WRITTEN QUESTION P-0661/03 by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Tariffs on imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines.
Date: 2003-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Philippines, Thailand, cannery, common commercial policy, fishery product, impact study, preserved product, tariff preference, tariff quota

C 84 E/460

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

In this area, the Commission, which ensures that Community law is applied, does not hesitate to bring
proceedings against Member States, notably on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty, when it observes
violations of Article 141 of the EC Treaty (ex-Article 119) that guarantees the principle of equal pay for
women and men, in order to remove all forms of direct discrimination on grounds of sex and all indirect
forms of discrimination, notably those stemming from differences of treatment due to the family or marital
status of tax-payers that are not justified on grounds other than sex.

Moreover, the Commission financed a study on the impact of national taxation schemes on women’s work,
the 300-page report on which (cid:1) in English (cid:1) was finalised in February 2001 by Professor Paloma de
Villota. While the Commission cannot be held responsible for this excellent study produced by this
independent expert,
it is definitely a precious source of information and thoughts that is taken into
consideration when implementing the Commission’s initiatives and measures, especially those of a
legislative nature.

The Honourable Member may consult this study on the site of the ‘Equality for Women and Men’ Unit of
the Commission’s Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs at the following address: (http://
europa.eu.int/comm/employment_social/equ_opp/women_work.pdf).

(1) See, in this connection, ‘inter alia’ the judgment of 14 February 1995 of the Court of Justice in the Schumacker

case, C-279/93.

(2004/C 84 E/0535)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0661/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(28 February 2003)

Subject: Tariffs on imports of tinned tuna from Thailand and the Philippines

the negotiations intended to secure approval of

Following the fourth WTO Ministerial Conference held in Doha (Qatar) in November 2001, in the course
of
the waiver needed for the EU to be granted
authorisation allowing it
to maintain tariff preferences with the ACP countries, Thailand and the
Philippines made their votes conditional upon improved access for their tinned tuna to the Community
market. The Trade Commissioner, Pascal Lamy, undertook merely to hold a series of consultations on the
subject, which concluded without any agreement and with the EU proposing to go through a mediation
process before the WTO, a procedure which is not legally binding. Following the mediation, the mediator,
Mr Rufus Yerxa, proposed the possible opening of a quota of 25 000 tonnes of tinned tuna as a finished
product at a 12 % tariff. A considerable period of time has elapsed since the Doha Ministerial Conference,
and the European Union currently intends to adopt a regulation accepting the proposal put forward by the
mediator, against the opposition of the two main tinned tuna-producing countries in the European Union,
as well as the opposition of the entire EU tuna-fishing and tuna-processing and canning industry.

Can the Commission say what studies it has carried out to assess the impact which the opening of
1.
this quota will have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union? If no such studies
have been carried out, does the Commission not consider that, before granting any type of preferences to
third countries, an impact assessment should be carried out to evaluate the effects which this measure will
have on the tuna-fishing and canning industry in the European Union and on the workers employed in
these sectors in the Community?

Can the Commission say whether the commitment given by Commissioner Lamy in Doha was solely

2.
to open consultations with Thailand and the Philippines?

3.
On this subject, Commissioner Lamy has stated that the only commitment given was to open
consultations with Thailand and the Philippines. Can the Commission therefore explain why the European
Union would lose credibility if it did not grant preferences to Thailand and the Philippines, if there was no
commitment other than to open consultations?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/461

Can the Commission explain why, if the mediation process is a procedure which is not binding on
4.
the parties and it was established in the course of the European Union’s consultations with Thailand and
the Philippines that there was no need to grant any type of tariff preference for the parties, it has now
become necessary to grant a tariff concession to Thailand and the Philippines?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Prior to deciding to recommend the adoption of the Mediator’s proposal that the Community should open
a quota of 25 000 tons of canned tuna at 12 % duty, the Commission examined the proposal closely. The
Commission analysed all the information at its disposal concerning the industry and Community trade in
the product. It examined the potential effects on trade in canned tuna and on the sector as a whole, giving
due weight to the concerns and interests of the Community industry, but also examined the possible effect
on its relations with Thailand, Philippines and other World Trade Organisation (WTO) members of
rejecting the Mediator’s opinion. Following that analysis, the Commission decided to recommend to
Member States that the Mediator’s opinion be adopted. The Commission, therefore, considers that it would
not be necessary to carry out further analysis such as an impact study of the type referred to by the
Honourable Member.

The Commission refers to its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0162/03 (1) for a full
explanation of the commitment of the Member of the Commission responsible for Trade at Doha but
would remind the Honourable Member that, from the outset, the Community agreed to enter into
mediation if consultations on the matter failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution.

The Commission considers that the credibility of the Community in the WTO would be seriously damaged
if the mediator’s opinion is not adopted as the Community has consistently been a keen advocate for
respect and application of WTO rules and procedures.

(1) See page 457.

(2004/C 84 E/0536)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0806/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Violations of Community law in EU Member States

(17 March 2003)

Could the Commission provide a comparative table showing the violations of Community law committed
by each EU Member State?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the Commission’s Nineteenth annual report to
Parliament on monitoring the application of Community law (2001) (1).

(1) COM(2002) 324 final.