WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3690/97 by Jesús CABEZÓN ALONSO to the Commission. Legal security of investments in Cuba
C 174/100 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 8. 6. 98 (98/C 174/155) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/97 by Jesu·s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997) Subject: The Helms-Burton law Is the Commission fully aware that after its negotiations with the US Administration on the application of the Helms-Burton law, the US legislative has hardened its position still further against the European Unionís interests? In view of this attitude, what measures has the Commission adopted or does it intend to adopt? (98/C 174/156) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3689/97 by Jesu·s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997) Subject: The extraterritorial effect of certain US laws What practical steps is the Commission taking to prevent the inclusion in the OECD multilateral investment agreement of the the provisions of the Helms-Burton and DíAmato Kennedy laws, which would thereby acquire extraterritorial effect? (98/C 174/157) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/97 by Jesu· s Cabezo·n Alonso (PSE) to the Commission (19 November 1997) Subject: Legal security of investments in Cuba Do the negotiations and agreements between the Commission and the US Administration offer businesses which have invested in Cuba the certainty that they will be exempted from any liability resulting from this now and in the future? Do the negotiations and agreements on the Helms-Burton law offer guarantees of legal security for these investments in Cuba? Joint answer to Written Questions E-3686/97, E-3687/97, E-3688/97, E-3689/97 and E-3690/97 given by Sir Leon Brittan on behalf of the Commission (19 December 1997) The understanding with the United States is not unbalanced. The Commission has brought a World trade organisation(WTO) panel procedure against the Helms-Burton Act. The Commission considers that this legislation is in violation of international law since it intends to influence (or has the effect of influencing) the behaviour of Community companies because of their involvement in Cuba. The understanding of 11 April 1997 reached between the Community and the US on the Helms-Burton Act and the DíAmato Act, by which the Community agreed to suspend its WTO case regarding the former, calls for the development of disciplines which áshould inhibit and deter the future acquisition of investments from any State which has expropriated or nationalised such investmentsí. In addition, and in parallel, the understanding also calls for the Community and the US to work together to address and resolve through agreed principles the issue of conflicting jurisdictions and secondary boycotts. It is important to note that the discussions between the Community and the US on this point are in symmetry with the discussions on investment disciplines. These talks are currently taking place with a view to finding an acceptable deal which will trigger a waiver under title IV of the Helms-Burton Act, thereby neutralising the extraterritorial effects of this Act. In addition, the Community made clear that no settlement of the differences over the Helms-Burton Act will be implemented unless the United States has also granted Community companies a waiver under the DíAmato Act