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 39kWORD 18k
13 February 2019
Question for written answer E-000847-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Christelle Lechevalier (ENF)

 Subject:  Bangladesh and Pakistan
 Answer in writing 

Pakistan has been covered by the special incentive arrangement for sustainable development and good governance, SPG+, since 2014. The purpose of SPG+ is to encourage developing countries to increase their degree of participation in international trade, with the help of unilateral preferential tariffs granted by the EU.

International monitoring bodies have repeatedly pointed out that Pakistan is in breach of the 27 basic conventions that must be complied with in order to be eligible for SPG+ and called for Pakistan to take steps to improve its labour laws.

Despite this, the Commission has always been in favour of Pakistan retaining SPG+ status. Conversely, the Commission has said that it may suspend Bangladesh from the ‘Everything But Arms’ (EBA) initiative owing to the state of its labour laws.

Given that Bangladesh has made significant progress in reforming its labour laws, while Pakistan has not:
Will the Commission confirm what criteria it applies when suspending a country from the SPG+ regime?
Will it explain why it has decided that Bangladesh deserves to be suspended from the EBA initiative, while Pakistan does not deserve to be suspended from SPG+?
Original language of question: FR 
Last updated: 5 March 2019Legal notice