WRITTEN QUESTION E-0213/04 by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement (Zero for Zero).
Date: 2004-01-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: abolition of customs duties, common tariff policy, pharmaceutical product, tariff exemption, tariff negotiations, trade agreement

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/689

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(26 February 2004)

The Commission is aware of the case of Mr Gbane Aboubacar and his brother Mr Soule Ouattara. Their
abduction was mentioned in various newspapers, including ‘le Nouveau Réveil’ and ‘le Libéral’.

The party of which Mr Aboubacar is a member, the PDCI-RDA, undertook inquiries in police stations in
the neighbourhood, and in the central jailhouse, the ‘Maison d’Arrêt et de Correction’, in Abidjan, but
found no information.

The International Red Cross Committee was neither informed by the family nor by PDCI and was not
aware of this case.

The ‘Ligue Ivoirienne des Droits de l’Homme’ (LIDHO) was informed of the case through newspapers.
Their board discussed the issue on 26 January 2004, but decided not to make further inquiries because
neither the family nor PDCI requested any help from them.

The ‘Mouvement Ivoirien des Droits Humains’ (MIDH) sought further information from members of the
family, but they did not want to give any details and suggested to ask PDCI. In the meantime, the family
moved to an unknown address.

The Delegation of the Commission in Côte d’Ivoire will raise this matter with the Government.

(2004/C 88 E/0708)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0213/04

by Sir Robert Atkins (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement (Zero for Zero)

The Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement was agreed by 22 countries (1) during the Uruguay Trade
Round and entered into force on 1 January 1995. It has meant the elimination of tariffs on thousands of
pharmaceutical entities and includes a commitment not to replace tariff barriers with non-tariff barriers
and even extends to cover products imported from states not signatory to the Agreement. All finished
pharmaceutical products (2) are automatically covered by the Agreement, however, active ingredients and
intermediates (used in the manufacture of finished pharmaceuticals) do not automatically qualify for zero
tariffs and must be formally added to the list of eligible products.

During Uruguay, signatories to this Agreement undertook to update the list of products covered by the
Agreement at least once every three years in order to include new active ingredients and intermediates that
have been developed since the Agreement was signed. The second update entered into force in July
1999 (3), meaning that the third update (Update III), should have been completed 18 months ago. Since the
1999 update, thousands of new products have been developed which are waiting to be recognised as
eligible for zero tariffs.

In parallel, WTO negotiators could consider simplifying the methodology to ensure that future updates are
no longer necessary and to encourage more WTO member states to join the Agreement. Such an initiative
would fall under the new trade round and, while welcome, should not prevent or further delay the speedy
conclusion of the already long overdue update committed to during the Uruguay Round.

Could you explain what stage the EC has reached with the third update to the Pharmaceutical Tariff
Elimination Agreement, due to be completed 18 months ago under the timetable agreed during the
Uruguay Round? Could you detail when the update process is due to be completed?

(1) Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, European Communities, Japan, Norway, Slovak Republic, Sweden, Switzerland,

United States.

(2) The Agreement refers to items classified in Chapter 30 of the Harmonised Tariff System (which includes all finished

pharmaceutical products).

(3) With the exception of Japan where it entered into force in June 2000.

C 88 E/690

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2004)

is a non-binding arrangement between the most
The ‘Pharmaceutical Tariff Elimination Agreement’
important pharmaceutical producing countries to reduce their World Trade Organisation (WTO) bindings
of duties on certain pharmaceutical products, including active ingredients and intermediate products, to
zero. Because new pharmaceutical products are constantly being developed, the arrangement envisages
periodic reviews of these products. Any of the participants could have launched the process for the third
update (Update III) which was due to be completed in 2002, even if it was indeed the EU that proposed
and took forward the previous two updates. Given the interest of the EU Pharmaceutical industry, the
Commission is actually considering launching Update III.

As regards the simplification of the updating procedures as well as the extension of the Agreement to
other WTO Members, the Commission shall certainly consider such options if they were to be in the wider
interests of the EU within the Doha Development Agenda.

(2004/C 88 E/0709)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0216/04

by Marco Pannella (NI) to the Commission

(30 January 2004)

Subject: Violation of religious freedom in Vietnam

According to the International Religious Freedom Report 2003 produced by the U.S. Department of State,
significant restrictions have been imposed in Vietnam on the activities of religious groups not recognised
by the government.

The Communist Party has imposed severe restrictions on the hierarchies and clergy of religious groups.

In this respect, the Vietnamese Government has:

1.

2.

3.

4.

used judicial methods to control the religious hierarchies and organised religious activities;

repressed the religious organisation ‘Assemblies of God’ and forced its members into unemployment,
forbidding their children to attend school and confiscating their property;

continued to isolate certain religious figures, restricting their movement and exerting pressure on their
followers and relatives, as in the case of Thich Huyen Quang, the Supreme Patriarch of the Unified
Buddhist Church of Vietnam, who lived under conditions resembling house arrest between 1982 and
March 2003;

used a noxious gas to disperse a gathering of Hmong Protestants in Lau Chau province in late
December 2002, as a result of which one pregnant woman miscarried and other people required
medical attention.

Similarly, the Hmong Protestants Mua Bua Senh and Vang Seo Giao were beaten to death by local officials
in July 2002.

Moreover, cases have been recorded of people being convicted under Article 258 of the Penal Code (to up
to 3 years in prison) for ‘practising religion illegally’. Some of the judicial measures employed to convict
religious prisoners violate international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Religious Affairs Office is violating religious freedom via the actions of government officials and the
security forces, who have persecuted and arbitrarily detained people who practise religion.