Full text 
Procedure : 2013/0103(COD)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : A7-0053/2014

Texts tabled :


Debates :

PV 04/02/2014 - 14
CRE 04/02/2014 - 14

Votes :

PV 05/02/2014 - 9.13
CRE 05/02/2014 - 9.13
PV 16/04/2014 - 7.25

Texts adopted :


Tuesday, 4 February 2014 - Strasbourg Revised edition

14. Protection against dumped and subsidised imports from countries not members of the EU (debate)
Video of the speeches

  Der Präsident. - Als nächster Punkt der Tagesordnung folgt die Aussprache über den Bericht von Christofer Fjellner im Namen des Ausschusses für internationalen Handel über den Vorschlag für eine Verordnung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zur Änderung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1225/2009 des Rates über den Schutz gegen gedumpte Einfuhren aus nicht zur Europäischen Gemeinschaft gehörenden Ländern und der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 597/2009 des Rates über den Schutz gegen subventionierte Einfuhren aus nicht zur Europäischen Gemeinschaft gehörenden Ländern (COM(2013)0192 - C7-0097/2013 - 2013/0103(COD)) (A7-0053/2014).


  Christofer Fjellner, rapporteur. - Mr President, I will do this in English because it will be a lengthy and complicated debate. First of all, I would like to thank everybody who has been working on this file with me; it has been a momentous task. We have been reviewing the most controversial part of European trade policy: the trade defence instruments, which normally come upon us as anti-dumping tariffs. This is something that is moving higher and higher up the political agenda as we have more high-profile cases. The last high profile case was probably the 47% tariff on Chinese solar panels, which I know has led to a lot of debate throughout the European Union.

We have done it in record speed; it has taken us six months to do something that normally would have taken more than a year. I must say – and I think I speak for all colleagues – that this has been pretty frustrating. We are not happy with the fact that the Commission then chose to present such an important and big task to the Parliament this late in the mandate, forcing us to work under such pressure. That has made it harder to make good legislation.

We also have concerns with the dubious guidelines, about which we had lengthy debates with the Commission. This is due to the fact that they were presented as one package. The guidelines and the regulation were presented as one balance. The guidelines have been living their own lives and changing. There has also been discussion over whether they should be adopted before or after the adoption of the regulation.

Despite that and despite the time pressure, the Committee has managed to find good compromises in most areas. We have a total of twelve compromises, stretching from transparency to European Parliament scrutiny of trade defence instruments. I just want to mention some of those compromises.

Firstly on transparency: we have introduced provisions for all interested parties to receive more information about the investigation. That is something that will be appreciated by all parties. We will also try to establish an SME Help Desk in the area of trade defence instruments that would help both importers and producers affected by trade defence instruments. We have also tried, as I said, to increase Parliament’s ability to monitor the implementation of this regulation. We want an annual report from the Commission on how they execute and implement this regulation.

There are two things that the Commission presented as ‘new’ elements of the trade defence instruments that we debated at length. The first of these was a reimbursement of tariffs that were collected during expiry reviews. That is something we decided to remove because, honestly, it involved more bureaucracy than it would have brought added value. The second thing that the Commission introduced was an obligation to cooperate for companies under trade defence proceedings, that is taking place ex officio in the Commission. That is something that we debated at length, but we concluded that it should not be an obligation, but merely a request from the Commission. This is because it might be very burdensome to be forced to hand in all the material that is needed, especially for small and medium-sized enterprises.

With these compromises, we will have a substantial improvement of the instruments. It is worth saying that it is worthwhile to vote and to achieve these compromises, even if that is all we get, because they constitute a substantial review of the reform.

There are two points, though, where we did not reach compromise, and those are the most controversial parts of the most controversial legislation: the lesser duty rule and the shipping clause. A clear majority of the Committee did not want a shipping clause: a provision that would give two weeks advance notice to European companies before tariffs were introduced – tariffs that actually might affect them very dramatically.

The lesser duty rule is a rule that makes sure that tariffs will correct the injury done to EU industry, but not go beyond that. A big majority of the Committee wanted to remove that lesser duty rule. That is a mistake; going beyond injury would not only lead to higher tariffs and the penalising of trading partners but, more importantly, would increase the price of trade. Higher tariffs would not only make imports more expensive, they would also make exports more expensive. I could go on at length to discuss the two controversial topics that we have discussed.

Last, but not least: we will have a result in the vote tomorrow. This is not the end of this process, as we need the Council here. We need someone to cooperate with. Therefore, I am very happy that we have the Council present and that its representatives have chosen to stay for part of this debate. We need to know whether you are ready to cooperate with us, and whether you are ready to discuss and have an agreement.


Elnökváltás: SURJÁN LÁSZLÓ


  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me begin by thanking the rapporteur and all those who contributed to the intensive work that has been done so far on this file, as well as the commitment shown by all. I hope that we will be able to keep up this momentum in this crucial phase of interinstitutional decision-making.

Our trade defence instruments are important for our industry and have become even more important in the context of open markets, where trade defence is often the only remedy for industry when faced with unfair trade. To further illustrate the significance of these instruments, let me just name a few recent cases, such as solar panels, tableware and biodiesel. In all these very different sectors, and many others, trade defence measures have helped ensure that the EU’s industry competes on fair terms with its foreign competitors. By using these targeted measures, we provide a level playing field for our industry. In some cases, this may even prove decisive for the survival of specific sectors. Therefore, we need to act now to ensure that we have instruments that are suitable for the current trading environment. Failure on this file carries social and economic costs and we cannot afford this.

In order for this reform to be a success, all stakeholders need to receive its benefits: industry, importers and users alike. While the interests of the various groups differ significantly, overall we all have the same goal in mind: to reap the advantages of rules-based trade defence instruments that are effective, efficient and transparent.

Compared with many other users around the world, the strength of the EU’s trade defence instruments lies in their balance and proportionality in the application of measures. These important features need to be maintained and, where possible, further improved through this modernisation. However, some of the amendments voted by the Committee on International Trade (INTA) run the risk of changing the balance in the overall proposal.

In particular, the scope of the non-application of the lesser duty rule has been considerably expanded and, in addition, the shipping clause has been removed completely. I am of the view that these amendments will need to be reconsidered. The same goes for some other ideas included in the Commission’s original proposal, such as pre-disclosure, or the reimbursement of duties in unsuccessful expiry reviews. These are Commission proposals which ensure predictability and fairness.

