WRITTEN QUESTION P-1029/00 by Fernando Fernández Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Banana dispute.
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? C 53 E/60 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 20. 2. 2001 Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (29 May 2000) Following the finding of World Trade Organisation (WTO) incompatibility of various aspects of the current Community banana regime (a regime which had already been revised after the WTO ruling on the previous regime), the Commission proposed in November 1999 a two step approach to modify the import rules for bananas: a tariff rate quota (TRQ) system should be established on a temporary basis and should be replaced by a flat tariff on January 2006. The management of the TRQ system in particular as regards the licence allocation, is at present the subject of extensive discussion with all concerned. In the absence of agreement on licence allocation of all concerned, the Commission proposal foresees the possibility of establishing a flat tariff system immediately. In parallel with consultations with all countries exporting bananas to the Community, including the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries as well as with the commercial operators and the Community producers, the Commission is also pursuing bilateral discussions with the United States (US). The latest meeting was held in Washington on 30 March 2000. So far, however, it has not been possible to agree on a mutually acceptable solution to the banana dispute. The main problem in drafting a Commission proposal to establish a TRQ system remains the question of how import licences should be attributed to operators. Most operators appear to be in favour of a licence distribution based on historic performance during a representative period. The difficulty is that they cannot agree on a single period acceptable to all. The US insists on a reference period pre-1993, i. e. a period that predates the establishment of the internal market for bananas. This position is reflected in the so-called Caribbean proposal. However, Ecuador favours a very recent period, but in any case post-1993, whereas the ACP countries advocate a long period covering both pre- and post 1993. Regarding áan automatic switchí to a tariff only system, this is already foreseen in the Commission proposal and as such this is not a part of the discussion with the US. Concerning Community production, it is important to note that the WTO panel has never put in question the deficiency payment system in the Community banana sector. The Commission is of the opinion that the farm income of the European banana producer can be guaranteed by this current aid system, which therefore ensures the continuation of Community banana production. (2001/C 53 E/070) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1030/00 by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Customs stamps in non-Community countries Further to my question No E-0203/00 (1), will the Commission say whether it intends to take steps to encourage the World Customs Organisation to keep continuously updated records of current customs stamps worldwide? Does the Commission believe that the actual usefulness of customs stamps ü which can be stolen, copied or illicitly used in other ways ü as a means of verification, is in reasonable proportion to their economic importance? (1) OJ C 26 E, 26. 1. 2001, p. 18