Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 2

C 229 E/66 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.9.

2002

contravened World Trade organisation (WTO) rules. Therefore the Commission considered a double
response to be necessary. Accordingly, in 2001, it prepared to start a WTO Complaint and proposed a
Temporary Defensive Mechanism for shipbuilding. These two elements cannot be disassociated, as the
Temporary Defensive Mechanism cannot become effective until the Commission starts the WTO action
against Korea.

The Commission believes that the proposal for a Temporary Defensive Mechanism is fully compatible with
WTO law and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) and the WTO Anti-
dumping Agreement (ADA). Subsidies, provided that they are not prohibited (i.e. export-contingent or
local content-contingent) within the meaning of Article 3 of the ASCM and are not demonstrated to cause
‘adverse effects’ within the meaning of Article 5 of the ASCM, are legitimate national policy instruments so
far as the WTO is concerned. Thus, under the WTO rules, the Community has the right to authorise aid to
its shipbuilding industry and did so for many years until 31 December 2000. The proposed Temporary
Defensive Mechanism neither imposes conditions so as to render it prohibited, nor can it be deemed to
cause adverse effects to third countries. Any claims of WTO incompatibility of the aid as such are
therefore groundless.

Furthermore, the proposed measures are not sanctions in the sense of the Dispute settlement procedure,
but permitted policy measures and therefore the recourse to Dispute Settlement can in no way be seen as
limiting the normal rights and obligations of Members under the WTO agreement, including the right to
provide WTO compatible aid.

Of course the Commission accepts that the appropriate response to a violation of WTO rules should be to
follow the appropriate WTO procedures. That is, indeed, what the Commission intends to do. However,
the WTO dispute settlement procedures are lengthy. In addition, the Union must show that it has the
capacity of dissuasion if it wishes to arrive at an agreement with Korea. In this respect, the proposed
Temporary Defensive Mechanism could keep the pressure on Korean shipyards.

At this stage, the Commission can only confirm, in accordance with its twin-track strategy, that the
complaint to the WTO will be introduced immediately, if the Council adopts the Temporary Defensive
Mechanism.

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994.

(2002/C 229 E/073) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0246/02


by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Answer to Written Question E-3031/01 concerning UNIDCP activities in Afghanistan

In its answer of 15 January 2002 to Written Question E-3031/01 (1) the Commission, instead of answering
the queries concerning the activities of the United Nations Drug Control Programme in Afghanistan, makes
a detailed analysis of the Community’s role in helping displaced persons.

What the questioner wanted and still wants to know is:

= between January and December 2001 how much European funding (in euro) was spent or allocated to
the UNIDCP in Afghanistan, under what heading (budget item and project title), to what entity it was
paid (if other than the UNIDCP), what funding was subjected to controls and checks by what entity
and what the results were?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002.


26.9.2002 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 229 E/67

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3031/01 (1),
in which it stated that it was not financing any drug control operations in Afghanistan.

This means that, in particular, it did not grant any funding to the UNIDCP (United Nations Drug Control
Programme) for drug control operations in Afghanistan in 2001.

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002.

(2002/C 229 E/074) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0279/02


by Jillian Evans (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(8 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights in Algeria

How will the Council of the European Union ensure that the assessment of the human rights situation in
Algeria and compliance with Article 2 of the Association Agreement, become a separate agenda item in all
meetings held under the Agreement, and especially the Association Council meetings?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Euro-Mediterranean Agreement with Algeria was initialled on 19 December 2001 and will be signed
in the next few months. The Agreement, which will not enter into force until it has received the assent of
the European Parliament, been concluded by the Council and ratified by the Member States’ parliaments,
makes respect for democratic principles and fundamental human rights an essential element of the
Agreement (1), serious breaches of which will oblige the other party to take appropriate steps. Moreover, it
will institutionalise regular political dialogue at various levels on all aspects of mutual interest. Such
dialogue will take place in particular within the Association Council.

These provisions will enable the Community to examine the application of international human rights
standards within the bodies provided for under the Agreement, i.e. the Association Council and the
Association Committee. The agenda for meetings of these bodies will be drawn up in the light of
developments and of the needs arising from implementation of the Agreement.

The Council also initiated a political dialogue with Algeria at ministerial level three years ago. This is the
forum in which the European Union, represented by the troika, regularly raises issues relating to respect
for human rights with the Algerian authorities and strongly insists that any departure from this or any
abuse in the fight against terrorism be avoided. On numerous occasions the European Union has expressed
its concern at reports of arbitrary detentions, extra-judicial arrests, the use of torture and the fate of
missing persons. At the most recent political dialogue meeting in Brussels on 5 December 2001, the EU
requested Algeria to provide it with information on the fate of a number of missing persons and asked it
to cooperate with UN mechanisms and with NGOs in the area of human rights. A meeting of the same
nature is planned for the end of April in Algiers, providing another opportunity to continue discussion of
these matters with the Algerian authorities.

(1) ‘Respect for the democratic principles and fundamental human rights established by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights shall inspire the domestic and external policies of the parties and shall constitute an essential element
of this Agreement’.