Úplné znění 
Středa, 8. června 2016 - Štrasburk Revidované vydání

24. Reforma nástrojů na ochranu obchodu (rozprava)
Videozáznamy vystoupení

  Președintele. – Următorul punct de pe ordinea de zi este dezbaterea privind Declarația Consiliului referitoare la reforma instrumentelor de apărare comercială (IAC), (2016/2763(RSP).


  Bert Koenders, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, this House is concerned about the interests of European industry in the light of unfair trade practices. Let me start by saying that the Council shares these concerns. There is clearly a need to take steps to improve our trade defence instruments in order to tackle unfair trade practices and distortions of competition, as well as to ensure a level playing field for European Union companies.

Last month, during our debate regarding the market economy status for China, we also addressed the issue of modernisation of the European Union’s trade defence instruments. As we indicated on that occasion, the Council has restarted technical discussions on the Commission’s 2013 proposal and, although these discussions are still at a preliminary stage, it is worth noting that Member States recognise the need for the modernisation of our trade defence instruments also in the context of the current situation of global overcapacity across industrial sectors, in particular steel.

At the Council of 13 May, Trade Ministers had a debate on the Commission’s latest ideas on how to strengthen the European Union’s trade defence instruments, taking into account possibilities of accelerating anti-dumping procedures and changing the methodology of calculating profit margins.

The debate clearly confirmed that there is an urgent need for progress on this legislative file. All delegations stress the need for the modernisation of the European Union’s Trade Defence Instruments. But let me also be very honest. The Council is divided – as is this House – on certain elements and particularly on the disapplication of the Lesser Duty Rule. This is the main sticking point in the reform of our trade defence. Many Member States are happy with maintaining the Lesser Duty Rule. They feel that we have adequate anti-dumping instruments at our disposal. However, other Member States feel that more forceful measures are needed and that a relaxation of the Lesser Duty Rule is necessary in order to protect European industry against aggressive trade practices.

In the current crisis facing the European Union’s steel industry, the European Union has already been robustly applying existing trade defence instruments, such as renewing anti-dumping duties and applying new measures for certain categories of steel products, investigating anti-subsidy action, launching new investigations and taking pre-emptive action such as the new steel prior surveillance scheme. Work will continue at a technical level in the relevant Council working party with a view to taking action at political level as soon as we can. However, it is still too early to say which of the ideas put forward by the Commission, as well as by some Member States, will ultimately be acceptable for the Council. Please rest assured that, as the Presidency, we will spare no effort to facilitate a compromise within the Council.

It is clear that the modernisation of the European Union’s trade defence instruments is linked to the granting of market economy status to China, an issue which is of unprecedented political significance for the European Union. The question of market economy status for China was also considered at the G7 summit in Ise-Shima. Although the leaders’ declaration refrained from mentioning China by name, the G7 recognised the negative impact of global access capacity across industrial sectors, especially steel, on our economies, trade and workers. The Council has not yet taken a decision on the issue of whether it is important, or whether to grant market economy status to China, as the right to initiate legislation belongs to the Commission. We are therefore looking forward to the Commission proposal.

The current discussion on trade defence also reveals the growing concern in our societies regarding trade liberalisation. We need to take this seriously and address these concerns. For instance, we need to ensure that the benefits of the global economy are widely shared. This includes countering unfair trade practices, while fighting protectionism and making the argument for trade as a means to create economic opportunities for workers, consumers and companies. Trade needs to be both open and fair. While being tough on trade defence, we therefore need to engage China in a discussion on the global economy and its place in it, in particular now that it holds the chair of the G20. This includes interacting with China on a strategic level to deal with the issues of overcapacity and its consequences.


  Daniel Caspary, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Sehr geehrter Herr Minister, ich war sehr gespannt, mit welchen Argumenten der Rat die Verzögerung, die Untätigkeit, die Verantwortungslosigkeit der letzten Monate und Jahre rechtfertigt.

Seit über zehn Jahren arbeiten wir an verschiedenen Reformen. Im April 2014 hat das Europäische Parlament zu dieser Reform Stellung bezogen, und jetzt, im Juni 2016, hören wir, Sie haben grad technische Gespräche. Sie sagen, wir sind in einem Frühstadium. Ich kann Sie nur aufrufen – wir alle kennen doch die Probleme in der bestehenden Regelung. Wir wissen über die Reformbedürftigkeit, und wir wissen, was uns im Dezember aller Voraussicht nach auf die Füße fällt.

Bitte liefern Sie endlich, und hören Sie auf, das Parlament und vor allem viele Millionen Menschen in Europa zu vertrösten!




  Bernd Lange, im Namen der S&D-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Ja, Herr Minister, ich bin von Ihren Ausführungen völlig fassungslos, völlig fassungslos. Sie sagen, es ist too early to give an answer. Das ist doch wohl ein Hohn!

Wir haben seit April 2014 eine Gesetzgebung auf dem Tisch liegen, und der Rat blockiert eine vernünftige Reform der Handelsschutzinstrumente. Wie wollen Sie denn quasi als Polizist mit einem Segelboot ein Schnellboot erreichen? Das geht überhaupt nicht! Und wenn Sie nicht diese Blockade durchgeführt hätten, dann hätten wir jetzt mehr Schnelligkeit, die Fristen wären verkürzt, wir hätten eine Ex-Officio-Untersuchung der Kommission, und wir hätten Zölle, die wirklich einschneidend sind und nicht nur den minimalsten Schaden ausgleichen würden.

Ich finde Ihr Verhalten, ich finde das Verhalten des Rates völlig verantwortungslos angesichts einer globalisierten Welt und vieler Antidumping-Krisen. Wir brauchen möglichst schnell eine Modernisierung der Handelsschutzinstrumente. Geben Sie endlich Gas, damit wir auf Augenhöhe wirklich handeln können!


