WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1781/97 by Manuel PORTO to the Commission. Unilateral deviation from the Uruguay Round Agreement
10. 2. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 45/101 (98/C 45/124) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1780/97 by Giulio Fantuzzi (PSE) to the Commission (27 May 1997) Subject: Report on the application of Regulations (EEC) 2078/92 and 2080/92 Article 10 of Regulation (EEC) 2078/92 (1) on agricultural production methods compatible with the requirements of the protection of the environment and the maintenance of the countryside, and Article 8 of Regulation (EEC) 2080/92 (2) instituting a Community aid scheme for forestry measures in agriculture stipulate that the Commission should submit to the European Parliament and the Council a report on the application of the regulations in question three years after the date of their implementation in the Member States. Can the Commission explain why it has not yet submitted a report in compliance with this requirement? Does the Commission intend to act on this matter? If so, when? (1) OJ L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 85. (2) OJ L 215, 30. 7. 1992, p. 234. Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (18 June 1997) The Commission has to present implementation reports after three years of application of the programmes. Most of the programmes under Regulations 2078/92 and 2080/92 were adopted during the years 1994-1995, and some only in 1996. Consequently the Commission is in the process of preparing the reports on the implementation of these two regulations for the initial years, and plans to present them to the Parliament and the Council during this year. (98/C 45/125) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1781/97 by Manuel Porto (PPE) to the Commission (27 May 1997) Subject: Unilateral deviation from the Uruguay Round Agreement International trade must be based on clearly established rules which are complied with. This is the only way that economic operators can safely plan their activities. In particular, the countries of the European Union made a great effort, during the Uruguay Round, to be open to textile and clothing imports, despite being aware that hundreds of thousands of jobs were at stake. It therefore agreed on a gradual process which would allow for the planning of the necessary restructuring and conversion. How is it now conceivable to go back on what was agreed? In particular, how is it conceivable to decide unilaterally whether to comply with an agreement, to the detriment of poorer countries and regions, for the purpose of gaining certain advantages for the exports of richer countries and regions?