As I said at the outset, Parliament has achieved a great deal already within a short timeframe, and tomorrow’s vote is a further important step on the way. However, as Members will know, we still have some hurdles to overcome. In particular, flexibility is called for from all parties around the table. Balance remains the key word in this modernisation process when it comes to reaching a compromise. Rest assured that I will pass on this message also to the Council. In particular, I wish to convince them of the importance of entrusting the Presidency with a sufficiently flexible negotiation mandate in the coming month.

We must be ready to conduct the trilogues in March, and I am prepared to facilitate the talks with all possible means from day one. While being politically charged, the actual questions are not too hard to decide, with good will from all sides. I would like to emphasise, once more, that failure is not an option for me.

To conclude, let me thank you once again for the hard work that you have put into this file. We seem to agree on the need to adopt this proposal – so let us adopt it swiftly and go the final mile with an open mind.


  Daniel Caspary, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, geschätzte Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Christofer Fjellner ist bereits darauf eingegangen: Die Kommission hat vor ungefähr einem Dreivierteljahr diese Reform der Handelsschutzinstrumente vorgelegt. Das ist sehr spät in ihrem Mandat. Und gerade weil es sich hierbei um ein sehr sensibles Thema handelt und wir ja schon die Situation hatten, dass vor fünf Jahren eine Reform der Handelsschutzinstrumente gescheitert ist, wäre es sinnvoller gewesen, wenn wir dieses Thema früher auf die Tagesordnung gesetzt hätten. Aber angesichts der Tatsache, dass wir so kurz vor dem Ende der Wahlperiode sind, bin ich dem Berichterstatter und auch den Schattenberichterstattern außerordentlich dankbar dafür, wie weit wir es gebracht haben, und dass wir heute und morgen über das Thema beraten und abstimmen dürfen.

Ich bin dem Berichterstatter und den Schattenberichterstattern ebenfalls sehr dankbar für das große Kompromisspaket. Ich glaube, wenn man sich anschaut, wie kontrovers dieses Dossier ist, dann sind wir sehr gut aufgestellt mit dem großen Kompromisspaket, das hier im Haus hoffentlich auch eine breite Mehrheit findet. Aber es gibt zwei Streitpunkte, die auch bei uns in der Fraktion nach wie vor umstritten sind, nämlich zum einen die sogenannte shipping clause, also die Versandklausel, und die sogenannte lesser duty rule. Bei der shipping clause selbst wäre ich dankbar, wenn der Rat hier eine Lösung finden würde. Ich halte es auch für machbar, hier eine Lösung zu finden. Denn bei der Frage, ob wir hier noch einen gewissen Vertrauensschutz finden oder nicht, sollte es doch möglich sein, eine pragmatische Lösung zu finden.

Wo ich persönlich etwas mehr Sorgen habe – aber, wie gesagt, bei uns in der Fraktion gibt es dazu auch unterschiedliche Meinungen –, ist das Thema der lesser duty rule, weil hier schon ein Paradigmenwechsel stattfindet. Wir haben bisher immer darauf geachtet, dass wir Antidumpingzölle in einer Höhe erheben, die dazu dient, einen Schaden von der europäischen Industrie abzuwenden. Und mit dem, was wir morgen beschließen werden, sagen wir, wir wollen einen Strafzoll erheben in einer Höhe, die nicht nur den Schaden für die europäische Industrie abwendet, sondern der darüber hinausgeht, d. h, der wirklich eine Art Strafzoll, eine Strafe dafür ist, dass man sich nicht an die Regeln hält. Ich denke, da gibt es auch gute Argumente dafür, aber wir sollten uns alle im Klaren sein, das ist ein Paradigmenwechsel.

Ich würde mich freuen, wenn die Blockade auch im Rat überwunden werden könnte. Ich glaube, das Paket, das wir morgen beschließen, ist eine gute Grundlage dafür, und ich wäre dankbar, wenn wir mit dem Rat sehr schnell zu einer Einigung kommen!


  Andrea Cozzolino, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'esito dell'iter in commissione è stato, come è stato ricordato adesso, ampiamente positivo, persino al di là delle aspettative della vigilia.

Solo sei mesi fa nessuno di noi poteva immaginare che potessimo giungere a queste soluzioni, sia per i tempi sia per il merito dei compromessi che abbiamo raggiunto. E dunque vorrei che da qui noi tutti giudicassimo il lavoro che ci apprestiamo a concludere poi domani con il voto.

E vorrei soprattutto che non solo il Parlamento che domani lo farà, ma anche il Commissario difenda di più il lavoro che si è fatto in questi sei mesi, e anche i compromessi che abbiamo raggiunto, anche sui punti più delicati, perché credo che questo possa essere un contributo importante perché la sfida vinta con il voto di domani del Parlamento possa essere adesso vinta dalla Commissione e dal Consiglio e fare ciò che non si è fatto negli ultimi quindici anni nei prossimi due mesi.

Questo è possibile se ritorna la politica, se ritorna l'idea cioè che noi dobbiamo rispondere a un'esigenza che abbiamo in questo momento in Europa di difendere di più le nostre produzioni, di difendere di più il nostro sistema delle piccole e medie imprese e anche per aprire una fase nuova di confronto con le altre economie del mondo e riscoprire così anche una funzione dell'Europa nei prossimi anni.

Credo quindi che noi dobbiamo lavorare adesso per concludere questo durissimo lavoro, come è stato qui ricordato. Un durissimo lavoro che è stato possibile grazie alla collaborazione e all'ascolto tra le diverse componenti del Parlamento, al lavoro straordinario che hanno fatto lo staff, gli assistenti, gli stakeholder con i quali abbiamo discusso in queste settimane e in questi mesi, e dunque davvero va valorizzato questo lavoro.

Non mettiamo pregiudizi, non mettiamo preconcetti, non determiniamo delle aree intorno alle quali continuare una discussione, un confronto, ma spostiamo in avanti tutta l'iniziativa sapendo che davvero questa è un'occasione quasi unica. Lo voglio ancora una volta ricordare, solo alcuni mesi fa non era assolutamente possibile immaginare che potessimo giungere a un risultato di questa portata, dunque vale la pena difenderlo e portarlo a compimento nei prossimi due mesi.