  Joachim Starbatty, im Namen der ECR-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Die handelspolitischen Schutzinstrumente der EU richten sich gegen Dumping und Subventionen und dienen dem besonderen Schutz: Stichwort saveguard. Diese Schutzinstrumente können Politiker dazu verführen, ausländische Konkurrenz auszuschalten. Sie sind jedoch notwendig, wenn cut-throat competition droht, und das ist hier auf dem Tisch. Dann werden eigentlich wettbewerbsfähige Unternehmen vom Markt gedrängt, und der Wettbewerb wird eingeschränkt.

Schwierigkeiten haben die Kommission und auch der Rat offensichtlich bei Antisubventionsmaßnahmen. Ich möchte der Kommission und dem Rat folgende drei Bitten mitgeben: Es dauert oft lange, sehr lange, bis diese Antisubventionsmaßnahmen in Kraft treten. Diese Zeitspanne ist zu lang. Kommission und Rat müssen effizienter und schneller werden. Um selber glaubwürdig gegen Subventionen vorzugehen, muss die EU allerdings aufhören, selbst im großen Stil zu subventionieren, zum Beispiel im Bereich der Landwirtschaft. Und die EU darf die Handelsschutzinstrumente nicht als Mittel des Protektionismus verwenden. Das wäre kontraproduktiv. Sie mindern die Kaufkraft der Bürger und schwächen den Produktionsstandort Europa.


  Dita Charanzová, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Mr President, first of all, yes, we need modernised trade instruments as soon as possible, and not only because of the market economy status of China but also simply because there has not been any overhaul of the instruments for over 15 years. My call to the Presidency is to deliver not as soon as you can, as you said, but as soon as possible.

On substance, our Group would call for a liberal approach favouring trade and promoting its further liberalisation. On the other hand, we need to be able to make use of a variety of suitable instruments which would provide the EU economies and their sensitive industries with relevant and efficient levels of protection against unfair practices. We need to be able to react when it is obvious that goods coming from a third country are not offered under regular market conditions, that prices are either dumped or artificially subsidised.

While discussing the revising of our trade defence instruments, we should continue to follow WTO provisions which are per se non-protectionist. We should therefore continue where appropriate with the application of measures such as the lesser duty rule.

On the instruments themselves, there are potential areas we can cover without bypassing the WTO framework and where we can truly help EU businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones. We should, for instance, try to shorten deadlines in anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations. We should further investigate possibilities of using alternative methods in calculations of trade defence measures while taking into account special conditions of the third country market or while evaluating the level of damage to domestic industry. We also should consider using anti-subsidy measures more in our trade policy and address other related issues such as access to raw materials and export duties. So I call on the Presidency: please deliver.


  Helmut Scholz, im Namen der GUE/NGL-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr Minister! Starke Schutzinstrumente sind etwas, das die Europäische Union haben sollte. Da stimme ich meinen Kollegen hier im Plenum ausdrücklich zu. Und ja, es ist nicht akzeptabel, dass der Rat bis heute nicht geliefert hat – auch im Interesse der Bevölkerung und der Beschäftigten in der Europäischen Union. Denn Beschäftigte sind vor unfairer Konkurrenz durch Dumping zu schützen.

Wir müssen der Kommission dabei auch die Flexibilität lassen, die Mittel der Diplomatie ausschöpfen zu können. Ich wende mich daher gegen Automatismen in der Verhängung von Strafzöllen und gegen die Aufgabe des diplomatischen Instruments der verringerten Strafzölle, wenn diese zur Behebung eines Problems ausreichen. Gerade angesichts der vielen Streitfälle gegenüber China haben Verhandlungen in den letzten Jahren zum Erfolg geführt.

Ich möchte aber noch auf etwas anderes hinweisen: Die neuen globalen Wertschöpfungsketten erfordern von uns eine neue internationale Verständigung: Was soll als Dumping definiert werden, was kann und soll nationale und regionale Interessensverteidigung noch real bewirken? Denn gerade die großen transnational aufgestellten Unternehmen, aber auch ihre Zulieferer im KMU-Bereich müssen künftig viel stärker Produktionsbedingungen im internationalen Gefüge berücksichtigen. Dazu gehören die Interessen und die Bedingungen der Beschäftigten genauso wie die Auswirkungen auf die Umwelt.

Ich fordere Sie, den Rat, die Kommission und die Mitgliedstaaten auf, in der WTO auf eine moderne Definition zu drängen und bis dahin vor allem mit China eine bilaterale Regelung anzustreben. Die besten Handelsschutzinstrumente sind jene, die man nicht anwenden muss.


  Yannick Jadot, au nom du groupe Verts/ALE. – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Commissaire, Monsieur le Ministre, j'espère que les salariés européens n'ont pas regardé votre intervention, Monsieur le Ministre, parce que je pense qu'on aurait un peu plus d'eurosceptiques et d'eurocritiques dans la société européenne.

Le collègue Caspary l'a répété, le Parlement européen a fait son travail pour protéger un certain nombre de secteurs essentiels à la viabilité de l'économie européenne et à l'emploi en Europe. La même année, en 2013, ce Parlement s'est battu pour protéger l'industrie photovoltaïque contre le dumping chinois, et ce n'est pas la Commission qui a été coupable, ce sont les États membres qui, en fonction de leurs intérêts purement nationaux, ont refusé de protéger l'industrie photovoltaïque européenne. Même chose avec la sidérurgie.

L'Europe n'est pas simplement un marché. L'Europe ne doit pas être dogmatique du point de vue du libéralisme et du libre-échange. L'Europe doit aussi protéger ses producteurs et si on veut arriver, encore une fois, à développer une industrie, à protéger nos salariés, à faire un commerce international régulé et loyal, nous devons avoir des instruments de défense commerciale. Il ne faut pas simplement une politique commerciale de libre-échange – celle-là, nous la combattons –, il faut une stratégie, il faut une diplomatie commerciale qui nous permette de nous défendre et qui permette de donner à l'Union européenne une légitimité vis-à-vis de nos concitoyens.

Ce n'est pas du tout ce que vous avez fait aujourd'hui, Monsieur le Ministre.

(L'orateur accepte de répondre à une question "carton bleu" (article 162, paragraphe 8, du règlement).)


