Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

C 182/128 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28.6.


(1999/C 182/175) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3823/98

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Dispute-settlement proceedings against India

Can the Commission say how many dispute-settlement proceedings have been opened against India within the
WTO since November 1997 and list the subjects of those proceedings, and can it say how many of the
proceedings under way have been opened and suspended without arriving at an amicable settlement?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 1999)

The Community has initiated four disputes settlement cases against India since November 1997. They are all at
the World trade organization (WTO) consultation stage.

Measures affecting export of certain commodities, raw hides and skins (doc. WT/DS120). The de facto export
ban on hides and skins by India led the Community to request WTO consultations on 16 March 1998. Two
rounds of WTO consultations were held but no amicable settlement to the dispute has yet resulted. The
Commission continues to follow this issue closely. At a meeting held in Delhi on 18 November 1998 the
Commission made it clear to the Indian side that in the absence of a quick positive move, the Community
would consider requesting a WTO panel.

Measures affecting the automotive sector (doc. WTO/DS146). WTO consultations were requested on
6 October 1998 and held with the Indian side on 2 December 1998 in Geneva. At issue is the Indian
restrictive import regime for car components and unassembled vehicles which compels a manufacturer to use
domestically produced goods and to export automotive products for a certain value. The Commission is
reviewing the replies from the Indians and has requested additional information from Delhi.

Import restrictions (doc. WT/DS149). WTO consultations were requested on 29 October 1998 and took place
on 3 December 1998. The Community considers that India has adopted a series of import restrictions that
may not be justified by General agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) Articles XX and XXI which allow
members to maintain import restrictions to protect human, animal or plant life or health, national treasures,
exhaustible natural resources, or essential security interests. The Commission is reviewing the replies from the
Indian authorities in these talks.

Measures affecting customs duties (doc. WT/DS150). WTO consultations were requested on 30 October 1998
and took place on 2 December 1998. According to Community calculations, the increase of certain duties has
resulted in a breach of the WTO bound rates for more than 100 tariff lines.The Commission is assessing the
replies from the Indian authorities.

(1999/C 182/176) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3827/98

by Riccardo Garosci (PPE) to the Commission

(22 December 1998)

Subject: Final declaration of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary Forum (Brussels, 27 and 28 October 1998)

How does the Commission intend to react to the Final declaration of the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary
Forum held in Brussels on 27 and 28 October 1998 and in particular to the specific request made in point 12
of the declaration for Libya to participate as a full partner in the Barcelona process, thus ending an outdated
exclusion that has been overtaken by events?
28.6.1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 182/129

Answer given by Mr Marín on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 1999)

The Commission has taken note of the final declaration adopted by the Euro-Mediterranean Parliamentary
Forum following its meeting in Brussels on 27 and 28 October 1998 and welcomes the contribution made by
the Forum to the democratic dimension of the Partnership. It will be working with Parliament to implement
the principles set out in the declaration, particularly as regards involving civil society in the partnership.

Regarding the call in paragraph 12 of the declaration for Libya to participate in full in the Barcelona process,
the Commission would point out this is primarily a matter for the 27 members of the Partnership.

For its own part the Commission is guided by the statement made by the Presidency on behalf of the EU on
28 August 1998, which refers to ‘recent developments in the Lockerbie case’ and notes that the Union ‘expects
Libya to ... fully implement the provisions of UNSCR 1192 and all other relevant Security Council Resolutions.’
As far as the Commission is aware, talks are still going on between the interested parties to ensure that these
resolutions are implemented in full.

(1999/C 182/177) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3857/98

by Maren Günther (PPE) to the Commission

(4 January 1999)

Subject: DG VIII D Service Commun Relex (SCR)

As a result of the restructuring of DG VIII and the establishment of the SCR the Commission’s administrative
structures have been rearranged. While the SCR is accommodated in Charlemagne 3 in Brussels, the
Commission has decided to move DG VIII to the Rue de Genève. The two Commission services are, however,
very closely linked by their working methods and functions. The files that are needed, for example, constantly
have to be transported between the two addresses, causing major delays, inefficiency and considerable

Why did the Commission opt for so unfavourable a geographical division of the two services?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 1999)

The creation of the Service commun Relex (SCR) did not affect DG VIII alone. Staff were also drawn from DG
IA and IB in large numbers. In view of the SCR’s final size (650 people) it was not possible to establish it
entirely in the Charlemagne, only the third floor being used for this purpose. The rest of the SCR is located in
the Belliard 28/Science 14 complex.

The internal reorganisation of DG VIII, after the creation of the SCR, did not involve any further move of the
services from rue de Genève. In fact, DG VIII has been located there since the evacuation of the Berlaymont. It
did prove possible, however, to regroup all staff in one building (Genève 12). It is planned for DG VIII to move
back to the centre (Quartier européen) at the latest when the Commission reoccupies the Berlaymont which is
foreseen for 2002.

The Commission is aware that this is not an optimal arrangement. However, within the framework of its
budgetary and space constraints, it has no better alternative to propose at the present time. The matter is under
review within the context of Decode and the financial perspectives for 2000-06 for section V of the budget.