WRITTEN QUESTION P-1200/04 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. The progress in Ukraine being recognised by the EU as having Market Economy Status (MES).
Date: 2004-04-14
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Ukraine, common commercial policy, economic integration, economic liberalism, economic situation, market economy

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/725

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission recently presented the outline of the future new-generation programme on culture, in its
Communication on citizenship in action. It proposes to focus on promoting the dialogue between cultures
in this future programme, as the contribution to this dialogue is one of the main benefits offered by
cultural action at Community level.

With regard to the Forum to be held in Barcelona from May to September 2004, the Commission can only
reiterate that it will follow the event closely, as it is not the organiser. As regards any official languages for
the event, therefore, the Commission would suggest contacting the organisers, namely Unesco, the Spanish
State, the Generalitat de Catalunya and the Ajuntament de Barcelona. In any event, the event’s website
(http://www.barcelona2004.org) exists in three languages: English, Catalan and Spanish.

(2004/C 88 E/0746)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1200/04

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: The progress in Ukraine being recognised by the EU as having Market Economy Status (MES)

The progress in the assessment of the compatibility of the economy of Ukraine with the criteria required
by EU antidumping legislation seems to have arrested. This process was started in September 2000 when
Ukraine was granted special MES and negotiations commenced in October 2000 in order to obtain full
MES. The European Commission has examined as required under customary practice the compliance of
Ukraine under a number of Market Economy Status headings, in particular; non-interference by the State
in company decision making procedures and asset allocation, clear corporate accounting and independent
audit procedures, continuing market distortions carried over from the command economy period during
the Soviet Union times, legal certainty to title and bankruptcy procedures in accord with international
norms, and the possesion of a floating market driven currency exchange mechanism.

In September 2002 Mr. Prodi met President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine and assured him that the EC would
announce its decision within six months following the provision of extensive answers by the Government
of Ukraine on the market status nature of Ukraine’s economy. Despite further questioning during the
course of the 4th and 6th EU-Ukraine Co-operation Committee and further assurances by External Trade
Commissioner Lamy as to the readiness of Ukraine in October 2003, Ukraine still has not had an answer
on whether
the Ukrainian economy has made further
improvements over the last three years. For instance, its GDP has increased by 8,5 % between 2002 and
2003, there is now no state interference into companies’ decision making process, equal rights exist for the
activity of enterprises regardless of the form of ownership, price regulation is settled almost entirely by free
market mechanisms rather than the state and over 90 % share of the market is private, whilst less than
10 % of market is state owned.

it will be granted full MES. Futhermore,

Mindful of these objective facts and with the geo-politically driven decision to grant Russia full MES is the
Commission deliberately stalling on this decision for political reasons rather than the strict economic
criteria required?

C 88 E/726

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The assessment of whether a country should be granted Market Economy Status for trade defence
investigations is a technical analysis, with very precise practical parameters aimed at ensuring that the costs
and prices of companies can be relied on for the purpose of trade defence investigations.

It should be noted that the Commission assesses each application for Market Economy Status on its own
merits, rather than by comparison with other countries which have applied for it.

Ukraine’s official request
it Market Economy Status in trade defence
investigations was received in May 2002. The Commission’s preliminary assessment was issued in March
2003. It identified five areas where additional information or further progress was required. Ukraine sent
the information requested in three stages, in June 2003, December 2003 and January 2004.

to the Commission to grant

The Member of the Commission in charge of Trade has not given any assurances as to the readiness of
Ukraine for Market Economy Status. In fact, the Commission’s Trade Defence Services have undertaken to
finalise their assessment of progress in the five problematic areas identified in March 2003 during the
month of April 2004. This document will then be made available to Member States and to the Ukrainian
authorities soon thereafter.

The full Market Economy Status assessment will therefore be completed shortly. In this context, the
Commission welcomes the progress achieved by Ukraine in economic reform, which represents a step
towards fulfilment of the Market Economy Status criteria. The Commission remains committed, as has
always been the case, to grant Market Economy Status to Ukraine as soon as sufficient progress has been
made on the issues identified and the technical conditions for this are in place.

It should also be borne in mind that individual Ukrainian companies can apply to receive Market Economy
treatment.

(2004/C 88 E/0747)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1203/04

by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(14 April 2004)

Subject: Suspected irregularities in the management of European Development Fund (EDF) resources for

Project 8.ACP.PNG.003

1. With regard to the contract award procedure used to select the undertaking to replace the original
consultant (Studio Bichara Srl (‘SB’)) in the services contract in question, can the Commission indicate why:

(a) no international restricted invitation to tender was launched, despite the contract being of a value in
excess of EUR 200 000, and a local invitation to tender was opted for instead (see the Common
Service for External Relations manual of procedures (cid:1) paragraph 10 and Annex (cid:1) applicable at the
time of the events in question);

(b) no suspicion was aroused by the fact that the participants in the tender procedure (which differed
enormously in terms of size and financial capacity) submitted tenders in excess of the maximum
available budget when some of them had also participated in the original 1999 procedure and
submitted tenders below the level of available resources;

(c)

the contract was subsequently awarded (by direct agreement) to the companies PAC and ETS, contrary
to Article 12(2) of the General Conditions for services contracts financed by the EDF, when PAC/ETS
had, moreover, been declared ineligible in respect of another EU project in the Republic of Vanuatu?