  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), blue-card question. – You said a lot of things that actually I agree with in your speech. Do you agree that one potential consequence of the failure to defend industries, whether it is in the UK or in any other country in Europe, is that that can then mean that those industries are moved to countries with lower standards of regulation and therefore we end up virtually outsourcing pollution?


  Yannick Jadot (Verts/ALE), réponse "carton bleu". – À partir du moment où l'on ne protège pas l'industrie, il arrive toujours le pire.

Moi, je suis pour qu'il y ait des normes européennes fortes en matière sociale, en matière environnementale, qui poussent aussi à l'innovation et empêchent la délocalisation. Mais à partir du moment où on laisse des pays subventionner explicitement leur industrie pour tuer nos propres industries en Europe, on abandonne ces secteurs-là, qui finissent soit par s'effondrer, soit par délocaliser.

Donc, oui, mais on a absolument besoin de l'Europe pour faire cela, parce que chaque pays, face à la Russie, face à la Chine ou face à n'importe qui, ne tiendra jamais la route.


  David Borrelli, a nome del gruppo EFDD. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, sono due anni che questo Parlamento attende di conoscere la posizione del Consiglio in merito alla modernizzazione degli strumenti di difesa commerciale, i cosiddetti TDI.

Oggi, dopo la risoluzione del Parlamento sulla concessione del MES alla Cina, diviene urgente sapere se il Consiglio intende essere presente su questo tema e, in concreto, se intende procedere a una modernizzazione dei TDI, nel rispetto della posizione espressa dal Parlamento europeo nel 2014, e se intende fare questo passo rispettando la risoluzione di maggio sul MES alla Cina, avendo quindi ben chiaro che il rafforzamento degli strumenti di difesa commerciale non può essere una giustificazione o compensazione per il MES. Purtroppo, nessuno strumento sarebbe efficace se la Cina dovesse acquisire lo status di economia di mercato.

Pertanto, se è necessario intervenire su alcuni aspetti tecnici, quali i tempi delle procedure o la lesser duty rule, è ancor più essenziale che la Commissione sappia essere garante di una loro applicazione imparziale a tutela di un autentico interesse comune ed europeo. Infatti, in passato, nell'applicazione pratica delle norme, la Commissione è stata spesso un arbitro inadeguato al contesto della crisi economica e oggi alcuni Stati membri ritengono che su aspetti essenziali, come la determinazione del margine di profitto, si possa procedere senza il coinvolgimento di questo Parlamento.

Il Parlamento ha espresso posizioni chiare che indicano una sola direzione. Lo ha fatto due anni fa riguardo agli strumenti di difesa commerciale e lo ha fatto un mese fa riguardo al MES alla Cina. Ora attendiamo di vedere come Consiglio e Commissione rispetteranno questo nostro lavoro.


  Matteo Salvini, a nome del gruppo ENF. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, ennesima dimostrazione che l'Unione europea è una gabbia da cui prima usciamo meglio è, perché fa tutto fuorché difendere gli interessi dei cittadini europei. Riassunto per chi ci segue: se stasera un produttore di giocattoli, di scarpe, di mobili, di macchine tessili, di prodotti in ceramica si accorge che un suo prodotto è copiato e contraffatto, ad esempio in Cina, l'Unione europea non fa nulla, non muove un dito. Anzi, forse dopo un anno e mezzo, quando l'azienda italiana sarà già chiusa e avrà già fallito, forse interverranno. Vi sembra normale che si stia dibattendo da tre anni di qualcosa che un bambino dell'asilo ritiene sia urgente e necessario, cioè difendere i nostri prodotti? Vada il Commissario, vada il Ministro fuori da un'azienda siderurgica italiana a spiegare agli operai che questo palazzo non fa niente a fronte del loro licenziamento. Pannelli fotovoltaici, acciaio, tessile, l'olio tunisino, il riso della Birmania.

Oggi la grande notizia è che per la prima volta nella storia l'Europa pagherà i suoi allevatori a ottobre, non a marzo, non ad aprile, non a maggio, non a giugno, ma a ottobre, con migliaia di aziende già in crisi. Qua dentro qualcuno si dovrebbe vergognare, qua dentro qualcuno ha lo stipendio pagato dai cittadini europei per fare gli interessi di altri, delle multinazionali, dei banchieri, dei finanzieri, per fare accordi sottobanco con gli Stati Uniti, per fare accordi sottobanco con la Cina, mentre in Italia e in Europa saltano centinaia di migliaia di posti di lavoro. Ogni giorno chiudono centinaia di aziende, mentre la Commissione riflette, valuta, apre un tavolo. Vergognatevi. Prima usciamo da questa gabbia di matti, meglio sarà per tutti.


  Christofer Fjellner (PPE). – Mr President, I must say as the rapporteur for trade defence instruments, it has been pretty bizarre to have a debate on a file that was presented in April 2013 and that Parliament took a clear position on in February 2014.

Two Commissioners have tried to reform this and both, Peter Mandelson and Karel de Gucht, failed because of the inability of Council to agree. But now we do not have time for that anymore. By 11 December the Council has to find a solution, a robust system that is legally compatible with the WTO, in order to not end up in a trade conflict. You have to find a balance between the producer industries’ competitiveness and the user industries’ competitiveness, and the interests of the consumers.

But there are many myths when it comes to trade defence instruments. The most predominant one is probably that they do not deliver any protection at all and do not work to protect industries.

But let us look at steel. We have 20 measures today in steel. Measures that have delivered rapid, sustained and substantial degrees of import to the European Union, from 85 to 99%. And we know that, as Mr Frédéric Bastiat concluded 200 years ago when he wrote the Candlemaker’s Petition, many industries are willing to go to considerable extremes to get even more protection. Therefore, we, as lawmakers, have to take the responsibility to guarantee that we strike a balance in the broadest public interest, and that is what I expect from you.


