Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 41kWORD 16k
4 February 2019
E-000673-19
Question for written answer E-000673-19
to the Commission (Vice-President/High Representative)
Rule 130
Nicolas Bay (ENF)

 Subject:  VP/HR — Lack of transparency casts doubt on GSP+ legitimacy
 Answer in writing 

The Commission is the institution charged with monitoring and evaluating GSP+ in beneficiary countries. Although a balance between transparency and political diplomacy must be respected, concerns have been raised on numerous occasions regarding transparency and a failure to exercise due diligence.

1. What is VP/HR’s position regarding the lack of transparency concerning the eligibility, monitoring and evaluation processes for GSP+?

2. Could the Commission publish the scorecards of the beneficiary countries against which serious accusations of human rights violations have been made, such as Pakistan and the Philippines?

3. In order to benefit from GSP+, beneficiaries must fulfil a series of criteria. The Commission assesses whether a country meets those requirements before granting GSP+. Where can these assessments regarding the eligibility of accepted beneficiaries be found?

Last updated: 20 February 2019Legal notice