WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act.
C 46 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 13. 2. 2001 The current registration requirements relating to transhumance impose a costly and time-consuming 2. administrative burden far in excess of what is necessary. Is the Commission prepared to give thought here to a simplified arrangement inspired by practical considerations? 3. Can it propose a more practicable and practice-oriented approach? Is it prepared to leave to the Member States the responsibility for assessing the requirements of a 4. practice-oriented system of registration? (1) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997, p. 1. Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission (25 April 2000) 1. The Austrian authorities have been in contact with the Commission about the problems arising over entry in the computerised database (required under Article 5 of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products (1)) of the movements of cattle sent for summer grazing in various upland areas. To guarantee full operability of the database the Council Regulation clearly requires all cattle movements to be entered and, in the Commissionís opinion rightly, specifies no exemption to this essential rule. Transhu- mance lists on their own are not therefore a sufficient answer to the problems. The Commission would not be unfavourable to specific procedural rules for entry of transhumance 2. movements into national databases. An addition to the second indent of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97 would be required. The matter is under discussion within Parliament and the Council in connection with their examination of the proposal (2) for a Parliament and Council Regulation establishing a system for the identification and registration of bovine animals and regarding the labelling of beef and beef products and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 820/97. If Parliament and the Council agree on the desirability of the Commissionís proposing specific rules 3. (see above) the Commission will carefully consider what is most suitable. No. The Commission considers that the matter must be regulated at Community level. Otherwise information and 4. divergent arrangements would probably be adopted jeopardising the reliability of compromising the compulsory beef labelling scheme. (1) OJ L 117, 7. 5. 1997. (2) COM(1999) 487 final. (2001/C 46 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0820/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act (21 March 2000) With regard to the dispute between the EU and the USA over Article 211 of Appropriation Act of 1998, can the Commission say: the US Omnibus ü whether the TRIPS agreements, with which the Commission claims Article 211 is incompatible, should be interpreted as authorising the Member States concerned to recognise the extraterritorial validity of intellectual property rights confiscated without payment of adequate compensation to the rightful holders; 13. 2. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 46 E/51 ü whether, before deciding to refer the case to the WTO Panel, the appropriate it carried out investigations to ascertain whether Article 211, in the context of other US laws regulating the expropriation of goods without compensation, in effect discriminates against Cuban citizens rather than those of the rest of the world; ü whether it does not consider that in order not to give the impression that referral to the panel was rather a tactical move for the benefit of a private individual and a third country, it should reopen consultations with the United States with a view to formulating Article 211 in such a way as to comply with the Commissionís interpretation of the agreements on TRIPS, whilst safeguarding the legal principle underlying it? (2001/C 46 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0821/00 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission Subject: Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act (21 March 2000) With regard to the dispute between the EU and the USA concerning Article 211 of the US Omnibus Appropriation Act of 1998, can the Commission answer the following questions: 1. What general European interests are being defended in the dispute? 2. 3. In a press release issued on 7 February by a French company ü Pernod Ricard ü concerning an adverse decision of 4 February by the US Court of Appeal that company appears to be anticipating the Commissionís decisions. This gives the impression that an attempt is being made to manipulate the Commission. In view of Mr Prodiís commitment to upholding the principle of transparency in the actions of the Commission and its officials, can it guarantee that it is defending truly general interests and not those of a single economic group? It is in the general interest that acts of confiscation without compensation for the rightful owners should not acquire international validity. This is a principle widely recognised in European constitu- tions which has been enforced by the courts on many occasions. Article 211 of the Omnibus Act only reinforces this principle. Does the Commission not consider that to make Europe take the United States to the WTO in an attempt to revoke Article 211 may be seen as a battle to uphold the rights of the confiscator over the oppressed, and of force over justice? Joint answer to Written Questions E-0820/00 and E-0821/00 given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (14 April 2000) The Honourable Member refers to several aspects relating to the dispute with the United States concerning the compatibility of Section 211 of the United States Omnibus Appropriations Act 1998 with the provisions of the Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs Agreement) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). As regards the recognition by countries of foreign uncompensated expropriations, the current WTO dispute does not concern the question whether or not foreign uncompensated expropriations have to be recognised by other third countries. In fact, American trademarks were not and could not be expropriated by the Cuban government. Individuals and companies expropriated by the Cuban government remained the owners of property outside Cuba. In particular, their rights in trademarks registered in the United States were unaffected by the Cuban revolution