  Jude Kirton-Darling (S&D). – Mr President, I would like to say to the Minister that effective trade defences are a precondition to free and fair trade. The closure of the SSI steel plant in Redcar in my constituency, Minister, shows the human cost of your inaction in the Council to ensure fair prices in global markets. Our current trade defence instruments have been insufficient to shield our manufacturing industries, particularly the steel industry, from unfair competition and excess capacity.

A majority of EU Member States support their modernisation, as do MEPs and the Commission, but in an example of how the EU does not force its will on Member States, the UK Government and its allies have been able to block this reform for more than two years. Well, today it is time for the UK to use its real influence in Brussels to support the EU reforms needed by our communities, rather than hindering them further. We do not need to hurt our industries anymore. Save our steel industry.


  Marielle de Sarnez (ALDE). – Monsieur le Président, il y a un côté surréaliste dans ce débat quand on entend le Conseil. Les collègues l'ont dit et ils ont absolument raison.

D'abord, c'est une question qui n'est pas technique, c'est une question éminemment politique, et je veux rappeler au Conseil et à la Commission que notre mission à nous, institutions européennes, c'est de défendre les intérêts des Européens et des producteurs européens. C'est pourquoi nous sommes là, ce n'est pas comme ça, en l'air. C'est le premier point.

Deuxièmement, nous devons arrêter d'être naïfs: tous les grands pays du monde s'organisent, tous les grands pays du monde sont en capacité de défendre l'intérêt de ceux qui habitent sur leur territoire.

Nous sommes complètement naïfs, en particulier vis-à-vis des Américains. Il faut savoir que nous, Européens, quand nous appliquons des droits supplémentaires de douane pour nous protéger contre le dumping, nous allons jusqu'à quelque 20 % là où les Américains vont quelquefois jusqu'à 200 %. Je rappelle d'ailleurs que le ministre du commerce extérieur américain a décidé au mois de mai d'imposer des droits supplémentaires de 451 % pour protéger les Américains de l'acier chinois. C'est cela qu'il faut faire et je ne vois pas pourquoi nous serions le seul bloc dans le monde à ne pas le faire.

Vous avez parlé de la Chine, vous avez dit que c'était lié au statut. Je pense – on ne va pas rouvrir maintenant le débat sur la Chine – qu'octroyer le statut d'économie de marché à la Chine serait une grave erreur, et je vous le dis aussi: nos concitoyens ne le souhaitent pas. La Chine n'est pas une économie de marché et j'aimerais bien que de ce point de vue-là, il y ait, au minimum, un peu de volonté politique exprimée par le Conseil et, surtout, une unité et une union du Conseil sur cette question, c'est vital.

Deux mots encore, il faut aussi de la cohérence. Yannick Jadot parlait tout à l'heure des panneaux photovoltaïques; quand on se battait ici pour les interdire, la BEI était en train de financer les panneaux photovoltaïques en Chine.

Enfin, il faudra bien qu'un jour, nous décidions d'avoir une vraie stratégie industrielle européenne pour préserver, là aussi, nos intérêts.


  Anne-Marie Mineur (GUE/NGL). – We spreken hier over handelsbeschermingsinstrumenten en dat kan niet zonder het ook over de Chinese staaldump te hebben. China is bezig zijn overschotten te dumpen op de Europese markt. En dat dreigt nog gemakkelijker te worden, wanneer dat land de status van markteconomie krijgt. Zodra China die status krijgt, al dan niet versneld, is het nodig om een effectief instrumentarium te hebben. De heffing op Chinees staal is momenteel 17 procent, terwijl de Verenigde Staten in mei een heffing van 522 procent invoerde. Houdt de Commissie wel rekening met de belangen van staalproducenten en arbeiders? Of wil ze eigenlijk alleen maar de staalgebruikende industrie en China tevreden houden met zo'n lage heffing?

Tot slot wil ik er graag bij minister Koenders op aandringen dat hij zich in Brussel en in Nederland inspant voor de maakindustrie. De maakindustrie levert een grote bijdrage aan de economie en een hoop werkgelegenheid, maar bovendien worden Europese bedrijven, zoals de staalindustrie, verplicht zich te houden aan strenge milieunormen. Dat voordeel willen we niet laten wegconcurreren door sterk vervuilende bedrijven.


  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE). – Herr Präsident! Herr Minister, was Sie hier abgeliefert haben, war ein Armutszeugnis. Diese Ratlosigkeit des Rates kann sich die EU einfach nicht mehr leisten. Ich gebe Ihnen nur eine Zahl: In den zwölf Jahren 2003 bis 2014 wurden von der EU gegenüber China Ausgleichszölle wegen illegaler Subventionen nur in neun Fällen verfolgt, von den USA im selben Zeitraum 46. Aber die Zeiten ändern sich, und die Wetter werden schwerer.

Wenn Sie jetzt nicht handeln, droht die europäische Industrie von Dumpingwellen begraben zu werden. Was unsere Haltung gegenüber China betrifft, hat dieses Parlament den Weg gewiesen. Nehmen Sie unsere Entschließung als Basis für das Handeln des Rates, hören Sie auf, darüber zu sinnieren, ob man China den Marktwirtschaftsstatus verleihen solle! Man kann Ordnung verleihen, aber die gewünschte wirtschaftliche Realität kann man sich nicht verleihen lassen. China ist keine Marktwirtschaft, und solange das so ist, müssen wir dafür sorgen, dass es WTO-kompatible Schutzmechanismen gibt, die auch wirken. Tun Sie etwas! Endlich!


  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD). – Mr President, in my constituency, the North-East of England, we have been hit incredibly hard by the crisis in the steel industry. It has cost thousands of jobs in Redcar directly and thousands more in the supply chain. It is a complex issue, but one of the key components is Chinese dumping on the world market.

So in terms of trade defence instruments, I suppose the decision that is facing the UK in 15 days’ time is, do we do these things ourselves in the UK or should they continue to be done at EU level? And indeed, would it even change anything because the EU anti-dumping rules are very much based on the WTO anti-dumping rules. And you know what, I agree to an extent with my north-east colleague, Jude Kirton Darling, who said that we have been far too slow.