  Marielle de Sarnez, au nom du groupe ALDE. – Monsieur le Président, pour nous la question de la modernisation de nos instruments de défense commerciale est évidemment une question très politique. Si nous voulons préserver nos emplois d'aujourd'hui, créer des emplois nouveaux demain, si nous voulons agir pour la croissance en Europe – et cela devrait être la priorité pour nous tous ici – nous devons bien entendu mener une politique offensive en faveur de l'industrie européenne, en faveur de nos investissements, en faveur de nos entreprises, en faveur de la recherche, mais avons aussi besoin d'une vraie politique défensive, qui protège nos propres intérêts et l'intérêt de nos entreprises. Nous devons donc nous doter d'instruments de défense commerciale efficaces et véritablement dissuasifs. Au fond, je ne vois pas pourquoi, au nom de quelle idéologie, au nom de quel dogme, l'Europe devrait être ouverte à tous les dumpings. L'Europe, elle doit évidemment agir en faveur de ses entreprises, en faveur de sa production.

Nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre, dans le monde d'aujourd'hui, d'être naïfs et de moins bien défendre nos intérêts que d'autres le font. Je pense en particulier aux États-Unis. Nous devons avoir une vraie stratégie commerciale, qui nous mette à l'abri des pratiques déloyales.

Prenons par exemple la question des panneaux solaires: un accord a été négocié cet été avec les Chinois dans ce domaine. On peut le regretter, parce qu'il s'est probablement fait au détriment de notre industrie. D'ailleurs, pour information, si la BEI ne finançait pas les panneaux solaires en Chine, nous serions là aussi plus cohérents.

J'ajoute que les droits maximaux, chez nous, pour les panneaux solaires sont de 64 % alors qu'ils sont de 249% aux États-Unis. Cherchez l'erreur... Il est donc évident que l'Europe doit mieux défendre ses propres intérêts. C'est pourquoi, Monsieur le Commissaire, je pense qu'il est très important non seulement de réformer, mais aussi de renforcer nos instruments de défense commerciale.


  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, chers collègues, nous le disons tous, la révision des instruments de défense commerciale est absolument indispensable aujourd'hui dans cette mondialisation très dure, dans laquelle nous sommes inscrits. Nous constatons également que c'est une attente de nos concitoyens, c'est une attente des entreprises européennes et c'est un pas, certes insuffisant, mais absolument nécessaire si nous voulons enfin avoir une politique économique et une politique industrielle communes à l'échelle de l'Union.

Le cas des panneaux photovoltaïques chinois a été exemplaire d'une stratégie de défense commerciale extrêmement mal menée par l'Union européenne. Pas tant à cause de la Commission européenne, Monsieur le Commissaire, mais à cause des interventions de la Chine qui a menacé un certain nombre d'États membres, et à cause de la division de ces États membres, qui vous ont contraint, d'une certaine façon, à mal agir sur la question des panneaux photovoltaïques chinois, où finalement la qualité de la relation avec la Chine a davantage pesé que la défense d'une industrie européenne, qui était pourtant et qui est toujours performante et compétitive.

Dans cette révision, les compromis obtenus par le Parlement européen jusqu'à maintenant sont importants pour l'accès des petites et moyennes entreprises aux dispositifs et pour faire en sorte que les questions sociales et environnementales soient enfin intégrées dans nos instruments de défense commerciale. L'idée de prendre en compte les normes internationales, que ce soit en matière sociale ou en matière environnementale, dans les sanctions qui pourraient être appliquées en cas de dumping est un élément essentiel de l'évolution de notre cadre sur la défense commerciale.

Et puis j'espère qu'un amendement qui n'est pas passé en commission passera demain en plénière, à savoir la possibilité pour les syndicats de porter plainte auprès de la Commission. Cette possibilité existe dans les grands pays anglo-saxons; c'est un élément essentiel pour renforcer la dimension sociale de notre politique commerciale.


  Cristiana Muscardini, a nome del gruppo ECR. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, per l'imprenditoria europea è essenziale dare il via libera ai negoziati per la riforma degli strumenti di difesa commerciale, principale strumento proprio a disposizione delle imprese per contrastare le pratiche anticompetitive di paesi extraeuropei in violazione delle regole dell'OMC.

Questo è dimostrato non solo da quello che è avvenuto in paesi come la Cina, ma anche dal fatto che l'Europa ha un ventre molle, ha un'incapacità di decidere: quando è ancora bloccato il regolamento per la denominazione di origine e quando è ancora bloccato il regolamento per la sicurezza dei prodotti, è dimostrato che il Consiglio non ha intenzione di far decollare la ripresa e che i posti di lavoro sono annunciati, ma non realizzati per un'impossibilità oggettiva, mancando una concorrenza leale.

Chiediamo al Parlamento di approvare questo progetto, sottolineando che rimangono zone d'ombra da risolvere come le zone off-shore e l'applicazione delle normative degli Stati in cui sono registrate le compagnie, e al Consiglio di impegnarsi finalmente.


  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar! Lassen Sie mich in der Debatte zu den Handelsschutzinstrumenten etwas weiter ausholen.

In Artikel 3 der Charta der Vereinten Nation haben sich alle Mitgliedstaaten der EU verpflichtet, „eine internationale Zusammenarbeit herbeizuführen, um internationale Probleme wirtschaftlicher, sozialer, kultureller und humanitärer Art zu lösen und die Achtung vor den Menschenrechten und Grundfreiheiten für alle ohne Unterschied der Rasse, des Geschlechts, der Sprache oder der Religion zu fördern und zu festigen.“ Diese Verpflichtung hat juristischen Vorrang vor jedem anderen internationalen Abkommen.

Die Europäische Union hat sich zudem verpflichtet, weltweit für gute Arbeit – decent work – und Umweltschutz einzutreten. Was den Welthandel heute unfair macht und vielerorts Leiden verursacht, sind Umwelt- und Sozialdumping. Davor müssen wir uns schützen, das müssen wir bekämpfen – im Sinne der Armen, im Sinne der Vereinten Nationen. Daher werbe ich für unseren Änderungsantrag 83, damit Sie, Herr Kommissar, und die Kommission hier vorgehen können.

