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 42kWORD 18k
10 July 2019
Question for written answer P-002220-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Kateřina Konečná (GUE/NGL)

 Subject:  EU steel safeguard

The EU steel safeguard was a step forward in guarding against import surges, but it did not achieve its original objective. It was designed to ward off import surges in the wake of the US’ Section 232 steel import tariffs.

Unfortunately, this safeguard was automatically raised by 5% last month in spite of steel industry protests and the concerns expressed by Member States. This significant increase in the size of the import quota — the second this year — is taking place even though demand for steel in the EU is expected to fall in 2019.

The overall economic outlook is cooling down. Prices for raw materials and energy are high and volatile. Carbon costs have increased. Production cuts have been announced in various Member States and thousands of jobs are at stake. On 24 June, the Commission received a letter from 35 MEPs asking it to reconsider its decision to raise the steel safeguard.

They have not received any response to this question. I would therefore like to ask: why is the Commission raising the EU steel safeguard in these circumstances? Why has the Commission decided to ignore the concerns of Member States, the steel sector and MEPs?

Last updated: 17 July 2019Legal notice