But you know what? If the UK had the power to deal with these things ourselves straight away, we could not hide behind the European Council. We could not hide behind anything that is happening here. We would be able to take a decision straightforwardly and immediately for ourselves, rather than have to negotiate a position with 27 other countries, and actually the UK is going in a slightly different direction. America dealt with this very quickly. It slapped a huge tariff on imported steel and it was able to protect its industries. We should have been able to do the same.

If we were an independent, self-governing nation again in the United Kingdom, one of two things would happen – either the Conservative Government would take action, it would protect our industry, it would put on those tariffs for itself and we would save those jobs in the UK. Or the government would sit on its hands, refuse to help its own industry, in which case we could jolly well vote them back out again in a couple of years’ time at the next general election. That is democracy.

(The speaker agreed to take a blue-card question under Rule 162(8))


  Reinhard Bütikofer (Verts/ALE), blue-card question. – You said that if the UK had the power to decide on its own, it would not be stopped by the other 27. Now, are you aware of the fact that it was not the other 27 that held back the UK, but it was rather the UK that held back the more progressive countries in the EU? And do you understand that in the case of a Brexit, as you so dearly wish, the UK would be mired in a UK mess while Europe would progress to defend its industry?


  Jonathan Arnott (EFDD), blue-card answer. – First of all, of course the United Kingdom would be able to do that itself. My understanding is that the UK is not opposing action on this, it just wants to do it in a different way to the rest of the European Union. We would find out whether the British Government is hiding behind that, using it as an excuse back home, or whether it really means it. And no, of course a UK that was free to make trade deals across the globe, a UK that had our democracy back, had our sovereignty back, had control of our borders, a UK that had the freedom to look at the wider world would not be a UK that would mired in nothingness. It would be a UK for the future.


  Salvatore Cicu (PPE). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, io non voglio ripetere le motivazioni che sono già state rappresentate sulla necessità che il Consiglio prenda atto della urgenza, indifferibile oramai, di adottare la proposta della Commissione. Infatti, bisogna dotarsi di strumenti di difesa commerciale che vadano nella direzione di tutelare innanzitutto il sistema della nostra piccola e media impresa europea, che è quello più esposto in assoluto al pericolo della concorrenza sleale. Naturalmente c'è un problema di industria europea che si vuole riportare al 20% del PIL, e naturalmente sono dati che il Consiglio non può eludere rispetto ad una situazione che sempre di più, soprattutto con il tema che riguarda il riconoscimento dello status della Cina, il Parlamento ha proposto, valorizzato e rafforzato nella direzione che è stata indicata. Il ruolo del Parlamento non può essere eluso. Il Parlamento ha già espresso diverse volte, continuativamente, la sua posizione su questo aspetto. Quindi noi chiediamo che il Consiglio agisca d'urgenza con un parere positivo rispetto alla proposta della Commissione.


  Andrea Cozzolino (S&D). – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, due anni fa ed oggi c'è una larghissima maggioranza in questo Parlamento per una riforma degli strumenti di difesa commerciale. Ne prenda atto il Consiglio. Non abbiamo detto che vogliamo un'Europa chiusa, protezionistica, isolata. Gli strumenti di difesa commerciale sono appunto di difesa: intervengono nel momento in cui è accertato un comportamento sleale.

Abbiamo chiesto nettamente che eventuali WTO plus siano coerenti al principio della piena reciprocità e siano decisi sempre all'interno dell'Organizzazione mondiale per il commercio. Oggi, invece, scopriamo che le principali questioni su cui il Parlamento si è espresso nettamente, ad esempio sulla lesser duty rule, la cui applicazione doveva essere limitata anche in casi di dumping sociali e ambientali, sono state riaperte in seno al Consiglio.

Lo diciamo chiaramente, lo hanno detto altri colleghi: la Commissione e il Consiglio devono lavorare d'intesa forte con il Parlamento europeo. Il punto di partenza non può che essere la posizione espressa in prima lettura dal Parlamento. Il Consiglio non può continuare a essere ostaggio di veti contrapposti, come dimostra l'attuale crisi dell'acciaio, perché a pagarne le conseguenze, il prezzo più caro, sono i nostri lavoratori e le nostre imprese.


  Bernd Lange (S&D). – Mr President, on a point of order, we have a debate and I would ask the Council and the Commission if it is right to have a conversation and not listen to the Members of Parliament. I think that that is mistrust and misuse of the debate. Please be part of the debate and do not have a private conversation with the Commissioner.


  Marietje Schaake (ALDE). – Mr President, the EU needs effective, flexible and meaningful measures to tackle unfair trade practices such as subsidies and dumping, and it is unacceptable to note that right at the moment when we need it most, with the imminent expiry of a key provision of China’s WTO Accession Protocol later this year – and right when overcapacity on the global market is hurting our already struggling industries, for example the steel industry – we are paying the price for paralysis and disagreement in Council.

The Council has no time to lose in finding agreement on trade defence instruments – while avoiding protectionism, because that is no way to strengthen open economies and fair trade. Equally, we must be aware that the best way to address breaches of fair-trade rules by others is for us to lead by example. EU measures must be WTO compliant.

Let us also be well aware of the other side of the coin. While they may not be so vocal, the EU also has many companies that import, also providing jobs for people. Our economies and other economies are globally interdependent and retaliatory measures can hurt. Of course, other factors such as low oil prices impact many, including the steel industry.

It is an illusion for anyone to think that trade defence instruments alone can save one industry or another. So our Group, the Liberal Group, is seeking an overall balanced trade defence instruments package to ensure fair trade globally, not only vis-à-vis China, although it is an important player here. We need the right measures suitable for an interdependent global economy, flexible and effective and WTO compliant.


  Patrick Le Hyaric (GUE/NGL). – Monsieur le Président, ce qui a toujours été développé dans les institutions européennes – et c'est du reste ce qu'il y a dans les traités –, c'est la théorie du libre-échange intégral contre la coopération. Il est donc bien que nous ayons, enfin, un débat sur de nouveaux mécanismes de protection aux frontières visant à défendre l'emploi, un haut niveau de protection sociale, l'environnement et les territoires.