Aggressivere Mittel gegen industriepolitische Maßnahmen von Entwicklungsländern brauchen wir hingegen nicht. Dieses Parlament und der Rat haben das Recht auf Rohstoffsouveränität 2010 bereits bestätigt. Meine Fraktion besteht darauf, dass dies auch so bleibt. Schutz vor Dumping, ja, aber diese Verordnung darf nicht als offensives Instrument gedacht sein, um Marktöffnung und niedrige Rohstoffpreise zu erzwingen, die nichts anderes als die Festschreibung niedriger Löhne und Armut in den Rohstoffländern bedeuten.


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, on behalf of the EFD Group. – Mr President, of course we are all, in principle, against subsidised imports – that is dumping – and there has to be trade defence when trade counterparties decline to accept the principles that underpin free and open trade.

But by trade defence we do not mean what happened when the otherwise distinguished EU Commissioner for Trade was happy to launch what might have become a full-scale trade war with China over the comparatively minor matter of solar panels. I have described this previously as a frolic. It also took place against the representations of 17 of the then 27 Member States.

This report, in its essentials, gives greater scope, power and discretion to the Commission. Illegal dumping by third countries of course needs to be dealt with, but not by appointed trade officials acting on a whim. The European Union, in its beginnings and in its operations, is a protectionist construct. On open trade, it is simply not credible.

In the context of dumping, the way forward is a sense of proportionality. That is how an independent Britain should handle this problem, and there will be an independent Britain sooner than most people think – and that ‘most people’ includes the President of Italy today.


  Bruno Gollnisch (NI). - Monsieur le Président, le moins que l'on puisse dire, c'est que la modernisation et le renforcement tardif des instruments de défense commerciale de l'Union européenne ne suscitent pas l'enthousiasme. Les courriers dont nous sommes destinataires montrent clairement l'attente et les demandes d'une industrie européenne victime de pratiques déloyales faiblement combattues.

Or, la première mouture du rapport, dont l'auteur est socialiste, comme les positions initiales du commissaire en charge, M. De Gucht, étaient non seulement insuffisantes mais parfois contreproductives. Certes, la version du rapport tel qu'amendé en commission du commerce international est plus acceptable, bien qu'elle laisse de côté des questions cruciales, comme l'hallucinante règle du droit moindre.

J'imagine que la proximité des élections européennes a dû contribuer à la fermeté relative de nombreux collègues. J'ai entendu cela dans cet hémicycle de la part de partisans d'un libre-échange jusqu'ici débridé. Mais je m'inquiète de la vigueur de ces partisans et du fait qu'ils soient totalement indifférents au sort des travailleurs européens ou simplement persuadés que la "main invisible", chère à Adam Smith, apporte inéluctablement le bonheur et la prospérité.

Je m'inquiète également du pouvoir laissé à la Commission dans la définition de lignes directrices susceptibles de détricoter totalement les timides avancées législatives que ce Parlement va, vraisemblablement, approuver demain.

Enfin, je suis persuadé que la véritable solution ne réside pas dans le fait de confier à la Commission la défense de l'économie européenne. Le triste exemple des panneaux solaires chinois, cité par d'autres orateurs, a montré que, dans ce domaine comme dans d'autres, ce n'est pas l'intérêt de l'ensemble de l'Union européenne qui prime mais celui de son seul leadership germanique, en l'occurrence.

Les États ont des intérêts divergents et ils doivent retrouver leur souveraineté commerciale.


  Tokia Saïfi (PPE). - Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, les instruments de défense commerciale sont un point très important, central même, pour la politique commerciale européenne.

Il était nécessaire d'entamer ce processus de réforme car si nos instruments de défense commerciale sont toujours pertinents sur le fond, nous devons admettre qu'ils ne répondent plus au contexte actuel.

Ce n'est pas être protectionniste que de donner à nos entreprises les outils nécessaires pour se défendre, c'est faire preuve de réalisme économique.

En cela, le résultat auquel nous sommes parvenus aujourd'hui montre bien que notre préoccupation principale a été la manière de lutter contre le dumping sous toutes ses formes.

Comment lutter contre le dumping commercial? Je pense, ici, à nos efforts pour faciliter l'accès des PME à ces instruments ou pour limiter la durée des enquêtes.

Comment lutter contre le dumping social et environnemental, de plus en plus agressif, que nous avons toujours dénoncé? Si nous avons pu parvenir à ce résultat, c'est que, malgré un calendrier très serré, nous avons cherché sans relâche à concilier des positions très différentes.

Nous souhaitons donc vivement que la Commission et le Conseil soient bien décidés à poursuivre leurs travaux sur le même rythme, car ce serait une erreur que de retarder l'entrée en vigueur de ce règlement.

Une question, Monsieur le Commissaire: Pouvons-nous avoir une réponse plus claire sur les lignes directrices, s'il vous plaît?

(L'oratrice accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 149, paragraphe 8, du règlement))


  Paul Rübig (PPE), Frage nach dem Verfahren der „blauen Karte“. – Herr Präsident! Meine Frage geht in Richtung der kleinen und mittleren Betriebe. Derzeit exportieren nur ungefähr 13 % der Betriebe in Europa in Drittstaaten. Glauben Sie, dass diese Vorschriften jetzt eine Chance sind für die kleinen und mittleren Betriebe, mehr zu exportieren, aber auf der anderen Seite natürlich auch mehr zu importieren, weil natürlich der Import auch eine wesentliche Grundlage für Wettbewerbsfähigkeit in dieser Welt darstellt?


  Tokia Saïfi (PPE), réponse "carton bleu". – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur Rübig, dans le travail que nous avons effectué sur ce texte – et je connais l'attention que porte Monsieur Rübig au développement des PME – on voit bien que les PME n'ont jamais eu les moyens de se défendre vis-à-vis de l'extérieur, pour ce qui est des exportations, parce qu'elles n'ont pas de grands moyens, contrairement aux grandes entreprises et aux multinationales. C'est pour cette raison que nous avons veillé à ce que les PME puissent avoir un accès beaucoup plus facile à ces instruments de défense commerciale.


  Bernd Lange (S&D). - Herr Präsident, Herr Kommissar, Herr Ratsvorsitzender! Dieses Ziel, das wir uns gemeinsam gesetzt haben, die industrielle Wertschöpfung in Europa von zurzeit 15,1 % im Jahr 2020 wieder auf 20 % zu steigern, heißt natürlich, dass wir in der Tat unsere Politik kohärent darauf ausrichten, dass wir die industrielle Wertschöpfung stärken und damit hochqualifizierte und gute Arbeit in Europa sichern. Deswegen brauchen wir die Modernisierung der Handelsschutzinstrumente, weil wir gerade von großen Handelspartnern immer wieder Dumpingproduktion erleben. Und, Helmut, das ist nicht gegen Entwicklungsländer gerichtet, sondern es sind – und das zeigen ja auch die Verfahren – einige wenige Länder, die in diesen Fokus kommen. Da ist es richtig zu sagen, wir haben das industrielle Interesse, und nicht so sehr das Interesse von Handeltreibenden.

