WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/03 by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding.
Date: 2003-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Regulation, State aid, competition law, control of State aid, interpretation of the law, shipbuilding

C 51 E/14

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Convergence programme for each Member State for real GDP, inflation and the budget balance together
with the currently published outturns for each of those variables?

2.
Concerning the answer to the second and third parts of the question, does the Commission now
intend to conduct an ex post study of the projections and the outturns to discover systematic differences?

3.

And if so, when will it be ready?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 107.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2003)

A copy of tables compiled by the Commission is sent direct to the Honourable Member and the Secretariat
General of the Parliament. These tables present the projections in the Stability or Convergence programme
for each Member State, and the resulting ones for the euro area and the Union as a whole, for real gross
domestic production (GDP), the budget balance and inflation. These tables also include the Autumn 2002
Commission Forecasts, which besides forecasting developments for these variables between 2002 and
2004, also reproduce the published out-turns for 2001. Out-turns for 2002 are not available in many
cases yet. The out-turns for 2002 budget balances will only be available and published in the course of
March 2003, following the regular notification by Member States of figures for the net borrowing
requirement.

The Commission does not intend for the moment to conduct an ex-post study of the differences between
projections and out-turn. However, an overview of the programmes and of their assessment will be
included, as in previous years, in the report ‘Public Finances in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU)’,
which is scheduled for publication in May 2003.

(2004/C 51 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0040/03

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding

Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 (1) of 27 June 2002 concerns a temporary defensive mechanism to
shipbuilding (2). For the purposes of that regulation, the relevant definitions listed in Article 1 of Regulation
(EC) No 1540/98 (3) apply. In addition, the regulation lays down further definitions.

Accordingly, pursuant to Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 no contract-related operating aid to
shipbuilding may be granted in respect of contracts agreed as from 1 January 2001. However, as an
exceptional and temporary measure, and in order to assist Community shipyards in those segments that
have suffered adverse effects in the form of material injury and serious prejudice caused by unfair Korean
competition, a temporary defensive mechanism is authorised for limited market segments and for a short
and limited period only.

Is the European Commission aware that the relevant definitions in Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002 are
worded in such a way that they may be interpreted differently from one Member State to another?

Is it aware that the wording of the regulation may be interpreted as meaning that subsidies may be granted
for lost orders?

What measures does it plan to take to resolve this problem?

(1) OJ L 172, 2.7.2002, p. 1.
(2) This regulation was drawn up in the framework of Council Regulation (EC) No 1540/98 of 29 June 1998

establishing new rules on aid to shipbuilding.

(3) OJ L 202, 18.7.1998, p. 1.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/15

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

In the Commission’s view, the definitions provided in Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1177/2002
of 27 June 2002 concerning a temporary defensive mechanism to shipbuilding (‘TDM’) are sufficiently
clear and precise. The definitions reflect those that are standard within the shipbuilding industry and are
based largely on those used by Lloyd’s Register.

Furthermore, it is clear from the TDM that aid may only be granted in relation to contracts awarded to
Community yards, for which there has been competition from a Korean yard offering a lower price.

The Commission will ensure that, in the implementation of schemes and individual aid granted under the
TDM, the requirements of the TDM are met.

(2004/C 51 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0240/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Protective measures against fertiliser imports in Hungary

The Hungarian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Transport is currently carrying out an investigation as a
basis for a decision on protective measures against the general importation of nitrogenous fertilisers. It was
a Hungarian fertiliser manufacturer that requested the investigation.

According to statement no 13/2002 by the Hungarian Ministry of Economic Affairs and Transport,
‘… imports of ammonium nitrate have grown continuously in recent years. The substantial increase in
imports is causing serious damage to the only domestic producer of nitrogenous fertilisers, or is liable to
cause it damage.’

The aforementioned solitary domestic producer cannot supply the whole Hungarian market, and Hungary
has accordingly imported nitrogenous fertilisers in the past decade (imports grew by 18,3 % between 1998
and 2001).

All nitrogenous fertiliser producers in the EU Member States have to produce under the same conditions
(purchase prices for gas) as the Hungarian producer; they have no advantage over their Hungarian
competitor in terms of raw materials prices or wage costs.

What view does the Commission take of the planned introduction of protective measures against imports
of nitrogenous fertilisers in the context of Hungary’s impending accession to the EU?

Are protective measures against imports of fertiliser from the EU justified on the grounds stated here?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2003)

the investigation that has been initiated by the
The Commission cannot prejudge the outcome of
Hungarian authorities in respect of importation of nitrogenous fertiliser. If the Hungarian authorities
conclude that safeguard measures should be imposed,
the necessary
information to justify this decision. The Commission will then assess the case and hold consultations with
Hungary in case the evidence provided is not satisfactory.

they will have to supply all

With regard to the argument that the Hungarian industry cannot meet the needs for the domestic
consumption, it should be noted that, from a strictly legal point of view, insufficient domestic production
does not exclude the imposition of safeguard measures on imports. The decisive criterion in this context is
rather the extent of injury that the imports have caused by taking up market shares previously held by the
domestic industry. The principle of proportionality has however to be respected.