s responsibility in this case, as set out in Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union, concerns
situations where the Union acts in the exercise of its competence.

Launching investigations into a Member State of the kind suggested by the Honourable Member does not
fall within the competence of the Council.