WRITTEN QUESTION P-1403/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council. Abolition of Duty on Weapons regulation.
Date: 2003-04-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Council of the European Union, EC Regulation, drafting of EU law, import, military equipment, suspension of customs duties

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/85

The Council does not have at its disposal a list of ammunitions currently in use which contain depleted
uranium. The decisions on the use of various types of ammunitions are taken by the Member States on the
basis of their national sovereignty. All Member States are parties to the Geneva Conventions.

On 9 April 2001 the Council had an exchange of views on the issue of depleted uranium (DU) munitions
in the light of scientific evidence compiled by various international organisations. At the end of this
exchange of views, the President summarised the discussion thus:

The Council notes the work by various international organisations (UNEP, WHO, NATO, Ad hoc
Group of experts set up by the Commission) on the possible health and environmental impact of
exposure to depleted uranium in ammunition used in the Balkans.

In these detailed and objective examinations, there exists no scientific evidence to link the use of
depleted uranium with various illnesses suffered in the population or among those who served in
conflict areas.

However, due to the apparent health and environmental problems in the region the Council should
remain committed to following possible further investigations closely and re-examining the issue if
appropriate at a future stage.

The Commission is already addressing some of the environmental problems in the regions through
ongoing projects. The Council encourages the Commission to take into account findings from the
reports on depleted uranium, as well as the overall situation concerning environment and health
issues, as the Commission draws up new country strategy papers for all the countries in the Western
Balkans.

Since the deliberations of 9 April 2001, the Council has not addressed the issue of depleted uranium. The
Council invites the Honourable Parliamentarian to address his question to the Commission for information
on aspects it has dealt with since that date.

(2004/C 51 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1403/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Council

(11 April 2003)

Subject: Abolition of Duty on Weapons regulation

The Council’s reply to my oral question H-0043/03 (1) concerning the regulation adopted by the Council
on 21 January on the abolition of duties on weapons and military equipment did not address the principal
issues posed in my question.

Why was this regulation adopted ‘without debate’ by the Council on 21 January?

When was it debated in Council since the Commission came forward with the proposal in 1988?

What brought about the efforts to bring this matter to a final and successful outcome in the second half of
2002, as outlined in the Council’s answer to Question H-0043/03?

Can the Council confirm that the provisions set out in the original proposal stating that this would be a
temporary measure for three years were removed in the final regulation?

Are there estimates as to the amount of duty that will be foregone by each Member State arising out of
this regulation?

Are there estimates as to the likely impact on imports of weapons into the EU?

(1) Written answer of 12.3.2003.

C 51 E/86

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Commission presented its proposal for the above Regulation on 29 September 1988. The proposal
was discussed at Working Party level in the Council between 1988 and 1990. Work was suspended in
1990, and resumed in the Customs Union Working Party (Common Customs Tariff) in 1997. Between
1997 and 2002 there was no further discussion of the proposal.

Before presenting its proposal in 1988, the Commission had initiated infringement proceedings against
several Member States under Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the Treaty. These infringement proceedings
were suspended pending the adoption of the Regulation. At the beginning of 2002, the Commission
relaunched these infringement proceedings against several Member States.

Subsequently, during the second semester of 2002, the Council reopened discussion of the proposal and
worked and settling an agreement at preparatory level, which lead to a political agreement, in December
2002. On this basis, the Regulation suspending import duties on certain weapons and military equipment
has been formally adopted by the Council on 21 January 2003, as a point without discussion, which is
entirely in accordance with established Council procedures, as preparatory levels had cleared out all the
outstanding issues.

In the original Commission proposal it was foreseen that the Regulation would have a validity of three
years. This provision was not included in the Regulation, as adopted, since, given the long-term duration
of defence procurement contracts, assurances of suspension of import duties for the duration of the
contract were required.

The Council does not possess any estimates of the amount of duties concerned or of the likely impact on
imports of weapons into the EU.

(2004/C 51 E/098)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1419/03

by Véronique Mathieu (EDD) to the Commission

Subject: Fines imposed on French farmers’ unions

(14 April 2003)

The Commission recently imposed fines on six French farmers’ unions for hampering competition.

The Commission knows that its decision constitutes a death blow for trade unionism in the farming
industry. The French unions are highly representative, with 70 % of all farmers belonging to one or other
of them. All branches of the industry now feel threatened.

In 2001, at the height of the crisis in the beef and veal sector triggered by both BSE and foot and mouth
disease, the operators in the beef and veal sector attempted to control market prices in order to prevent
the sector, which maintains high quality standards, from going under.

At the time, producer prices were in free fall, while there was no fall in consumer prices (cid:1) on the
contrary, in some cases they rose. The emergency measures taken by the operators did not constitute an
agreement between commercial undertakings aimed at gaining a dominant market position; they were
merely a means for operators in the beef and veal sector to show solidarity with each other, with the
French Government’s approval, at a time which an economic disaster called for exceptional measures.

Neither the European institutions nor the national authorities came up with any effective solutions at the
time. The steps taken to withdraw produce from the market proved inadequate, partly because of a lack of
cooperation on the part of some Member States.

Given that the Commission has accepted the idea of natural disasters, should it not do the same for
economic disasters, which also cause human hardship, and, having done so, authorise the governments of
the Member States to take appropriate action?

What steps does it intend to take in the future should this or some other sector be hit by a similar crisis?