WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/03 by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Application of the safeguard clause in respect of EU imports of tinned satsuma segments from China.
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: China, European Commission, Spain, citrus fruit, common commercial policy, impact study, international commercial arbitration, operation of the Institutions, protective clause

C 88 E/428

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Annex B of Regulation (EC) No 338/97 would be that in addition to the export permit issued by the
exporting country, an import permit would also be required from the relevant Member State. This would
be of rather marginal value; encouraging customs administrations to better enforce the current provisions
would probably be more effective.

Considerable effort has already been made at Union level to ensure enforcement of the current provisions
and seizures have been made in Member States. In any case, since Malaysia has significant supplies of its
own ramin, its views have to be taken into account before the Community considers additional measures
concerning ramin. The Commission wrote to the Malaysian authorities in June 2003 and is now waiting
for their reply. However, irrespective of what decision is finally made at Union level, the best approach
would be for the Indonesian Government to seek an uplisting of ramin to CITES Appendix II at the 13th
Conference of the Parties of CITES in October 2003. If successful, this would allow trade in ramin to be
more closely regulated, not only with the Union, but worldwide.

The Commission supports the principle that the Union should not act as a market for illegally logged
timber. In the FLEGT Action Plan (2) referred to in the question it is proposed that legislation be introduced
to underpin voluntary agreements between the Community and third countries so as to prevent the
importation of illegally harvested timber from such countries. A general ban on importation of illegally
harvested timber raises a number of issues, hence the Commission proposes to examine this option in
more detail and report back in 2004. In general, the Commission would favour multilateral rather than
unilateral action.

In the FLEGT Action Plan the Commission proposed to introduce legislation to support
the
implementation of proposed voluntary FLEGT Partnership Agreements under Article 133 of the EC Treaty
(cid:1) on the basis that this would fall under the chapter on common commercial policy. Legislation under
this Article is in generally not subject to co-decision.

(1) OJ L 61, 3.3.1997.
(2) COM(2003) 251 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0434)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2674/03

by María Rodríguez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Application of the safeguard clause in respect of EU imports of tinned satsuma segments from

China

In its recent reply to my Question E-1646/03 (1), the Commission recognised the urgent nature of the
request that the safeguard clause be applied to tinned satsuma segments from China, and stated that it was
‘currently’ [actualmente] in receipt of a request from the Spanish Government, complete with all requisite
documentation.

Given that Spain requested the application of the clause at the beginning of June 2002, and that, in
November 2002, the Commission’s reply to my Question P-2956/02 (2) justified its inactivity by the fact
that the file submitted by the Spanish authorities was not rigorous enough, it appears to me that the sector
affected has a right to know the real reasons for the delay of over a year in dealing with this request.

In July 2003, the Commission used the term ‘currently’ [actualmente]. Will the Commission state on what
exact date the Spanish authorities forwarded adequate information as to the nature and scale of the
disruption being caused to sales, and the seriousness of the impact this is having on the Community
producers affected, as demanded by WTO rules?

(1) See page 363.
(2) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 55.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/429

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

As explained in its joint reply to the Honourable Member’s written questions E-1646/03, E-1920/03 and
1921/03 (1), the Commission received a fully documented formal request for safeguard measures under the
transitional product specific safeguard mechanism (TPSSM) (2), and this was received on 10 June 2003.
Spain re-submitted the request under the general erga omnes safeguard regulations, and this was received
on 20 June 2003 (3).

Having analysed the requests and consulted with the Member States, investigations under both the general
erga omnes safeguard instrument and under the TPSSM were opened on 11 July 2003 (4). Those
investigations were pursued throughout the summer and are still ongoing. Member States are being kept
closely informed of developments.

With regard to the fact that it took more than a year since Spain’s initial contact to propose the initiation
of an investigation, the Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that this time was
necessary to clarify a number of legal and substantive issues surrounding the case and to make sure that
the Spanish requests meet the very high standards required by World Trade Organisation (WTO) and
Community rules. As the Honourable Member may well understand, gathering up and assessing the
relevant information as well as holding a series of consultations with all the parties concerned are time
consuming steps, but -in any case- absolutely essential to establish the nature and reach of the alleged
prejudice.

The Commission would like to note that this is the first investigation carried out under the TPSSM
Regulation.

(1) See page 363.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 of 3 March 2003 on a transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism for
imports originating in the People’s Republic of China and amending Regulation (EC) No 519/94 on common rules
for imports from certain third countries, OJ L 65, 8.3.2003.

(3) Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/1994 of 22 December 1994 on common rules for imports, OJ L 349,
31.12.1994, and Council Regulation (EC) No 519/1994 of 7 March 1994 on common rules for imports from
certain third countries, OJ L 67, 10.3.1994.

(4) OJ C 162, 11.7.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0435)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/03

by Ulrich Stockmann (PSE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: US market access for DHL Airways

Since the takeover of the international express service provider DHL by Deutsche Post World Net, UPS and
FedEx have employed various means to exclude DHL from the American market. UPS and FedEx control
the US parcels market, in a kind of duopoly, with a market share of 80 %, while DHL’s market share in the
US stands at 0,9 %. The legal and political means that UPS and FedEx have employed to partition of the US
market from foreign competitors is the rule that airlines can only be considered US carriers if 75 % of their
voting rights and 51 % of their capital shares are in the hands of US citizens. Both of these requirements
are met by DHL Airways and have been since DHL was bought by Deutsche Post AG, when DHL’s land-
based and airborne operations were split into two companies, leaving DHL International with only a 25 %
stake in DHL Airways. The US Department of Transportation (DoT) has confirmed this, rejecting
numerous complaints brought by UPS and FedEx. On 16 April 2003, however, an amendment was made