Serious shortcomings in the implementation of the GSP regulation

22.5.2018

Question for written answer E-002712-18
to the Commission
Rule 130
Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D)

Regulation (EU) No 978/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 applying a scheme of generalised tariff preferences (the GSP Regulation) provides that ‘serious and systematic violations’ by a beneficiary of the principles laid down in certain international conventions concerning core human rights and labour rights can lead to the temporary withdrawal of the arrangements under the the scheme.

In the Commission’s 2018 Joint Staff Working Document providing an assessment of GSP in Pakistan and the Philippines, the Commission reported ‘serious concerns’ and ‘shortcomings’ regarding the effective implementation of the conventions.

The term ‘concern’ does not appear in the GSP Regulation, while the concept of ‘shortcomings’ is only mentioned in relation to customs controls on the export or transit of drugs and to anti-terrorism and money laundering.

Can the Commission elaborate on the difference between ‘serious concern’, ‘shortcoming’ and ‘serious violation’?

Does the Commission agree that such important terms, in that they are central to the implementation of the GSP Regulation, should be defined in legislation or in a delegated act?

With respect to Pakistan and the Philippines, can the Commission outline the exact actions being taken to address the ‘serious concerns’ existing regarding implementation of the conventions concerned?