WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3588/98 by Alexandros ALAVANOS to the Commission. Difference of opinion between courts of EU Member States
C 182/104 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 6. 1999 The Commission has initiated a number of bilateral measures with Korea. At the ministerial meeting with Korea in October the Commission raised a number of questions concerning restructuring of the sector, the aid granted by Korea Eximbank for ship exports and allegations of local grants to shipyard sub-contractors. Korea gave details and promised to provide further information. As to the situation on the world market, the European shipbuilding industry temporarily improved its position in relation to its main competitors, recording 60 % more orders for the first 9 months of 1998 than for the same period in 1997. At the same time Korean shipyards, despite the devaluation of the Won, received 28 % less orders than in the previous year. However, these figures should be interpreted with the utmost caution because they represent only part of the year. Also a substantial proportion of European orders for this period (40 % in compensated gross tonnes (cgt)) concerned liners, for which only 4 shipyards are contractors. Since summer 1998 the Koreans, with a very low price policy, are regaining the exceptional level of orders achieved in 1997 and this is having a negative impact on other shipyards and other types of ships (containers). At the Industry Council on 16 November 1998, the Commission member responsible for industrial affairs presented a report on the matter and on the action taken by the Commission. He gave a critical analysis of Korean practices and their impact on the global market. Supported by the Council on the need to take action to halt unfair competition, he proposed that the Member States use their influence in the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ensure that Korea complies with the conditions imposed in return for international aid. (1999/C 182/137) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3588/98 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (3 December 1998) Subject: Difference of opinion between courts of EU Member States A Greek man and a Danish woman married in Greece and had a child who has Greek nationality. The marriage was subsequently dissolved by common consent by a divorce issued by a Danish court, and custody was awarded to the mother, without any arrangements being made for access rights for the father. A Greek court later laid down arrangements governing access rights which were, however, rejected by the Danish court, so that the child has no access to the father. Will the Commission say: 1. Which court is competent to judge which parent should have custody of the child and lay down rules governing the conditions of direct access to the other parent? 2. If a judgment has already been handed down on custody and access rights which fails to satisfy one of the parents, what procedure can be used to review the judgment? Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission (21 January 1999) The Commission is not competent to answer the two questions raised by the Honourable Member. However, on 28 May 1998, on the basis of Article K. 3 of the Treaty on European Union, the Council drew up the convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters (1). Its aim is to settle problems of the type raised by the Honourable Member, and it is currently in the process of ratification by the Member States pursuant to Article 47. (1) OJ C 221, 16. 7. 1998