WRITTEN QUESTION P-2688/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Preferential agreements between the EU and ACP States and their acceptability to the WTO.
C 303 E/90 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (27 March 2000) The Commission recalls that the special meeting of the European Council held at Tampere on 15 and 16 October 1999 declared that áthe European Union must ensure fair treatment of third-country nationals who reside legally on the territory of its Member States. A more vigorous integration policy should aim at granting them rights and obligations comparable to those of EU citizens. It should also enhance non- discrimination in economic, social and cultural life and develop measures against racism and xenopho- bia. í (1) The Commission would point out that when referring to third-country nationals one should bear in mind that immigrants do not constitute a homogeneous group. There are differences in their legal status, length of stay in the Union and country of origin and in their economic and social situation. Any bundling together of áimmigrantsí as a group at risk from the spread infectious diseases must be firmly rejected. During the year the Commission plans to present a report on the health of immigrants. This will be one of the reports prepared on the state of health in the Community and relating either to the health of the population as a whole or to that of specific sections of the population. The aim of the report will be to identify general trends in the health of non-Community nationals resident in the Member States. At present health checks on third-country immigrants legally entering the Member States are governed by national legislation. The Commission does not envisage financing ad hoc arrangements for health checks at border crossings. Regarding access to national health services, the Commission would point out that it put forward a proposal for a Regulation (2) to extend to third-country nationals Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community (3). The aim of the proposal was to ensure that, like Community nationals, third- country nationals legally resident in the Union and covered by the social security scheme of a Member State would not lose their entitlement when they moved within the Union and that they should also be covered by the Community rules on the coordination of social security schemes with specific provision for health and maternity benefits. The Commission would also call the Honourable Memberís attention to its proposal for a Council Directive implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (4). Under this measure no direct or indirect discrimination on the grounds of racial or ethnic origin could be applied by the Member States in any field, including social protection and social security. This proposal comes under the general framework of implementing Article 13 (formerly Article 6a) of the EC Treaty and is currently under discussion in the Council and Parliament. (1) Point 18 of the Conclusions of the European Council. (2) OJ C 6, 10. 1. 1998. (3) OJ L 149, 5. 7. 1971. (4) COM(1999) 566 final. (2000/C 303 E/082) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2688/99 by Wolfgang Kreissl-Dörfler (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (11 January 2000) Subject: Preferential agreements between the EU and ACP States and their acceptability to the WTO According to an Agence Europe report published on 1 December 1999, the new WTO Deputy Director- General, Miguel Rodríguez Mendoza, has contradicted the Commissionís assertion that a LomØ waiver will have no prospect of success unless the ACP States agree to the regional economic partnership agreements (REPAs) being proposed by the EU. 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/91 Mr Rodríguez Mendoza was quoted as saying that the WTO certainly permitted the trade preferences that industrialised nations granted to developing countries and he strongly denied that there was a single WTO rule requiring preferential agreements to be converted into free trade agreements. Can the Commission comment on the above statements by the WTO Deputy Director-General and also say: 1. whether it will make the necessary adjustments to its position in the negotiations on a successor convention to LomØ and cease to insist on regional free trade agreements; 2. bearing in mind that LomØ Convention is due to expire on 28 February 2000, whether it has already applied to the WTO for renewal of the special exemption and if not, why not; 3. whether and to what extent it has been conducting a dialogue in previous years with the appropriate WTO bodies on the post-LomØ negotiations? Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (3 February 2000) The statement attributed to the Deputy Director-general of the World trade organisation (WTO) misleading. is There is, indeed, no single WTO rule requiring preferential agreements to be converted into free trade agreements. In this, the statement is correct and the Commission has never claimed the opposite. It is also a matter of fact that WTO rules permit industrialised countries to grant trade preferences to developing countries. In this, the statement is also correct, but it needs to be added that this is only the case as long as these trade preferences do not discriminate between developing countries having the same level of social and economic development. The present, non-reciprocal trade preferences granted to the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) which introduce a discrimination between developing countries only on a geographical basis, are incompatible with the provisions of the WTO. They can only be maintained if a waiver is granted. In this context, there has been agreement since the Dakar Community-ACP ministerial meeting in March 1999 that the present, non-reciprocal trade preferences cannot be maintained indefinitely. A waiver will therefore be requested to continue the existing preferences. At that period, new trade arrangements will be introduced which should be fully compatible with the provisions of the WTO. The decision was also taken at the December 1999 Community-ACP ministerial meeting to prepare a formal request for a waiver which will be submitted to the WTO as soon as the text describing the proposed trade regime to be in force during the preparatory period has been finalised in the coming weeks. the end of The Commission has always held the view that a clear and unconditional commitment to introduce, after a preparatory period, a new WTO-compatible trade arrangement, would considerably increase the chances of obtaining a new waiver. This view has been confirmed in numerous contacts which the Commission has had during the negotiations with the WTO secretariat. The statement attributed to the Deputy Director general of the WTO does not contradict this view. (2000/C 303 E/083) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2691/99 by Pernille Frahm (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (11 January 2000) Subject: UN Convention on Refugees The conclusions of the Tampere Summit emphasised the Councilís intention of making the UN Convention on Refugees the basis for EU refugee and asylum policy. Will the Commission confirm that this decision means that the Member States are obliged to deal with applications for asylum regardless of the applicantís country of origin?