WRITTEN QUESTION P-1237/03 by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission. EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU.
Date: 2003-03-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EFTA countries, European Economic Area, European Parliament, enlargement of the Union, mixed agreement, ratification of an agreement

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/707

(2004/C 78 E/0755)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0926/03

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(24 March 2003)

Subject: Relocation of workforce from Eastleigh, United Kingdom to Battipaglia, Southern Italy by Pirelli

I have been informed by a local Eastleigh Labour Councillor, Cllr Bill Luffman, that Pirelli
illegally
transferred 312 jobs from Eastleigh in the south-east of England to Battipaglia in Southern Italy using
GBP 50 million of an Italian Government grant.

I request that you urgently investigate the alleged misuse of these funds on the basis that Italy has attracted
business from another Member State with the help of state funds.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Community law does not prohibit companies operating in one or several Member States from reorganising
their activities, and locating their investments according to their business interests.

On 2 October 2002, the Commission has approved aid in favour of Fibre Ottiche Sud for an investment
in Battipaglia, southern Italy. This decision was taken on basis of the compliance of the project with the
the Multisectoral Framework on regional aid for large investment projects (1). For further
rules of
information about this subject, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to
Written Question E-3777/02 by Mr Huhne (2).

(1) OJ C 107, 7.4.1998.
(2) OJ C 280 E, 21.11.2003, p. 26.

(2004/C 78 E/0756)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1237/03

by Diana Wallis (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 March 2003)

Subject: EEA Agreement on enlargement of the EU

Will the Commission confirm the timetable for consultation with the European Parliament in respect of
the conclusion and ratification of the EEA Agreement with the acceding States on enlargement of the
European Union?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

As a consequence of the Union enlargement, the agreement on the European Economic Area (EEA), which
extends the internal market to Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, must also be enlarged. This has to be
negotiated with these three EEA European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries. As the EEA Agreement
is a mixed agreement, the Commission has obtained a mandate, adopted by the 9 December 2002 General
Affairs Council, to negotiate on behalf of the Community and the current Member States. The negotiations
were launched on 9 January 2003.

Much progress has been achieved in the very difficult negotiations over recent weeks, and a set of
extremely finely balanced elements for an agreement is now there, which the Commission believes will
enable to conclude rapidly the negociations. The Commission has had several exchanges of views with the
Parliament on the subject of these negotiations.

C 78 E/708

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission hopes to conclude the negotiations with the EEA EFTA countries and the Acceding
Countries on the enlargement of the EEA Agreement in the near future. Once the negotiations are
concluded, the draft EEA enlargement instrument will be transmitted to the Parliament. As for the
timetable, it is expected that the EEA enlargement instrument will be ratified in parallel to the Treaty of
Accession to the European Union. As for the involvement of the Parliament it shall give its assent in
accordance with Article 300 (3) second subparagraph of the EC Treaty, since the EEA Agreement belongs
to the category of agreements concluded by the Community in accordance with Article 310 of the Treaty.

(2004/C 78 E/0757)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1266/03

by Caroline Lucas (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(27 March 2003)

Subject: TRIPs, UPOV and Farmers’ Rights

The EU in its bilateral trade agreements almost invariably seeks to impose obligations on its partners to
accede to international treaties on intellectual property which go beyond their existing commitments. One
example is the use of what has been termed ‘TRIPs Plus’ to require trading partners to accede to the
International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV 1991) which carries specific
rules on plant variety rights not contained in TRIPs. The EU-Lebanon agreement is the latest example;
although Lebanon is not yet a member of the WTO it is required to accede both to UPOV 1991 and to the
TRIPs Agreement within 5 years.

The Commission in its Concept Paper of September 2002 on the review of TRIPs Article 27.3b and the
TRIPs/CBD relationship notes that Article 27.3b requires effective sui generis protection of plant variety
rights but agrees that, although the UPOV 1991 Convention meets the standard of effectiveness in
Article 27.3(b), other protection models may be equally effective.

In addition, the Concept Paper says that Farmers’ exemptions (i.e. exceptions to plant variety rights or
patents allowing farmers to save, use, exchange or sell seeds of protected varieties or seeds) can, under
certain circumstances, be justified under Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPs Agreement, or under Article 30 of the
TRIPs Agreement. These rights are either not available or are severely restricted under UPOV 1991.

Will the Commission please explain why it pursues a set of objectives in its bilateral trade negotiations
which clearly and effectively prevent the application of the more flexible intellectual property rules in
respect of plant varieties, as provided by the multilateral TRIPs agreement?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2003)

Through its Communication (Concept Paper) of 17 October 2002 (1) the Union was the first developed
country Member of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to address the review of Article 27.3(b) of the
Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs) Agreement and related issues in a substantial,
constructive and systematic manner.

In particular, the Union acknowledged that the UPOV Convention was not the only possible sui generis
protection model for plant varieties and advocated an interpretation of the TRIPs Agreement that would
allow for farmers’ exemptions. This approach was welcomed by developing country Members, both in the
TRIPs Council and in the Committee on Trade and Environment.

Bilateral trade agreements concluded by the Union do contain a reference to the UPOV Convention, either
through a commitment to adhere to the UPOVC or by a best-endeavours close (which, however, does not
constitute a firm obligation in itself). These commitments are part of a balanced package of mutual
commitments and concessions, which have not been ‘imposed’ but have been freely accepted by the
trading partner.