Mais je crains fort que notre débat ne soit qu'une mascarade dès lors qu'on multiplie les traités de libre-échange et que M. Juncker veut faire adopter le traité avec le Canada sans même consulter les parlements nationaux et poursuit cette négociation pour le grand marché transatlantique.

Par conséquent, oui à des taxes anti-dumping aux frontières, qui devraient d'ailleurs être décidées en lien avec les syndicats et les associations de consommateurs, oui à des protections communautaires, mais non au traité de libre-échange avec le Canada et au traité transatlantique.


  Jarosław Wałęsa (PPE). – Mr President, the EU has been a very naive in its trade policy. We have opened our markets while our firms cannot export due to trade barriers. Our blind free trade policies have created massive unhappiness in our societies. Industries close down, people lose jobs, incomes drop. Populists are on the rise. The ground is shifting under our feet. Something needs to change.

Massive dumped steel imports have just wiped out most of the UK steel industry. In response to a similar threat, the US has just adopted or imposed over 500% of duties on Chinese imports. So what do we do? We still debate the lesser duty rule. The lobby of importers and service dominated countries prefer free trade ideology over recognising that we must protect the few industries that use anti-dumping.

I am speaking to the free traders. Please compromise on the lesser duty rule, otherwise in four years’ time we will have only protectionist parties sitting in the European Parliament and the result will be much more severe for everyone involved.


  Agnes Jongerius (S&D). – Er heerst heel veel onduidelijkheid over wat ons het komende halfjaar allemaal te wachten staat rond de plaats van China in de wereldhandel. Zoals u kunt merken hier in deze zaal is er ook heel veel ongerustheid.

Natuurlijk gaan wij ervan uit dat China de status van markteconomie niet krijgt, maar artikel 15A 2 van het toetredingsverdrag vervalt sowieso. Daarom wil ik bij de Raad en bij de Commissie aandringen op een voorstel waarin ook gegarandeerd wordt dat de EU ook in de toekomst gebruik kan blijven maken van de analoge landmethode bij het vaststellen van dumping uit landen en sectoren waar duidelijk geen markteconomische omstandigheden aanwezig zijn. We hebben die methode nodig om onze industrie effectief te blijven beschermen tegen oneerlijke concurrentie.


  Adam Szejnfeld (PPE). – Panie Przewodniczący! Świat nie stoi w miejscu, wszystko się zmienia, wręcz można by powiedzieć, że świat pędzi. Razem z tym światem pędzi oczywiście także i gospodarka, różnego rodzaju metody działania na globalnym rynku. Natomiast Unia Europejska od 20 lat nie reformuje swoich instrumentów ochrony rynku, ochrony handlu, ba, nawet przez 2 lata nie może zająć się tą reformą, którą sama zapoczątkowała. To jest zresztą dosyć charakterystyczne dla Wspólnoty, że wszystko u nas trwa od miesięcy do kilku lat. Stany Zjednoczone na przykład działają w tym zakresie dużo aktywniej i szybciej. Chociażby w minionym roku tylko i wyłącznie w sektorze stalowym podjęły 64 procedury, kiedy Unia Europejska 5 razy mniej – 12.

Ale przestrzegałbym przed łączeniem tego tematu, o którym rozmawiamy z ograniczaniem podejmowania inicjatyw w zakresie umów o wolnym handlu z innymi krajami czy z innymi obszarami ekonomicznymi świata. To są dwie różne rzeczy i proszę tego nie stawiać pod jednym mianownikiem. Dziękuję bardzo.


  Maria Arena (S&D). – Monsieur le Ministre, la modernisation des instruments de défense commerciale fait partie d'un arsenal de mesures en faveur d'une politique industrielle européenne. À quoi bon soutenir la recherche et le développement, à quoi bon soutenir l'investissement mais aussi décider de standards sociaux et environnementaux – que nous soutenons bien entendu – si, à côté de cela, en même temps, l'Union européenne ne dispose pas d'outils efficaces pour protéger cette industrie européenne?

C'est vrai qu'aujourd'hui, par rapport à cette concurrence déloyale – vous l'avez entendu – , il y a une certaine unanimité, ici, au sein du Parlement européen. Il y a des propositions de la Commission qui sont formulées et vous, au Conseil, vous tergiversez. Vous prendrez cette responsabilité de la non-défense industrielle européenne.

Par conséquent, Monsieur le Ministre, j'ai envie de vous dire que j'aimerais que nous ayons ici le débat pour savoir quels sont les pays qui bloquent; ils en assumeront alors cette responsabilité par rapport à l'industrie européenne.


  Tokia Saïfi (PPE). – Monsieur le Président, Monsieur le Ministre, je suis, comme un certain nombre de mes collègues, interloquée par votre déclaration.

Depuis vingt ans, nos instruments de défense commerciale n'ont pas changé alors que la situation économique et commerciale de l'Union européenne n'a cessé d'évoluer. Les pratiques déloyales de certains pays tiers se multiplient et minent notre compétitivité, notamment celle de nos PME, ainsi que l'emploi en Europe. Le débat actuel autour du statut d'économie de marché de la Chine démontre l'urgence et la nécessité pour l'Union d'avoir des instruments solides et forts.

Il est temps de procéder à la modernisation de nos instruments de défense commerciale et il ne s'agit pas là de protectionnisme.

Au moment même où l'Europe cherche à relancer la croissance, l'Union doit parler d'une seule voix et le dossier doit être débloqué par le Conseil au plus vite, ou ce serait faire preuve d'irresponsabilité.


  Karoline Graswander-Hainz (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Herr Minister, ich möchte Sie Folgendes fragen: Wie stellt sich der Rat das überhaupt vor, dass sich die EU gegen unfaire Handelspraktiken zur Wehr setzen und angemessen auf Dumpingwaren reagieren kann, wenn wir keinen wirksamen Schutz vor unlauterem Wettbewerb haben, wenn es keine fairen Regeln für alle gibt und wenn die europäischen Arbeitsplätze nicht effektiv geschützt werden, weil unsere europäischen Handelsschutzinstrumente nicht auf dem neuesten Stand sind?

