WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. GATS.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Committee of the Regions, European Parliament, GATS, common commercial policy, division of powers, powers of the institutions (EU), trade agreement, transparency in decision-making

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/19

(2003/C 242 E/025)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2375/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Local authorities have responsibility for land-use planning and, in their role as planning authorities, place
restrictions on the supply of services, including limitation of the scale and distribution of developments.
Could the European Commission clarify what impact the current negotiations on GATS will have on local
authorities’ planning activities?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 September 2002)

The Commission is committed to safeguarding local communities’ possibilities for pursuing a variety of
legitimate policy objectives through land-use planning, such as preserving community character and
protecting the environment, throughout the course of the current trade round. Some Members have raised
issues such as lack of transparency in town-planning regulation for further discussion with the aim of
looking at possible ways to improve transparency of the planning process.

(2003/C 242 E/026)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2377/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

The complexity of the current GATS negotiations highlights the requirements of many EU citizens for
effective and transparent governance within the European Union and its institutions. In the light of these
concerns, could the European Commission clarify the EU decision-making process whereby the General
Agreement on Trade in Services is negotiated and, more specifically, confirm the role of the European
Parliament and the Committee of the Regions in this process?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2002)

The Community has exclusive competence for the common commercial policy (Article 133, paragraph 1 of
the EC Treaty). This provision has its origins in the requirement for the Community to take responsibility
for the external consequences of the internal policy to establish a customs union. Article 133, paragraph 1
provides for exclusive Community competence essentially for trade in goods, cross-border services not
implying movement of persons and some very specific aspects of intellectual property rights. However,
there is provision for its scope to be extended to include the full range of trade in services, and intellectual
property, should the Council decide unanimously to do so (this widening of exclusive powers is further
extended under the Nice Treaty).

In the case of the international agreement likely to result from the Doha Development Agenda, the Council
adopted conclusions in 1999 setting out the objectives of the negotiations. These constitute the basis for
the negotiations which are conducted by the Commission in consultation with a Committee designated by
the Council under the EC Treaty (the Article 133 Committee). The Council is responsible for concluding
agreements. Responsibility for the day-to-day management of trade policy lies with the Commission, which
keeps in close contact with the Council through the Article 133 Committee, which meets on a regular
basis.

C 242 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Although the Parliament has no formal role in the formulation of trade policy under the existing treaties,
it is in accordance with the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 regularly briefed on trade policy issues
and consulted on key questions. Certain trade matters may also be related to agreements requiring the
assent of the Parliament under Article 300, paragraph 3, subparagraph 2.

The Committee of the Regions is not involved in the decision making process with regard to the common
trade policy and has so far not devoted any own initiative reports to trade policy. However,
the
Commission is ready to inform the Committee of the Regions about specific trade issues, in particular as
the Doha Development Agenda moves ahead.

(2003/C 242 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2383/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: CD piracy

Does the Commission have any information on reports that there has been a substantial increase in the
production and sale of counterfeit CDs and music cassette tapes in Ukraine and, if so, can the Commission
indicate what action is being taken either by the Commission or by the Ukrainian authorities to address
the problem?

Does the Commission have any reports of similar activities in any of the applicant Countries, and, if so,
which country has the greatest level of illegal activity in this area?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

The Commission can confirm that the production of pirated CDs and other intellectual property rights
(IPR)-related goods in Ukraine has increased significantly over recent years. Piracy and a lack of adequate
protection of intellectual property rights in Ukraine have become a real concern for the Community and
its enterprises, notably as regards CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs and books, as well as infringements of
geographical
indications. Ukraine has recently considerably improved her copyright legislation. Never-
theless, enforcement of IPR remains a point of serious concern. The recording industry reported a piracy
rate in Ukraine of 99 % resulting in estimated losses of USD 210 million per year. This has not only an
effect on the Ukrainian market, but also on neighbouring countries to which more than 30 million pirated
CDs are exported annually.

The Commission has repeatedly expressed serious concerns about the rampant piracy and counterfeiting in
Ukraine and, in general, about the lack of adequate enforcement of IPR legislation which leads to major
losses both for European and local right-holders. This issue has been raised at regular meetings of the
Community-Ukraine Cooperation Committee and its Sub-Committees, and also by means of
letters
addressed to the Ukrainian Government and Rada.

Both the Commission and the Ukrainian authorities are well aware of
this issue, and under the
Community-Ukraine Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA), which entered into force in 1998,
Ukraine committed itself to adopt a level of protection similar to that in the Community by 2003, and to
accede to a number of international conventions on IPR (Article 50 and Annex III of the PCA).

In the past year, the Ukrainian government has made some substantial legislative efforts in the IPR field,
which have been welcomed by the Community as significant steps in complying with PCA obligations and
in combating piracy and counterfeiting (i.e. amendments to the law on copyright as well as the adoption
of the new Criminal Code, which strengthens penalties for IPR infringements, and accession to a number