Deswegen brauchen wir auch klare und eindeutige Regelungen bei der shipping clause. Wir haben das klare Interesse, dass wir das Instrument auch nutzen, um flexibel auf Schädigungen einzugehen. Deswegen brauchen wir auch Flexibilität in der lesser duty rule. Ich bin auch dafür, dass die Kommission stärker initiativ werden kann, weil das Verfahren, wie die Vergangenheit doch gezeigt hat, sehr starr war. Und zum Vierten brauchen wir schnellere Abläufe.

All das haben wir mit unseren Anträgen auf den Tisch gelegt. Ich hoffe, dass auch der Rat möglichst schnell reagiert und wir ein Ergebnis finden.


  Niccolò Rinaldi (ALDE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, signor Commissario, dunque, il lavoro in commissione l'abbiamo fatto.

Sono stato coautore di parecchi emendamenti di compromesso per raggiungere un accordo e spero che la quadra di ciò che siamo riusciti a votare in commissione tenga non solo nel voto in plenaria, ma anche poi nelle tappe successive con il Consiglio. Questo per me è un esercizio che va collegato anche al regolamento di cui sono relatore per l'esercizio dei diritti dell'Unione europea – detto in altre parole per le misure di ritorsione nei confronti di quei partner commerciali che non rispettano le misure concordate.

Si tratta di modernizzare gli strumenti di difesa in una globalizzazione che deve essere sicuramente sostenibile e regolamentata e si tratta soprattutto – lo dico rispetto alle osservazioni di un collega britannico prima – di superare le piccinerie costanti degli Stati membri, perché se noi continuiamo a rinunciare a un ruolo protagonista della Commissione, delle istituzioni europee per la difesa dei nostri interessi commerciali arriveremo soltanto a piccoli egoismi di nessuna efficacia.

Naturalmente adesso il lavoro va avanti. Bisognerà vedere non soltanto il rapporto con il Consiglio, ma anche poi le misure di applicazione, tenendo conto che abbiamo bisogno di questi strumenti per le nostre piccole e medie imprese, per avere dei tempi che siano quanto più rapidi e certi e per soprattutto fare una rivoluzione culturale, in un certo senso, perché difesa commerciale non vuol dire protezionismo, vuol dire invece ottenere regole che in una società globale liberale devono essere rispettate da tutti.


  Andrew Henry William Brons (NI). - Mr President, if you start from a position of 28 countries locked into the EU, and all of them locked into the global trade system governed by the World Trade Organisation, you might be forgiven for thinking that there was some merit in the Commission’s proposal, for example, to modify the lesser duty rule, or to impose provisional duties after establishing proof of what even the EU would consider to be dumping. However, I am tempted to take the part of the man in the joke who, when asked for directions, replied: ‘I would not have started from here.’

I am opposed to EU controls over my country’s ability to manage its own trade. However, I am even more concerned about the EU and the WTO facilitating trade with low-wage economies with whose manufactured goods we cannot possibly compete, and which constitute dumping, without any investigation being necessary.


  Jarosław Leszek Wałęsa (PPE). - Mr President, if we want a competitive economy that creates jobs, we simply cannot have the highest energy prices in the world. We cannot encumber our industry with regulations that no one else in the world follows. We cannot provide preferential access to our market to countries that have much cheaper energy prices and do not impose any of the same regulatory burdens on their companies. And we cannot have one of the most liberal trade defence regimes in the world.

In such conditions, we cannot stay competitive. In the Committee on International Trade (INTA), we concluded that EU trade defence policy needs readjusting in limited circumstances where our producers face various government-inspired distortions. It is a limited step, but a step in the right direction. I therefore urge all of my colleagues to support the INTA report as it is. I urge you to reject all amendments, split votes and separate votes, the only task of which is to sabotage the compromise we have reached. Finally, I urge you to refuse all procedural tricks and direct this report back to INTA for mandate for trilogues. This also means we should not vote for a legislative resolution which, by the way, I consider a dishonest attempt to derail the progress we have made in INTA.


  Vital Moreira (S&D). - Senhor Presidente, Senhor Comissário, Senhor Presidente do Conselho, Caros Colegas, os instrumentos de defesa comercial não são protecionismo, são comércio livre e leal - free and fair trade. A União tem obrigação de defender a indústria europeia contra o dumping ou as subvenções dos seus concorrentes externos. A eficácia do sistema de defesa comercial é essencial e este exercício de modernização, como se chama, devia ser um exercício de reforço da concorrência leal no comércio internacional.

O sistema de defesa comercial da União é considerado um dos mais liberais a nível mundial, indo muito além dos requisitos da Organização Mundial do Comércio e sem paralelo por parte dos nossos parceiros comerciais, nomeadamente os Estados Unidos.

O projeto apresentado pela Comissão tinha já alguns aspetos positivos e as alterações aprovadas na Comissão INTA melhoram substancialmente as propostas da Comissão, por isso merece aprovação amanhã por este Parlamento.

Todavia, as guidelines anunciadas pela Comissão, paralelamente à iniciativa legislativa, correm o risco de enfraquecer a defesa da indústria e anular os ganhos do regulamento. Em especial, o teste do interesse da União, tal como é definido pela Comissão, é suscetível de sacrificar os interesses da indústria afetada em favor dos interesses dos importadores e de outros interesses.

A União não pode continuar a expor cada vez mais a indústria europeia à competição externa, sem ao mesmo tempo reforçar a sua defesa contra as práticas comerciais desleais.


  Salvatore Iacolino (PPE). - Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, l'esigenza di modernizzazione è stata vieppiù rappresentata dai relatori che sono intervenuti precedentemente. Certamente è il focus essenziale di questa proposta che va nel senso che tutti quanti ci attendevamo: valorizzazione e rafforzamento degli strumenti per aumentare la sostenibilità e la competitività delle aziende europee.