Seit 2013 ist nicht viel passiert, wir haben aber jetzt das Jahr 2016. Es ist an der Zeit, sofort zu reagieren. Es ist offensichtlich, dass es absolut notwendig ist, die europäischen Handelsschutzinstrumente zu ändern, zu modernisieren, zu präzisieren und sicherzustellen, dass in Zukunft bei unfairem Wettbewerb schneller gehandelt werden kann. Wir brauchen dringend wirksame Instrumente gegen Subventionsmissbrauch. Ich fordere Sie auf, endlich die Blockade aufzugeben. Es liegt einzig und allein bei Ihnen. Übernehmen Sie Verantwortung, das erwarten wir hier von Ihnen.


  Emmanuel Maurel (S&D). – Monsieur le Président, en matière commerciale, tous les continents, tous les grands pays se protègent et nous, l'Union européenne, donnons l'impression de faire du surplace, de tergiverser, quitte à regarder – un peu comme vous, le représentant du Conseil – les bras ballants, l'industrie européenne s'effondrer.

Mais ce n'est pas de l'impuissance, c'est le choix de l'inaction. Ce n'est pas une affaire de moyens, c'est une affaire de volonté politique. Oui ou non, veut-on que l'Europe se défende? On le veut et on le peut, parce que la réalité – cela a été rappelé par le collègue Bernd Lange –, c'est qu'il y a des propositions très concrètes: on augmente les modalités anti-dumping, on revient sur la règle du droit moindre, on raccourcit les délais de procédure, on élargit la saisine aux PME, aux syndicats qui peuvent directement saisir la Commission, quitte à ce que la Commission, elle-même, s'autosaisisse sur ces questions.

Bref, on peut le faire, on doit le faire et il est temps de le faire! Sinon, comme cela a été rappelé à l'instant, vous prenez la responsabilité de faire en sorte, aux yeux de tous les Européens, que l'Europe donne l'impression de ne pas se défendre.

Ce serait vraiment navrant pour le projet européen que nous soutenons tous.


  Joachim Schuster (S&D). – Herr Präsident! Die bisherige Handlungsunfähigkeit des Rates in Sachen Handelsschutzinstrumente ist beschämend. Dabei geht es nämlich nicht um die Frage Protektionismus oder Freihandel, wie manche Ideologen immer wieder behaupten, sondern es geht schlicht um faire Wettbewerbsbedingungen auf Basis der WTO-Regeln. Statt den Musterschüler in Sachen Freihandel zu mimen, sollte der Rat sich endlich auch als Interessenvertreter der europäischen Industrie begreifen.

Die Zeit drängt. Die Entscheidung über die Erteilung des Marktwirtschaftsstatus für China steht an. China ist keine Marktwirtschaft. Viele Unternehmen werden dort staatlich subventioniert, bauen auf diese Weise gigantische Überkapazitäten auf und versuchen, diese auf den Weltmärkten loszuwerden. Ohne eine zeitgleiche Reform der Handelsschutzinstrumente brauchen wir gar nicht weiter über den Marktwirtschaftsstatus in China zu reden.

Und noch eines ist von Bedeutung: Wir brauchen eine enge Abstimmung und Kooperation mit den USA zu unserem zukünftigen Umgehen mit China. Hier haben wir wirklich gemeinsame Interessen mit den Amerikanern, mehr als bei TTIP.


  Victor Boştinaru (S&D). – Mr President, I will not sing the song of protectionism today, but we have to agree today. We have all to agree today in this room that our trade defence rules are obsolete and they have systematically failed to protect the Union industries effectively against overproduction in third countries and unfair practices.

Nevertheless, the Council keeps failing to find a compromise and a reform. Moreover, today we are also facing a long delay and a real urgency to address the need of the partial expiry of China in the WTO, and this should be done before 11 December. Therefore I would welcome the new initiative of the European Commission for relaunching the reform of European basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations that includes the modernisation of trade defence rules. As many colleagues said today, we have to urge the EU Member States and the Dutch Presidency for an immediate resolution or an immediate response. Before blaming China, we have to name the Council and I hope to name but not to shame. It is already too late.


Pytania z sali


  Inmaculada Rodríguez-Piñero Fernández (S&D). – Señor Presidente, representantes de la Comisión y del Consejo, creo que se habrán dado perfecta cuenta de que todos en este Parlamento estamos reclamando, exigiendo, unos instrumentos de defensa comercial modernos, especialmente urgentes y necesarios ahora, ante el debate de la posible concesión a China del estatus de economía de mercado. Necesitamos procedimientos más rápidos y eficaces, plazos más cortos para la imposición de medidas. Y hay que permitir a la Comisión Europea que pueda iniciar investigaciones por iniciativa propia y adoptar medidas provisionales desde que exista una amenaza razonable de daño.

Francamente, creo —igual que quienes me han precedido en la palabra— que es necesario suprimir la regla del derecho inferior para aplicar derechos antidumping más altos, igual que hacen otros socios comerciales. Miren, me parece lamentable, totalmente inaceptable que el representante del Consejo diga que todavía tienen tiempo. No podemos esperar más en términos de trabajo, en términos de destrucción de fábricas, en términos de pérdida de talentos, de capital productivo. ¿Cuántos puestos de trabajo hace falta que se pierdan para que el Consejo sea capaz de asumir su papel, su obligación, y de llegar a un acuerdo que impida que se pierda ni un solo puesto de trabajo más?

Le pido, por favor, que no alimente las expectativas antieuropeístas por su incapacidad para defender a los europeos.


