WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/04 by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission. Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003.
Date: 2004-04-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Argentina, India, Italy, animal skin, common tariff policy, generalised preferences, hides and furskins industry, trade restriction

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/569

The Joint EU-India Statement released at the 4th Summit in New Delhi in November 2003 reiterated that
democracy provided the best safeguard for the protection and promotion of human rights, and reaffirmed
the willingness of both sides to discuss human rights in a comprehensive manner (1). It is expected that this
issue will be taken up in the Declaration of the 5th Summit to take place in the second half of 2004. The
EU and India have furthermore agreed that democracy and human rights issues be discussed in Senior
Officials and Ministerial Meetings.

(1)

‘We affirmed that democracy provides a crucial safeguard for protection and promotion of Human Rights. All
Human Rights including the right to personal, economic, social and cultural development are universal, indivisible,
interdependent and inter-related. We believe in the equal importance of civil, political, economic, social and cultural
International co-operation needs to be harnessed for the
rights and are committed to their full realization.
protection and promotion of human rights through dialogue and mutual understanding in a comprehensive global
framework. We affirmed our willingness to discuss Human Rights in a comprehensive manner.’

(2004/C 88 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1097/04

by Adriana Poli Bortone (UEN) to the Commission

(13 April 2004)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003

With the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 (1) of 23 December 2003 a number of
countries, including Argentina and India, once again became beneficiaries under the Community scheme of
generalised tariff preferences for the period 2002-2004, and from 1 January 2005 will benefit from
reductions in the European Union’s import duty for certain kinds of finished leather.

Bearing in mind that:

(cid:1) by virtue of well-established dumping practices these countries enjoy great competitive advantages at

the expense of the Italian tanning industry;

(cid:1) there are no reciprocal and equivalent market conditions as regards commercial policy measures, since
both India and Argentina set up substantial tariff and non-tariff barriers to their own exports of raw
materials and imports of finished products;

(cid:1) Italian businesses find themselves in difficulty as a result of the fall in demand for finished products

and the unfavourable euro-dollar exchange rate,

can the Commission say whether it does not consider that Regulation No 2331/2003 should be revised?

(1) OJ L 346, 31.12.2003, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2331/2003 of 23 December 2003 was adopted under Article 12 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences for developing
countries (GSP). It was thus adopted by the Commission under an obligation within a legal framework set
by the Council.

The GSP, which is a multiannual system, provides that the scope of preferences has to be adjusted each
year by the Commission. Regulation No 2331/2003 does so for 2005. Since the GSP is a limited trade
concession,
it has to be continued to countries and products which have a real need. Article 12 has
introduced a system of graduation/degraduation allowing the GSP to be withdrawn from countries/
products which are competitive on the international market or to reintroduce countries/products which
had been excluded from the GSP in the past for this reason but which are no longer competitive.

C 88 E/570

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

This is a non-political and purely economic mechanism. The objective criteria which apply are those set
out in Article 12 (as amended by Article 1 of Council Regulation (EC) No 2211/2003 of 15 December
2003) (1). It was on the basis of these criteria that it was decided to reintroduce preferences in 2005 for
India and Argentina for the products in question.

Trade defence mechanisms can combat dumping if the necessary conditions are satisfied. Tariff and non-
tariff obstacles to exports are one of the Community’s priorities in the Doha Development Agenda and
bilateral negotiations.

A new GSP system will be adopted on 1 January 2006 after consultation of all the parties concerned. We
would invite the Honourable Member to encourage industrial associations to play an active part in these
consultations.

(1) OJ L 332, 19.12.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0581)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1104/04

by Francesco Speroni (NI) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Fig bananas

What were the reasons for excluding fig bananas from the scope of Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2257/94 (1) of 16 September 1994 at that time and are these reasons still valid?

Should other varieties of bananas, such as red bananas, also be excluded?

(1) OJ L 245, 20.9.1994, p. 6.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

We have already pointed out in the answer to Written Question P-3283/03 (1) that the only varieties
covered by the quality standards in Annex I to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2257/94 of 16 September
1994 laying down quality standards for bananas are those of the Musa (AAA) spp subgroups Cavendish
and Gros Michel.

Thus no banana variety not in these subgroups is subject to these quality standards. This rules out fig
bananas, and also red bananas, which belong to the Figue Rose subgroup of group AAA.

When the quality standards were drawn up these products were excluded because of their highly specific
characteristics and the way in which they are marketed, which differs from that for bananas of the
Cavendish and Gros Michel subgroups.

Bananas of these varieties still of course have to meet the general foodstuff marketing requirements (plant
and public health standards, labelling rules etc.).

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004, p. 255.