In un momento di straordinaria crisi economica, il comparto industriale, così come quello delle piccole e medie imprese, va tutelato e garantito attraverso un quadro legislativo chiaro, coerente con le procedure condivise. Merito certamente del Parlamento europeo che è riuscito a portare avanti una procedura legislativa in tempi veramente congrui. Gli effetti distorsivi delle pratiche leali vanno certamente eliminati per garantire un'effettiva concorrenza leale sul mercato europeo. È quello di cui oggi noi più che mai abbiamo bisogno per infondere fiducia intanto nel nostro comparto produttivo, ma nel contempo per attrarre nuovi investimenti.

E allora, un focus sulle piccole e medie imprese e trasparenza nelle procedure. Sulla regola del cosiddetto dazio minore altri colleghi sono intervenuti. Abbiamo bisogno di tutelare le piccole e medie imprese attraverso uno sforzo corale. È quello che stiamo facendo e confidiamo che la Commissione e il Consiglio in questo scorcio finale di legislatura possano rendere possibile un risultato che fino a qualche tempo fa era ritenuto improbabile attraverso l'adozione di questo pacchetto che garantisce enormemente il comparto produttivo e le piccole e medie imprese.


  George Sabin Cutaş (S&D). - Mulțumesc domnule președinte. Stimați colegi, mecanismul de apărare comercială, ce include măsuri antidumping și anti-subvenție, deține un rol extrem de important atât în lupta împotriva concurenței neloiale practicate de țări terțe, cât și pentru sprijinirea întreprinderilor locale. Industria europeană trebuie susținută, cu atât mai mult cu cât în prezent se află într-o împrejurare economică dificilă.

În acest context, Uniunea Europeană nu poate acorda condiții prea favorabile competitorilor săi. Ea trebuie să își protejeze întreprinderile mici și mijlocii, care reprezintă 99% din companiile europene și sunt generatoare de creștere economică și de locuri de muncă. De aceea, consider că prevederile privind apărarea comercială trebuie menținute în forma în care au fost adoptate în Comisia pentru comerț internațional.

Totodată aș dori să salut includerea în raport a posibilității, prevăzute de Organizația Mondială a Comerțului, de a înăspri regulile de apărare comercială în cazul în care standardele sociale și de mediu ale unei țări terțe sunt prea joase. Mulțumesc.


  Béla Glattfelder (PPE). - Csak a kölcsönös előnyökön és a tisztességes eljárásokon nyugvó nemzetközi kereskedelem vezet megfelelő eredményre. Hogyha e kettőből bármelyik hiányzik, akkor ez a kereskedelem nem lesz hosszú távon fenntartható. Éppen ezért az Európai Uniónak fel kell lépnie a tisztességtelen kereskedelmi gyakorlatokkal szemben, különösképpen azért, mert az Európai Unió a világ egyik legnyitottabb kereskedelmével rendelkező partner, és sajnos egyre többen vannak olyanok, akik szinte már rászoknak arra, hogy az Európai Unióval szemben tisztességtelen kereskedelemi gyakorlatokat alkalmazzanak.

Különösképpen ilyen a dömping, valamint a nyersanyag és az energiaáraknak a torzítása, gondoljunk például a ritka földfémekkel kapcsolatos feszültségekre. Ezek súlyos károkat okoznak az Európai Unió gazdaságának, és veszélyeztetik a munkahelyeket. Következésképpen sokkal hatékonyabban kell használni a kereskedelemi, védelmi eszközöket, be kell vonni az ilyen eljárásokba a lehető legnagyobb mértékben a kis- és közepes vállalkozásokat, alkalmazni kell a büntetővámokat az úton levő termékekre is, hogy ne lehessen megkerülni a megtorló intézkedéseket, és különösen a nyersanyag- és energiakérdésekben elrettentő hatású vámokat kell alkalmazni, amelyeknek megtorló jellegűeknek kell lenniük azért, hogy elvegyék a kedvét mindenkinek, aki ilyesmiben töri a fejét.


  Laima Liucija Andrikienė (PPE). - Pirmiausia noriu padėkoti kolegai C. Fjellner, šio svarbaus pranešimo autoriui, už bendradarbiavimą ir pastangas siekiant daugumai priimtino kompromiso.

Kaip Lietuvos atstovė pastebėsiu, kad Lietuvos gamintojai stipriai palaiko Europos Komisijos teisinę iniciatyvą modernizuoti Bendrijų prekybos apsaugos priemones. Esu visiškai įsitikinusi, kad aktyviai ir atvirai prekybai būtinos efektyvios priemonės kovai su nesąžiningos prekybos apraiškomis, žalinga dempingo ar subsidijavimo praktika.

Pastebėsiu, kad pagrindinės nesąžiningos prekybos priežastys yra dirbtinai iškreipiami žaliavų ir energetinių išteklių kaštai. Šiame kontekste žemesnių muitų taisyklės (lesser duty rule) teikiamo pranašumo panaikinimas yra ypatingai svarbus. Tai aktualu ir Lietuvos gamintojams, chemijos, trąšų, plastiko ir kitoms šakoms, kurie kenčia dėl, pvz., Rusijos taikomų žaliavų eksporto muitų arba dvigubos dujų kainodaros. Svarbus ir antidempingo bei antisubsidijų tyrimų trukmės sutrumpinimas.

Akivaizdu, kad nesąžininga prekyba neleidžia visiems rinkos dalyviams užtikrinti vienodų žaidimo taisyklių ir tuo tiesiogiai kenkia Europos Sąjungos įmonių konkurencingumui. Aš visiškai remiu INTA komiteto poziciją šiuo klausimu, išreikštą sausio 21 d. balsavime, ir raginu kolegas atmesti visas naujas pataisas.


  Esther Herranz García (PPE). - Señor Presidente, Señorías, agradezco la oportunidad de debatir en el Pleno nuestras relaciones comerciales y su incidencia en nuestro mercado interior.

Desde un punto de vista agroalimentario, la Unión Europea es, sin duda, uno de los agentes más importantes en el comercio internacional, como exportador, pero, sobre todo, como importador. Desde la firma de la Declaración de Varsovia, en octubre de 2011, sobre el comercio alimentario, todas las instituciones europeas tienen el deber de asegurar a los ciudadanos europeos, en cuanto que consumidores, los más altos niveles de calidad en los alimentos y productos alimentarios producidos en la Unión Europea, y también en los importados. Tenemos herramientas suficientes para ello, que deben ser utilizadas y, de ser necesario, deben ser mejoradas, pero nunca ignoradas o eliminadas.

