WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. Colombian flower imports and GSP.
Date: 2003-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, Colombia, Kenya, common commercial policy, floriculture, generalised preferences, import policy, international competition

C 88 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2004)

The PHARE Programme cofinanced the border post of Gubinek, which is for goods traffic only and is
located beside the border post of Gubin reserved for passenger traffic. The cofinanced work was completed
in 1998.

It is true that on the German side in the direction of Poland goods traffic has been restricted on Thursdays
and Fridays to heavy goods vehicles under 20 tonnes. This decision was taken because, on the German
side, there is as yet no alternative route around the town so that, at the moment, all heavy goods traffic
has to pass through the town. The inhabitants of the German town complained to the competent German
authorities and asked for traffic restrictions to be introduced. The restrictions were the subject of an
agreement between the German and Polish authorities.

Work on the alternative route on the German side has already begun and should be completed next year.
The restrictions are therefore only temporary. On the Polish side, there is already an alternative route so no
such problems are expected. For these reasons, the Commission does not consider that the funds invested
were ill spent.

As to the actual restrictions, current Community legislation does not cover prohibitions on traffic. Taking
into account the fact that the temporary restriction is a one-off occurrence and is based on sound road
safety and environmental protection criteria, the Commission does not believe any action is called for.

(2004/C 88 E/0157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3478/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Colombian flower imports and GSP

Why is it proposed to ‘graduate’ Colombian Sector V (including cut flower) imports from GSP so they will
be denied tariff preference?

Given that the share of Colombian flowers on the EU market declined from 20,15 % in 1997 to 15,41 % in
2001 and that Colombia’s competitors Israel and Kenya will not be graduated, how can this be justified?

Since the reasons for the GSP ‘drugs’ regime unfortunately still persist, will not an EU withdrawal of tariff
preference for flowers force more Colombians back into economic reliance on the drugs trade?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

At the end of 2002, the Commission intended to graduate certain sectors for beneficiary countries
according to Article 12 of the Council Regulation No 2501/2001 on a scheme for generalised tariff
preferences (GSP). This provision requires the Commission to decide on an adjustment on the GSP
products coverage on a yearly basis. The objective is to enhance the efficiency and fairness of the scheme,
by focussing its benefits on those countries and sectors which need them most. Nevertheless, this decision
is not of a political nature, and is solely based on economic criteria. Prior to its decision, the Commission
has to be backed by the Member States (qualified majority) according to the Union procedures
(Comitology).

The GSP is incentive oriented. In particular, it urges the beneficiaries to diversify economically as a means
to development. If a beneficiary country relies too much on one sector in its exports, this can be
detrimental for its development, and allows for the graduation. Accordingly, in the case of Colombia, this
is not the Union’s market share that has been the criterion for the graduation, but the too important share
of a sector in Colombia’s exports.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/149

Nevertheless, to take into account the specific difficulties that might arise, the re-introduction of customs
duties will exceptionally be progressive, in two steps (1 November 2003, 1 May 2004), in order not to
disturb trade.

Furthermore, the Council adopted, in December 2003, an amendment to the GSP Regulation whereby
beneficiary countries accounting for less than one percent of the GSP imports would no longer be in a
position to be graduated. Colombia will be eligible under this new provision as from 2005, and
accordingly would not be further graduated for any sectors, and the GSP preference should be re-
established for the sector V as from the 1 January 2005.

Concerning import of flowers from Kenya, it is recalled that this country has free access for cut flowers
under the Cotonou Agreement and does not use the GSP scheme.

(2004/C 88 E/0158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3484/03

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Follow-up to Written Question E-2055/03 on the Latvian Police Law prohibiting police officers

from forming trade unions

In response to my Written Question E-2055/03 (1) on trade union rights for police officers in Latvia, the
Commission states that certain articles of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention allow for
such restrictions.

Is this not an incomplete response given that it does not indicate in which ILO Conventions the

1.
exceptions appear and on which articles they are based?

Can the Commission confirm that, according to the established interpretation of the Committee of
2.
Experts, Convention 87 does not contain an exception that would, for example, exclude Latvian police
officers from the freedom to form trade unions?

If not, what is the basis for the Commission’s interpretation that Convention 87 does contain an

3.
exception?

Can the Commission now urge the Latvian authorities more strongly to lift this ban on forming trade

4.
unions so that Latvia respects fundamental trade union rights in full?

(1) See page 61.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(12 January 2004)

In addition to the answer given to Written Question E-2055/03 by the Honourable Member,
Commission would like to add the following information:

the

(cid:1) Article 9(1) of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) Convention 87 and Article 5(1) of the ILO
Convention 98 provide for the following exception: ‘The extent to which the guarantees provided for
in this Convention shall apply to the armed forces and the police shall be determined by national laws
or regulations.’ Article 5 of the European Social Charter contains an identical provision;

(cid:1) the Commission is aware of different legal interpretations of the above mentioned exceptions and
notes that several current Member States, notably Italy and Greece, appear also to have imposed a
total ban on police trade unions;

(cid:1) within the limits of its mandate, which is rather restricted in that case, the Commission continues to
follow this issue, and has already promoted a dialogue on the trade unions rights for police officers in
Latvia.