Proposal for a Council Regulation temporarily withdrawing access to the generalised tariff preferences from the Republic of Belarus
Date: 2006-11-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belarus, EU relations, economic sanctions, generalised preferences, trade union freedom

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 30.11.2006 
COM(2006) 764 final 

2006/0255 (ACC) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

temporarily withdrawing access to the generalised tariff preferences from the Republic 
of Belarus 

(presented by the Commission) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

The  Community’s  generalised  system  of  preferences  (“GSP”)  makes  provision  for 
the partial or total removal of the preferential arrangements for products originating 
in  a  beneficiary  country  under  certain  circumstances,  including  for  serious  and 
systematic  violations  of  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  “core  human  and  labour 
rights” conventions of the United Nations and the International Labour Organization 
(ILO). 

The Republic of Belarus is included in the list of GSP beneficiary countries. 

At the end of 2003, at the instigation of international trade unions, the Commission 
published  its  decision  to  initiate  an  investigation  into  alleged  violations  of  the 
freedom of association and the right to collective bargaining in Belarus. 

to 

international  standards,  and  made  use  of 

The  Commission  investigated  the  institutional  framework,  the  key  institutions,  the 
structure  of  social  partnership  and  the  relevant  Belorussian  legislation,  compared 
them 
the  conclusions  and 
recommendations  of  the  ILO’s  Committee  on  Freedom  of  Association  and  its 
Committee of Experts, as well as of UN reports. The recommendations of these two 
ILO Committees are the main reference on interpretation of international labour law 
and  rules  of  correlation  between  national  and  international  standards.  Testimonies 
provided by the primary national stakeholders, and their partner organisations at the 
international  level  were  supplemented  by  interviews  with  representatives  of 
government  and  employers’  organisations,  as  well  as  all  relevant  international 
agencies, NGOs and European Commission staff. 

The  investigation  found  that  Belarus  is  impeding  the  right  to  establish  trade  union 
organisations  freely,  the  right  to  organise,  the  right  to  choose  among  trade  union 
organisations, and the right of such organisations to legal recognition and to external 
funding.  Belarus  is  promoting  anti-union  discrimination  and  the  dissolution  or 
suspension of trade unions. 

In  parallel  to  the  Commission’s  investigation,  the  ILO  set  up  a  ‘Commission  of 
Inquiry’ which, in its report of July 2004, formulated twelve recommendations with 
which  the  Belarus  Government  needed  to  comply  before  June 2005,  in  order  to 
remedy  the  unsatisfactory  application  of  the  ILO’s  Convention  No 87  concerning 
Freedom  of  Association  and  Protection  of  the  Right  to  Organise,  and  Convention 
No 98 concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and to 
Bargain Collectively. 

In accordance with the procedure laid down in the GSP regulation, the Commission 
decided  to  open  a  six-month  period  for  monitoring  and  evaluating  the  situation  in 
Belarus  and,  in  so  doing,  granted  Belarus  further  time  in  which  to  make  the 
commitment  to  take  the  necessary  measures  to  conform  with  the  Fundamental 
Principles  and  Rights  at  Work,  as  expressed  in  the  twelve  recommendations  in  the 
report of July 2004 by the ILO Commission of Inquiry. 

Belarus  has  not  made  the  requisite  commitment  within  this  six-month  period  of 
monitoring  and  evaluation  (until  March  2006).  The  Commission  nevertheless 
continued  to  review  the  situation  in  Belarus,  but,  as  explained  in  the  recitals  to  the 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
draft  decision,  until  October  2006,  Belarus  did  not  make  a  satisfying  commitment. 
The reasons for a temporary withdrawal of the preferential arrangement for products 
originating  in  Belarus  therefore  persist  and,  given  the  continued  violation  of  the 
rights specified above, continue to be more and more urgent every day. 

In accordance with the procedure set out in Article 20(4) and (5) of Regulation (EC) 
No 980/2005, the Council should decide within one month by a qualified majority on 
the proposal from the Commission. If the Council decides in favour of the temporary 
withdrawal,  the  Regulation  should  enter  into  force  six  months  after  the  decision  is 
taken, unless the situation changes before then. 

The  situation  should  be  kept  under  review,  to  enable  the  re-establishment  of  the 
preferential  arrangement  for  products  originating  in  Belarus  if  the  violations  of  the 
freedom of association and of the right of collective bargaining in Belarus no longer 
exist.  

9. 

10. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
2006/0255 (ACC) 

Proposal for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION 

temporarily withdrawing access to the generalised tariff preferences from the Republic 
of Belarus 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, 

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 
133 thereof, 

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission, 

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 980/2005 of 27 June 2005 applying a scheme 
of generalised tariff preferences 1, and in particular Article 20(4) thereof, 

Whereas: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

Pursuant  to  Regulation  (EC)  No 980/2005,  the  Republic  of  Belarus  (hereinafter 
referred  to  as  ‘Belarus’)  is  a  beneficiary  country  of  the  Community’s  scheme  of 
generalised tariff preferences. 

On 29 January 2003, the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU), 
the  European  Trade  Union  Confederation  (ETUC)  and  the  World  Confederation  of 
Labour  (WCL)  made  a  joint  request,  to  the  Commission,  for  an  investigation  to  be 
made under Article 27 of Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 into alleged violations of the 
freedom of association and of the right to collective bargaining in Belarus. 

The  Commission  examined  the  request,  in  consultation  with  the  Generalised 
Preferences  Committee,  and  decided,  by  Decision  of  29 December  2003 2,  to  initiate 
an  investigation.  Information  from  interested  parties  was  sought,  by  means  of  a 
published notice 3. 

The Belorussian authorities were formally notified of the opening of the investigation. 
They  denied  any  violations  of  International  Labour  Organisation  (ILO)  Conventions 
No 87  (concerning  Freedom  of  Association  and  Protection  of  the  Right  to  Organise) 
and No 98 (concerning the Application of the Principles of the Right to Organise and 
to Bargain Collectively). 

(5) 

The  information  collected  by  the  Commission  during  the  course  of  the  investigation 
conducted  in  consultation  with  the  Generalised  Preferences  Committee  however 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 169, 30.6.2005, p. 1. 
OJ L 5, 9.1.2004, p. 90. 
OJ C 40, 14.2.2004, p. 4. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

corroborated  the  existence  of  serious  and  systematic  violations  of  the  freedom  of 
association and of the right to collective bargaining under ILO Conventions No 87 and 
No 98.  Among  other  things,  the  Commission  learned  that  the  International  Labour 
Organisation  examined  the  situation  in  Belarus  with  respect  to  the  two  conventions 
and had started its own respective investigation in November 2003. The resulting ILO 
Commission  of  Inquiry  report  of  July  2004  contained  12  recommendations  to 
undertake  specific  steps  to  improve  the  situation  in  Belarus.  Belarus  was  urged  to 
implement  these  recommendations  by  1  June  2005,  which  did  not  occur.  On  the 
grounds  of  this  information  and  its  own  review,  the  Commission  considered  that  a 
temporary withdrawal of the preferential arrangement was justified.  

On  17 August  2005,  the  Commission  decided  to  monitor  and  evaluate  the  labour 
rights’  situation  in  Belarus 4.  The  announcement  of  the  start  of  the  six-month  period 
for  such  monitoring  and  evaluation 5  included  a  statement  of  the  Commission’s 
intention to submit a proposal to the Council for the temporary withdrawal of the trade 
preferences, unless, before the end of the period, Belarus had made a commitment to 
take the measures necessary to conform with the principles referred to in the 1998 ILO 
Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, as expressed in the twelve 
recommendations  in  the  ILO  Commission  of  Inquiry  report  of  July 2004.  The 
the 
Belorussian  authorities  were  notified  officially  of 
announcement. 

the  decision  and  of 

Belarus  has  not  made  the  requisite  commitment  within  the  six-month  period  of 
monitoring  and  evaluation,  nor,  as  described  below,  during  the  following  months. 
Instead,  on  30  March  2006,  Belarussian  authorities  presented  to  the  Commission  a 
submission  on  the  situation  of  freedom  of  association  rights  in  Belarus.  The 
Commission analyzed that submission but concluded that it did not provide sufficient 
evidence of commitment. 

In  the  meantime,  the  ILO  Governing  Body  adopted  the  Committee  on  Freedom  of 
Association (CFA) follow-up report in March 2006, in which it pointed to the actual 
worsening of the situation of trade unions rights in Belarus and urged the Belorussian 
authorities to take concrete measures immediately. 

Further,  the  Commission  received  a  communication,  dated  16  May  2006,  from  the 
Belorussian  authorities  on  the  situation  of  freedom  of  association  rights  in  Belarus. 
Just as with the submission of 30 March 2006, after a careful analysis the Commission 
came to the conclusion that that submission did not provide any sign of commitment 
or a convincing indication that the situation improved. This assessment of the situation 
in  Belarus  was  shared  in  the  June  2006  report  of  the  ILO  Committee  on  the 
Application of Standards of the International Labour Conference, which deplored the 
continued failure by the Belorussian Government to implement the recommendations 
and stressed the necessity of rapid actions so that real and tangible progress could be 
noted.  Also  the  June  2006  International  Labour  Conference,  organized  under  the 
auspices  of  ILO,  classified  the  lack  of  implementation  of  the  12  recommendations, 
which Belarus continued to ignore since July 2004, as a case of continued failure. This 

4 
5 

OJ L 213, 18.8.2005, p. 16. 
OJ C 240, 30.9.2005, p. 41. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
exceptional  classification  is  only  used  for  very  serious  and  systematic  cases  of  non 
compliance with a ratified convention. 