La Comisión Europea es, en este caso, el portero de la casa común, que debe asegurarnos a todos los europeos que lo que entra por nuestras fronteras nunca nos causará un problema alimentario o fitosanitario. Es necesario, por tanto, respetar escrupulosamente los acuerdos comerciales firmados tanto por la Unión Europea como por los Estados miembros: respetarlos y hacerlos respetar.

En la reciente reforma de la política agrícola común, hemos introducido una importante cláusula: la de la reciprocidad con países terceros. Únicamente teniendo en cuenta siempre la evolución sostenida y sostenible, en el respeto de los acuerdos firmados y las obligaciones exigidas, será posible satisfacer nuestras necesidades alimentarias con justicia, equidad y tranquilidad para los consumidores europeos.


Catch the eye”


  Erik Bánki (PPE). - Tisztelt elnök úr, tisztelt képviselőtársaim! A dömpingellenes és szubvencióellenes szabályok egyidejű korszerűsítését célozza a Bizottság előttünk fekvő javaslata. A dömpingellenes vámokat olyan mértékben kell kivetni, ami megtéríti az európai gyártók dömping miatt keletkezett kárait. A mostani javaslat erősítését kell elérnünk, azt gondolom, hiszen olyan szintre kell emelnünk a vámokat, amelyek egyben büntetőtételt jelentenek, egyébként nem lesz visszahúzó, taszító jellegük. Azt gondolom, az európai ipar védelme azt kívánja meg, hogy minden eszközzel fellépjünk annak érdekében, hogy az európai kis- és közepes vállalkozásokat tudjuk erősíteni, ezáltal nemcsak a meglévő munkahelyeket tudjuk megtartani, hanem a piaci pozíciókat erősítve, a versenyképességet fokozva még új munkahelyeket is tudjunk teremteni. Azt gondolom tehát, hogy nem kell visszarettennünk attól, hogy emeljük a vámtételeket. Ne csak a károk térüljenek meg, hanem legyen elrettentő is egyben.


  Franz Obermayr (NI). - Herr Präsident! Unlautere Handelspraktiken von Unternehmen aus Drittstaaten haben verheerende Auswirkungen auf die europäische Industrie. Der unfaire Wettbewerb gefährdet heimische Wirtschaftsstandorte und damit auch zahlreiche Arbeitsplätze. Strafzölle gegen Dumping und Subventionen sind oft die einzige Möglichkeit, die produzierenden Wirtschaftszweige zu schützen, siehe die chinesischen Solarpaneele oder die aktuelle Untersuchung gegen chinesisches Solarglas. Die Kommission muss daher schnell und effizient auf Dumping und subventionierte Einfuhren reagieren können. Die Untersuchungen gehören beschleunigt und es braucht abschreckende und wirksame Sanktionen.

Handelsschutz bei offenen Märkten ist vor allem für die kleinen und mittleren Unternehmen lebenswichtig. Wir wollen auch nicht vergessen, dass soziale und Umweltfragen ebenfalls in den Handelsschutz aufgenommen und integriert werden müssen!


Catch the eye vége”


  Karel De Gucht, Member of the Commission. - Mr President, let me briefly react to what has been discussed here.

First of all, Mr Fjellner made the comment – to a certain extent a complaint – that we came forward with this proposal so close to the elections. I would like to tell you that we have been working on this proposal for quite some time, because if you want to launch such a proposal you first have to start with a proposal and you need a public consultation, then you need an impact assessment, you need interservice consultation, and so on and so forth. It takes quite a lot of time before you get to the college.

The House will remember that under the previous legislature there was also an attempt to fundamentally change the TDI rules and that procedure collapsed. Therefore, before we introduced the new proposal we tried to find some common ground. It has nothing to do with disrespect for Parliament and, on the other hand, Mr Fjellner, we have to work until the end of the mandate.

On the proposals that have been made: as regards Amendment 24 on the own-initiative procedures, I have no problem in making an exception for small-sized and micro-sized Union producers but I do not want to replace the word ‘obliged’ by ‘requested’. Either it is an obligation or it is not. I think it should be an obligation. However, I can live with the exemption for SMEs.

As regards the shipping clause, I share the view that Daniel Caspary put forward here in plenary and I ask the Council – and we will certainly cooperate with you, Mr President of the Council – to find a solution for the shipping clause. This is not a matter of ideology, it is about whether we can find a solution for a practical problem in a way that ensures that freight already under way does not fall under the anti-dumping duties. On the other hand, we must also be aware of the limits to this, so please try to find together with us a solution to that.

On the lesser duty rule, either you have a lesser duty rule or you do not. I cannot foresee going further than the exception that I have put forward, which is the one on minerals. For minerals there is a good reason. It is very important for Europe that we have free access to minerals at market prices. That is of crucial importance for our industry. We see more and more often in the markets that countries are putting export taxes on minerals. That is the reason, as Ms Andrikienė mentioned, that we make this exception for minerals, but I do not see a good reason for the rest.

If you go as far – as you now seem to do in the Committee on International Trade (INTA) – as to add many other possibilities for excluding the lesser duty rule, you will simply have to skip the lesser duty rule entirely. In my humble opinion, what is now on the table does not make much sense.

I would also like to answer a specific question that was put by Mrs Saïfi regarding the guidelines. We consider the guidelines a useful tool for stakeholders. They are based on past cases and, in a way, they cement the Commission’s best practice. They have undergone public consultation and inter-service consultation and have been revised in line with the comments received. Revised versions are now with you and with the Council. I have also undertaken to discuss the guidelines with INTA myself. DG Trade looks forward to receiving comments, if any, from Parliament and the Council within the next few weeks. Thereafter, the guidelines will again be re-examined in light of the comments received and will be subject to a second inter-service consultation.

As you can see, the process is fully transparent and inclusive. It will take some more time and I do not expect adoption before April. What I do not – and cannot – support is that they will become part and parcel of the regulation itself. That would make them very inflexible and that cannot be the purpose of guidelines that are based on past cases. They inevitably need to have the possibility of evolving over time.

I would like to thank everybody, and above all Mr Fjellner, for the quick report. The fact that we are not too late does not mean that he has not been very quick. That goes without saying, and I hope that we can keep up this pace and come to a final solution before the end of the mandate.


