Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 1

16. 4.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 117/117

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission’s actions in the field of cultural heritage are now
contained in the Raphaël programme, through which − as Article 128 of the EC Treaty stipulates − the
Community can only encourage cooperation between its Member States to implement actions in favour of the
preservation of Europe’s cultural heritage. However, the Community and the Commission in particular does not
have the competence to intervene at national or regional level and in matters where the responsibility belongs
exclusively to the national or regional authorities.

In this light, any action for the protection of the cultural, ethnographical and archaeological aspects of mount
Tindaya belongs exclusively to the responsibility of the national or regional authorities of Spain.

In this context, the Commission does not consider that the projects of this kind run counter to the thinking of the
Raphaël programme, as its objective is to encourage cooperation between Member States in the field of cultural
heritage conservation.

(98/C 117/148) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/97


by Phillip Whitehead (PSE) to the Commission
(17 September 1997)

Subject: Anti-dumping investigation into imports of unbleached cotton fabrics from China, Egypt, India,
Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey

On 11 July 1997 the Commission decided to open a new anti-dumping (AD) investigation into imports of
unbleached cotton fabrics from 7 non-EU Member States, in spite of the fact that EU cotton weavers have twice
before failed to have definitive anti-dumping duties imposed.

Can the Commission explain why it has accepted a third complaint, so soon after the previous complaint was
rejected?

Will the Commission confirm whether it intends to impose interim duties while the third complaint is being
investigated? If it does impose interim duties, is not the Commission concerned that, in repeating its
investigations, it is encouraging serial complaints by interested parties?

Answer given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission


(24 October 1997)

An anti-dumping investigation on imports of unbleached cotton fabrics originating in Egypt, India, Indonesia,
Pakistan, China and Turkey was opened on 11 July 1997.

Although the Council did not impose definitive measures in the previous case concerning cotton fabrics, the
Commission is obliged, under the Community’s anti-dumping legislation, to open an anti-dumping proceeding
when a major proportion of Community producers lodges a complaint showing prima facie evidence of dumping
and resulting injury. This was the case here. There is no provision in this legislation that would allow the
Commission to reject a sufficiently substantiated complaint on the basis that the Council had previously decided
against the imposition of definitive duties on imports relating to a different investigation period. In this respect,
the opening of the current investigation is fully in line with the World trade organisation rules governing
anti-dumping.

At this early stage in the proceeding, it is impossible for the Commission to indicate whether or not provisional
duties will be imposed. It is currently collecting the requisite information concerning the different aspects of this
case (dumping, injury and Community interest). In any event, the Honourable Member can be assured that this
proceeding, like all others, is conducted on a fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory basis.