WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. GM crop trials.
Date: 2003-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to information, competence of the Member States, consumer information, environmental monitoring, environmental protection, genetically modified organism, plant health control

C 65 E/20

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

In that respect, it would be useful to recall the circumstances relating to the World Trade Organisation
(WTO) incompatible Foreign Sales Corporation/Extraterritorial Income (FSC/ETI) legislation which provides
an illegal export tax subsidy to American firms to the tune of roughly USD 4 000 million per year.
In particular, following the Community’s successful challenge of the FSC/ETI legislation before the WTO,
on 30 August 2002 the Community was granted by the WTO the right to impose countermeasures in the
form of tariffs on imports of certain goods from the United States up to that amount. However, the United
States has not yet taken concrete steps towards compliance, although both the Administration and senior
members of Congress have indicated that this is their intention.

At the same time it must be made clear that the Commission’s objective in this dispute is not the
imposition of countermeasures on American products but to obtain the withdrawal of illegal measures that
adversely affect the interests of Community companies. The Commission’s aim is, therefore, to ensure that
the United States complies with the WTO ruling on FSC within the shortest time possible. But if the
United States fails to comply, the Community will have no other option than to exercise its WTO rights.

In an attempt, however, to minimise the negative consequences that any eventual countermeasures could
create for European industry, the Commission has launched a public consultation exercise by selecting
only products for which imports from the United States represent a maximum 20 % of total imports into
the Community. The Commission is, therefore, now in the process of evaluating comments received from
interested parties during the public consultation period. In carrying out this analysis, the Commission will
be particularly vigilant to ensure that no harm is caused to Community interests which is after all the
stated objective of the whole exercise. A final decision on this will be taken following consultation of the
Member States during the first quarter of 2003. At this stage, however, no comments can be made with
respect to the inclusion or exclusion from an eventual list of sanctions of particular products.

(2004/C 65 E/021)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0180/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject: GM crop trials

Can the Commission confirm whether, during and after GM crop trials, Member State citizens will have
access to the details of the environmental monitoring procedure and its results?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Experimental releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), including GM crops, are now regulated
under Part B of Directive 2001/18/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 March 2001, on the
deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms (1), which was applicable on
17 October 2002. To date (20 February 2003), 22 experimental releases have been conducted under this
Directive. Summary details of these releases are publicly available via the web site of the Joint Research
Centre of the Commission at: (http://gmosnif.jrc.i).

regulation of experimental

Directive 2001/18/EC replaced Council Directive 90/220/EEC of 23 April 1990 (2), which similarly
provided for
its Part
B. Approximately 1 700 experimental releases were conducted under Directive 90/220/EEC from its
application in October 1991 until it was replaced on 17 October 2002. Summary details of these releases
(http://
are publicly available via the web site of the Joint Research Centre of the Commission at:
biotech.jrc.it).

including GM crops, under

releases of GMOs,

Under Directive 90/220/EEC, the examination of applications and granting of consent for experimental
releases were carried out by the authorities of the Member State in which the release was to take place.
This procedure will continue under Directive 2001/18/EC.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/21

Article 4 of Directive 90/220/EEC required Member States to ensure that their competent authority
organised inspection and other control measures, as appropriate, to ensure compliance with the Directive.
This is again, similarly reflected in Directive 2001/18/EC.

Consequently, it is the competent authorities of Member States who control site inspections, including any
monitoring, of GM crop trials and hold the relevant information.

In this context, Directive 2001/18/EC now requires, under Article 9(2) that ‘Member States shall make
available to the public information on all Part B releases of GMOs in their territory’.

(1) OJ L 106, 17.4.2001.
(2) OJ L 117, 8.5.1990.

(2004/C 65 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0204/03

by Bert Doorn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 February 2003)

Subject: State aid for the banking sector in the Czech Republic

I have studied the European Commission report entitled ‘State Aid Scoreboard (cid:1) autumn 2002 update (cid:1)
Special edition on the candidate countries’ (cid:1) with great interest. In that connection, I welcome the
European Commission’s initiative in drawing up a report on state aid in the future EU Member States.
It represents a necessary step along the road to complete transparency, one which is of great significance
as regards accession.

However, the European Commission report makes in clear in various instances that the information which
it possesses consists solely of data supplied by the applicant countries themselves and is not, therefore, the
result of research carried out by the European Commission itself.

I should therefore be grateful if the Commission would supply me with additional information about the
following issues:

1. Does the Commission intend to verify the accuracy of the information supplied to it? If so, how will
this be done? For example, it came to my attention that the figures given in the ‘State Aid Scoreboard’
relating to the aid granted to Czech banks in 2000 (EUR 144 million) were considerably lower than
those given in publicly available sources in Prague. Such sources allege that state aid amounting to
several hundred million euros was granted to a small number of banks in 2000.

2. The Commission has not indicated whether, in its view, that aid was granted in compliance with the
EU legislation governing the granting of state aid currently in force. Is it, nevertheless, possible for the
state aid granted after 10 December 1994 to be deemed to constitute existing aid and to be included
in a list attached to the Accession Treaty (‘State Aid Scoreboard’, Section 1.2.5)?

3. What conclusions will the Commission draw if it is proved that the figures set out in the ‘State Aid

Scoreboard’ relating to the state aid granted to Czech banks are fundamentally inaccurate?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

State Aid Scoreboard

1.
The Commission compiled the State Aid Scoreboard data on the basis of the figures provided by the
Czech authorities. It does not verify this information, as it does not verify the information from the current
Member States either. As far as possible the Commission tried to apply the same methodology as that used
for the existing Member States. However, as this was the first exercise of its kind, there were naturally