WRITTEN QUESTION P-1024/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Competence of the European Court of Justice in competition proceedings in applicant countries.
C 53 E/58 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 What plans does the Commission have to improve the capacity of, for example, the WTO to enable it to support those governments that lack the necessary technical expertise and require support in order to improve their negotiating capacity? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (19 May 2000) The issue of access to medicine is indeed complex and covers a wide variety of aspects, such as development, health care, funding, transfer of technology, production capacity, and education. Intellectual property rights, and in particular the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) continue to be given a prominent place in this debate. The Commission considers that the issue of access to medicine has evolved towards a much wider issue of access to health. This problem can only be considered as a general health problem and not as a pure intellectual property rights issue. The key is probably the lack of purchasing power in developing countries. The Community recognises the need to address the issue of access to medicine in a broad context and to promote a broader dialogue aimed at enhanced action which will have direct impact on the availability and access to essential medication for developing countries. It is also important that both the research and development (R&D) based pharmaceutical industry and generic producers are involved in finding solutions. The Commission believes that in order to develop access to medicinal drugs for developing countries a global strategy should be considered including innovative financing mechanisms for drugs, more invest- ment for R&D for diseases most affecting developing countries, and technical assistance to attain full benefit of the TRIPs provisions. (2001/C 53 E/068) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1024/00 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Competence of the European Court of Justice in competition proceedings in applicant countries One of the purposes of the pre-accession strategy is to prepare the EUís applicant countries to deal with the rules and procedures of the single market, and particularly to ensure that the national authorities are familiar with the áacquis communautaireí. Under the principles of administrative procedures a Union citizen or business can appeal to the European Court of Justice when the powers of the European Union are affected ü as in the case of merger controls. In the Commissionís view, can the Court also be invoked in proceedings in applicant countries, for instance on the basis of association treaties or other agreements? Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission (9 June 2000) Article 234 (formerly Article 177) of the EC Treaty clearly provides that the courts of the Member States alone may request the Court of Justice to give preliminary rulings on questions concerning the validity and interpretation of Community law. This means that a court of a third country, even if that country has applied for accession, may not ask the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. 20. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 53 E/59 However, there is nothing to prevent a court of an applicant country from being guided by decisions given by the Court in a specific area, where an Association Agreement concluded between the Community and a third country contains a provision referring to Community law. For example Article 63(2) of the Europe Agreement establishing an association with Poland states: Any practices contrary to this Article shall be assessed on the basis of criteria arising from the application of the rules of Articles [81, 82 and 88] of the Treaty establishing the European Communityí. All this reference means is that the concepts of agreements restricting competition, abuse of a dominant position or state aid must be understood in accordance with Articles 81, 82 and 88 (formerly Articles 85, 86 and 93) of the EC Treaty. The reference to the Articles of the EC Treaty does not have the effect of giving the Court jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on disputes originating in countries which have applied for accession. The national courts of the applicant countries remain the only ones with jurisdiction to settle in those countries disputes relating to the application of the Association Agreements. The Court could acquire jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings on a question of interpretation of the Association Agreement at the request of a court of a country which has applied for accession if the Agreement itself contained a clause giving it such jurisdiction. However, no Association Agreement with an applicant country has yet contained such a jurisdiction clause. In general, a dispute relating to the application of an Association Agreement between the Community and a third country may be referred to the Association Council if the Agreement itself provides for such a procedure, as in the case of the Europe Agreements, and in particular the Association Agreement with Poland: Article 105 thereof provides that either Party may refer any dispute relating to the application of the Agreement to the Association Council, which may settle the dispute by means of a decision. If it is not possible to settle the dispute in this way, either Party may notify the other of the appointment of an arbitrator. Lastly, the Commission wishes to point out that nationals of third countries, including those which have applied for accession, may institute proceedings before the Court of First Instance against the Community institutions if the conditions for admissibility of such proceedings are satisfied. The means of instituting direct proceedings under Articles 230, 232 and 235 of the EC Treaty (formerly Articles 173, 175 and 178) do not require the plaintiff, if he is a natural or legal person, to be a national of a Member State. (2001/C 53 E/069) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1029/00 by Fernando FernÆndez Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission (29 March 2000) Subject: Banana dispute Various sources have indicated in recent weeks that there may have been a rapprochement between the respective positions of the European Commission and the United States Government with a view to resolving the banana dispute. Agreement would seem to hinge on a proposal regarding the allocation of the quota by the Commission, which would allocate 80 % of the A and B quotas to what are known as primary operators, i. e. those operating prior to 1993 (for the most part those which introduced dollar bananas before this date, in other words mainly American multinationals). The remaining 20 % all would be divided up between other (new) operators. According to various sources, one of the main elements of the proposed agreement submitted to the United States could be an automatic switch to a tariff system at the end of a transitional period. What is the current state of these negotiations, particularly as regards the allocation of quotas and the length of the transitional period? Is the Commission aware that an automatic switch to a tariff-only system could lead to the end of Community banana production?