  Christofer Fjellner, rapporteur. - Mr President, before I turn to the points raised by the Commissioner I would like to respond to Mr Wałęsa, who was talking about whether or not we should vote on the report as a whole. I would like to make clear that the intention to vote on the report as a whole is definitely not an attempt to be dishonest and derail the whole process. It is merely normal procedure. We do it 95% of the time, particularly at the end of the mandate, if we want to guarantee that it survives the end of the mandate. But let us discuss it and see if we can find a solution.

The lesser duty rule is essentially what we are debating here. The Commissioner is very clear in saying that it is not reasonable to remove more of the lesser duty rule than what is specifically presented by Commission. But honestly, in a sense I would say that the Commission kind of asked for it. Either you believe that the lesser duty rule is an important principle and part of EU trade policy and trade defence or you do not.

Everybody will find another part that they think is important. You have heard – and you can see in the amendments and the conclusion of the Committee – that there are a lot of other concerns besides the Commission’s relevant concern about raw materials. You get what you ask for. This is what Parliament is concerned about.

As you know, I do not personally agree with that position but, tomorrow, we have to take a vote and make a decision. Do we want to increase anti-dumping tariffs by, I don’t know, fifty or a hundred per cent? Do we want tariffs that are higher than is necessary to rectify the injury? Because that is what removing the lesser duty rule is: higher tariffs than the injury margin.

Personally I have come to the conclusion that the answer is ‘no’. Because I am happy to help the steel industry, but I do not want to punish the car industry. I am happy to help the fertiliser industry, but I do not want to punish the farmers. However, if the Commission says that this is not an important principle, Parliament will go in the same direction and find exemptions.

Council has been here for the whole time during this debate, and I would like to say that I am very happy and thankful for this. Because it can hear for itself that this is an important question for Parliament. I do not know if the Council has any comments, because we are eager to debate and discuss this with the Council in order to be able to conclude this quickly. Maybe the Council could indicate whether or not it wants to discuss this as soon as possible.


  Ευάγγελος Βενιζέλος, Ασκών την Προεδρία του Συμβουλίου. - Κύριε Πρόεδρε, παρακολούθησα με πολύ μεγάλη προσοχή τη συζήτηση μετά την ευγενική παρέμβαση του Προέδρου, που μου ζήτησε να παραμείνω εκ μέρους του Συμβουλίου. Το Συμβούλιο κατ’ αρχάς σέβεται τις θεσμικές αρμοδιότητες της Επιτροπής και στηρίζει τις προσπάθειες της Επιτροπής. Από την άλλη μεριά πρέπει να σας πω ότι παρακολούθησα τη συζήτηση και συμμερίζομαι την αγωνία που εκφράζεται για τη στήριξη των ευρωπαϊκών μικρομεσαίων επιχειρήσεων της ευρωπαϊκής βιομηχανίας, της ευρωπαϊκής μεταποίησης, της ευρωπαϊκής πραγματικής οικονομίας. Έχουμε πολύ σοβαρό πρόβλημα ανταγωνιστικότητας. Χρειαζόμαστε ένα νέο παραγωγικό μοντέλο. Φυσικά δεν θα ακολουθήσουμε παλιές ξεπερασμένες συνταγές προστατευτισμού αλλά, γνωρίζοντας πώς κινούμαστε μέσα στον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Εμπορίου, θα αξιοποιήσουμε όλες τις δυνατότητες που υπάρχουν, για να μην αδικείται η ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανία, για να μην αδικείται τελικά και ο Ευρωπαίος καταναλωτής.

Θα μεταφέρω στο Συμβούλιο τις παρατηρήσεις που άκουσα και από τον κύριο εισηγητή και από τα άλλα αξιότιμα μέλη του Κοινοβουλίου και ελπίζω ότι θα μπορέσουμε να ανταποκριθούμε γρήγορα σε αυτήν την ανάγκη να προστατεύσουμε τις ευρωπαϊκές επιχειρήσεις και τον ευρωπαϊκό παραγωγικό μηχανισμό.


  Elnök. - Miniszter úr! Engedje meg, hogy a Parlament nevében nagyrabecsülésemet fejezzem ki, hogy részt vett a vitában, ami nem volt betervezve.

A vitát lezárom.

A szavazásra 2014. február 5-én, szerdán kerül sor.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)


  Paolo Bartolozzi (PPE), per iscritto. La relazione relativa alla modernizzazione degli strumenti di difesa commerciale si inserisce in un più ampio pacchetto di riforme e riordina e migliora tutta una serie di strumenti commerciali volti a tutelare le imprese e le produzioni europee dagli effetti negativi derivanti dalle importazioni oggetto di dumping o di sovvenzioni da parte di paesi non membri dell'UE.

Le nuove disposizioni, che ci auguriamo il nuovo testo sarà in grado di garantire, mettono a punto una serie di facilitazioni e tutele per le PMI volte ad aumentarne il livello di protezione da pratiche commerciali sleali. In questo senso, sono da segnalare le misure idonee ad accelerare le tempistiche di indagine e di conseguente reazione per l'imposizione di dazi definitivi anti-dumping e anti-sovvenzioni, nonché ad alleggerire le procedure di denuncia.

Il Parlamento deve continuare a rivolgere una costante attenzione alle PMI europee, vulnerabili alle pratiche commerciali sleali a causa delle loro ridotte dimensioni e della loro diffusa presenza in quei settori maggiormente esposti alla concorrenza internazionale.


  Paweł Zalewski (PPE), in writing. – Undoubtedly, the EU needs to create a more comprehensive mechanism for protection against the unfair trade practices of third countries. More and more often, the countries that have raw materials use illegal methods such as double pricing. Thereby, their producers exporting to the EU have an advantage over ours as their production costs are artificially lower. The result of INTA work on this proposal is not what many of us expected. The report significantly improves the situation of EU producers in trade defence proceedings. We know that some people are unhappy about it, but we have talked about this long enough. I strongly believe that suspending the lesser duty rule best serves the interest of the EU industries. In terms of our slow recovery from the financial crisis, the EU cannot endorse too liberal an approach to the TDI as it will undermine the position of our own producers vis-à-vis those in third countries. However, I do not think that voting on a legislative resolution right now is good idea. Given how sensitive this dossier is and how divided the Council is, such a move would lead to an institutional deadlock in the second reading.

Last updated: 1 April 2014Legal notice