(10)  The Commission has carefully analysed up to date developments in Belarus, including 
a letter from Belarus dated 14 October 2006 and submitted to the Commission on the 
17 October 2006. Instead of producing any effective commitment or clear evidence of 
improved situation, that letter, once again, puts forward possible intentions but lacks 
indications  of  effective  implementation  of  the  principles  of  ILO  Conventions  No  87 
and No 98. The violations of principles laid down in the ILO Conventions No 87 and 
98 continue to exist. 

(11) 

In  the  light  of  the  foregoing  the  preferential  arrangement  for  products  originating  in 
Belarus should be withdrawn temporarily, until it is decided that the reasons justifying 
the temporary withdrawal no longer prevail. 

(12)  This  Regulation  should  enter  into  force  six  months  after  its  adoption,  unless  it  is 

decided before then that the reasons justifying it no longer prevail, 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

The  preferential  arrangement  for  products  originating  in  Belarus  provided  for  in  Regulation 
(EC) No 980/2005 are withdrawn temporarily. 

Article 1 

Article 2 

The  Council,  acting  by  qualified  majority,  on  a  proposal  from  the  Commission,  shall  re-
establish the preferential arrangement for products originating in Belarus, if the violations of 
the freedom of association and of the right to collective bargaining in Belarus no longer exist. 

This Regulation shall enter into force six months after the date of its adoption. 

Article 3 

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. 

Done at Brussels,  

For the Council 
The President 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR PROPOSALS HAVING A 
BUDGETARY IMPACT EXCLUSIVELY LIMITED TO THE REVENUE SIDE 

FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

[…] 

DATE: […] 
APPROPRIATIONS: 
[…] 

BUDGET HEADING: 
120 - € 12 905.4 million 
TITLE: 
Proposal for a Council Regulation temporarily withdrawing access to the generalised tariff preferences 
from the Republic of Belarus 
LEGAL BASIS: 
[…] 
AIMS: 
Application of Article 26(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2501/2001 [corresponding to Article 16(1)(a) of 
Regulation (EC) No 980/2005] - the GSP regulation - withdrawing the preferential arrangements from 
Belarus for serious and systematic violations of the freedom of association 
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 

12 MONTH 
PERIOD 

CURRENT 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
[n] 
(EUR million) 
[…] 

FOLLOWING 
FINANCIAL 
YEAR 
[n+1] 
(EUR million) 
[…] 

EXPENDITURE 
- 

CHARGED TO THE EC BUDGET 
(REFUNDS/INTERVENTIONS) 
NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 
OTHER 

- 
- 

(EUR million) 
[…] 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

5.0 

5.1  REVENUE 

[9,0] 

[0] 

[4,5] 

- 

- 

OWN RESOURCES OF THE EC 
(LEVIES/CUSTOMS DUTIES) 
NATIONAL 

5.0.1  ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE 
5.1.1  ESTIMATED REVENUE 
5.2  METHOD OF CALCULATION: 

[…] 

[n+2] 
[…] 
[…] 

[n+3] 
[…] 
[…] 

[n+4] 
[…] 
[…] 

[n+5] 
[…] 
[…] 

6.0  CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED FROM APPROPRIATIONS ENTERED IN THE 

RELEVANT CHAPTER OF THE CURRENT BUDGET? 

6.1  CAN THE PROJECT BE FINANCED BY TRANSFER BETWEEN CHAPTERS OF 

THE CURRENT BUDGET? 

6.2  WILL A SUPPLEMENTARY BUDGET BE NECESSARY? 
6.3  WILL APPROPRIATIONS NEED TO BE ENTERED IN FUTURE BUDGETS? 
OBSERVATIONS: 
From Belarus under the GSP: 

YES NO 

YES NO 
YES NO 
YES NO 

year 

imports (EUR) 

2002 
2003 
2004 
2005 

190 million 
224 million 
285 million 
388 million 

Loss of own-resources for 2005 estimated at less than EUR 12 million (on the basis of the cif values for imports 
of the seventy most significant products) 

EN 

7 

   EN