WRITTEN QUESTION E-1035/00 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission. WTO.
6. 3. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 72 E/13 (2001/C 72 E/016) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1035/00 by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: WTO A number of developing countries have experienced genuine difficulties in implementing their Uruguay Round commitments. For example, commitments on customs valuation and intellectual property require quick implementing systems that the industrialised nations have been developing over lengthy periods of time and which entail substantial implementation costs. Will the EU support calls for an extension to the deadline for compliance with these agreements? Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (17 May 2000) The Trade related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs) Agreement has established minimum rights for rightholders, including in the domain of enforcement mechanisms where the public authorities are directly concerned. Transitional periods were agreed with a view to enabling all World Trade Organisation (WTO) members to provide the necessary TRIPs compatible legislation. 1 January 2000 was the date by which developing country members and members-in-transition had to comply with their TRIPs Agreement obligations. Least- developed country members can avail themselves of a transitional period until 1 January 2006. In the specific field of customs, both developed and developing countries are working on simplifying and modernizing customs procedures in order to improve border control and enforcement. The border enforcement provisions of the TRIPs Agreement introduce modern trade ü facilitating customs techniques, and enable customs to focus resources on increasing detection levels of prohibited or restricted goods, such as intellectual property rights (IPR)-infringing goods. In order to facilitate the implementation of the TRIPs Agreement, including the border enforcement provisions by developing and least-developed countries, developed countries have been providing technical and financial co-operation. This includes assistance in the preparation of IPR and enforcement laws. It also includes support for reinforcement of national agencies including training of personnel. Developing countries were given the opportunity to request assistance in that respect under the joint initiative of technical co-operation set up by WTO and the World Intellectual Property Organisation. The Commissionís opinion is that the transitional periods for developing countries should not be extended, as they were an essential element of the Uruguay Round negotiations, but that assistance and international co-operation, within an overall framework of trade facilitation, should be enhanced. However, unlike the situation in TRIPs, as regards customs valuation there have been many requests for more time to implement. Unlike TRIPs, the valuation agreement, though applicable from 2000, recognises explicitly that some countries may need additional time. The Community has shown flexibility in granting additional time for implementation and is at the forefront of those WTO members offering technical assistance to help developing countries implement the agreement during the additional transitional period. The Community is also taking a flexible and sympathetic approach to other areas where individual countries may have implementation problems such as the Trade related investment measures agreement and the application of Sanitary and phytosanitary measures agreement and have, together with the United States, Japan and Canada, made proposals to the effect that extensions would be granted on a case by case C 72 E/14 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 6. 3. 2001 basis where countries put forward an implementation plan, which the Community would where necessary support through assistance. (2001/C 72 E/017) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1047/00 by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Transfer of 3 000 tonnes of anchovies between Portugal and France The annual scientific report issued by the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) recommended adopting drastic measures to guarantee the conservation of certain species, including anchovies, whose breeding rates over the previous two years had proven unsatisfactory, and thus advocated closing the fishing grounds between January and June 2000. Commissioner Fischlerís proposal to the Council of Ministers on a reduction in TACs and quotas for this species advocated a reduction in the TAC of as much as 85 %. The Council of Ministers ultimately agreed on a figure of 51 % but retained the option of a quota exchange of 3 000 tonnes between Portugal and France, in spite of the alarming data used by the Commission in the report. Back in 1995 the Council had agreed to authorise a transfer of 5 000 tonnes between these two countries. The Court of Justice rejected a Spanish appeal against that agreement in October 1999. In view of the grave crisis affecting this stock, the Spanish sector has decided to lodge an appeal with the backing of some of the governments of regions in which the fleets concerned are based. What view does the Commission take of the appeal which the sector itself has brought before the Court of Justice against the agreement by the Council of Ministers authorising the quota transfer between Portugal and France? How does it view the suggestion of the scientific committee that, before coastal fishing commences, a committee of experts should conduct a survey on the state of the stock, which would serve as the basis for fixing the annual quota and the total volume of anchovies which may be caught? Does it not believe that fixing a quota for a six-month period destabilises the sector and prevents it from planning the fishing year properly? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The Commission is of the opinion that the transfer of a part of the quota of anchovy from Portugal to France, in accordance with footnote (2) relative to the stock of anchovy in International Council for the exploration of the sea (ICES) Divisions VIIIc and IXa, in annex ID of Council Regulation (EC) No 2742/ 1999 of 17 December 1999 fixing for 2000 the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch are required and amending Regulation (EC) No 66/98 (1), is an integral part of the management of the stocks of anchovy, compatible with Community legislation and principles and a good basis to achieve an equitable balance between the needs of the fishing industry from France and from Spain. As a consequence, the position of the Commission in case T-54/00, Federación de Cofradías de Guipœzcoa against the Council, challenging the aforesaid transfer, has been to issue a request for intervention in support of the Council