  Νότης Μαριάς ( ECR). – Κύριε Πρόεδρε, τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας που εφαρμόζει η Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση (μέτρα αντιντάμπινγκ, αντεπιδοτήσεων και διασφάλισης) έχουν υποτίθεται στόχο την προστασία των παραγωγών έναντι των εισαγωγών που μπορεί να αποτελούν αντικείμενο αθέμιτων εμπορικών πρακτικών. Tα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας έχουν θεσπιστεί από τον Παγκόσμιο Οργανισμό Εμπορίου με βάση το διεθνές δίκαιο ως μέσο αποκατάστασης των στρεβλώσεων του εμπορίου. Ωστόσο αυτό που συμβαίνει στην πράξη απέχει από αυτούς τους στόχους. Ο Παγκόσμιος Οργανισμός Εμπορίου, αντί να προωθήσει ένα δίκαιο διεθνές σύστημα εμπορικών συναλλαγών, δεν κάνει τίποτε για να σταματήσει τις ανισότητες που παρατηρούνται στο διεθνές εμπόριο.

Είναι επομένως αναγκαίο τα μέσα εμπορικής άμυνας της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης να ενεργοποιηθούν και να προστατεύσουν πράγματι τα συμφέροντα των παραγωγών από τις αθέμιτες εμπορικές πρακτικές και όχι να λειτουργούν σύμφωνα με τα συμφέροντα και την κερδοσκοπία των πολυεθνικών επιχειρήσεων, που επιτυγχάνονται μέσω ανισομερών εμπορικών σχέσεων. Θα αναλάβετε τελικά δράσεις σε επίπεδο Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης απέναντι στην Κίνα που χρησιμοποιεί συνεχώς το ντάμπινγκ; Θα λάβετε επιτέλους μέτρα σε επίπεδο Συμβουλίου για την προστασία της ευρωπαϊκής χαλυβουργίας ή θα βλέπετε τις βιομηχανίες να κλείνουν και τους εργάτες και τους υπαλλήλους να μένουν άνεργοι;


  Ivan Jakovčić (ALDE). – Gospodine predsjedniče, nisam još u ovoj našoj sabornici, u ovom našem Parlamentu naišao na takvu jedinstvenu raspravu svih zastupnika, svih Klubova, s krajnje desnoga do krajnjega lijevoga. To je gospodine povjereniče, gospodine ministre, ja mislim jasan znak za sve vas, ali i jasna poruka Vijeću i Komisiji. Ljudi, hajdemo napraviti posao čim prije!

Kasnimo previše, previše je radnih mjesta izgubljeno, previše je industrije izgubljeno i ne samo industrije čelika, već i sva ona industrija koja je vezana uz industriju čelika dolazi u značajne i velike probleme. Nama trebaju moderni instrumenti, nama ne treba krajnji protekcionizam, ali nama trebaju moderni instrumenti kako bismo zaštitili našu industriju i time zaštitili naša radna mjesta i naše građane.


  Maria Grapini (S&D). – Domnule președinte, domnule comisar, domnule ministru, reforma instrumentelor de apărare comercială nu e un moft. Este o necesitate. Consiliul este instituția europeană care blochează, de cele mai multe ori, inițiative extrem de importante pentru dezvoltarea economică și, iată, blochează și reformarea instrumentelor de apărare comercială.

De doi ani am cerut Comisiei, și în scris, și prin interpelare directă, să găsească măsuri antidumping. Cum apărăm Europa, care și așa este dezindustrializată, prin intrarea de produse din țările terțe subvenționate în țările lor? Suntem în fața negocierilor TTIP cu Statele Unite, unde, de asemenea, avem probleme cu legea buy American. Nu ni se spune nimic. Ce vom face dacă acest acord va fi încheiat fără să avem o lege buy Europe?

Mai sunt câteva luni până când expiră acordul Chinei cu Organizația Mondială a Comerțului și va fi cu statut de economie de piață. Am pregătit instrumentele de apărare comercială? Lucrați cu alte viteze, domnule ministru. Comisia și Consiliul stau cu brațele încrucișate și nu găsesc sau nu caută instrumente de apărare comercială.

Așteptăm răspunsuri, dar, mai ales, măsuri concrete, domnilor!


(Koniec pytań z sali)


  Bert Koenders, President-in-Office of the Council. – Mr President, first of all let me say that I very much sense the degree of unrest, impatience and worry that exists in this House regarding the issue of the unfair trade practices. I think it is a very important signal also for the Council and for the Presidency work and I will come back to that in a second because I do understand very much the sense of urgency, not only for the people, the workers, in Europe, but also because we have a time limit because of some aspects that you mentioned regarding the WTO.

First of all, let me also say that I do not think it is a debate here between free traders or fair traders or protectionists. I think we all share the concerns regarding the issue of the strengthening of our trade defence instruments in order to tackle unfair trade practices and distortions of competition, as well as to ensure a global level playing field for the European Union. So the signal from this Parliament is very clear and I definitely take note of it and we will benefit from it at the Presidency of the European Union.

Secondly, let me also say that, at the Council of 13 May, Trade Ministers had a debate on the Commission’s latest ideas on how to strengthen the EU’s trade defence instruments and I see exactly the same differences here in this House on this as I see in the Council. Let us not assume that we always all agree in the same way. I am not a President who believes in institutions blaming each other. I hear massively that it is the Council. Yes, I said honestly that we disagree there. That is not good. We have to speed it up and I am very honest about it. But it is something else to just simply say that the Council does not work. I think one of the Members out of frustration – which I fully support and understand – even said that we should even change the rules and the Parliament should rule and not the Council. Well, congratulations, we will see if we have a unified position quicker then.

But the signal is very clear. I think all of you have mentioned issues that are very, very crucial to us. We have a community of law, we have a qualified majority on this issue and therefore, because of the reasons that you mentioned – and I therefore share your frustration on this because the world economy continues and the issue of overcapacity remains, and our people are waiting for us – in the light of the changed context resulting from Chinese dumping practices and the crisis in the European Union steel industry, the Presidency has reopened a discussion in the Council on the draft regulation on the modernisation of the trade defence instruments. This was proposed by the Presidency. We will continue to do that. We have just announced the intention to start an examination again on 14 June of those issues in the trade defence instruments modernisation package which could in principle be accepted by a majority of the Member States. There are quite a few different forms on that regarding anti—dumping and anti-subsidy investigation proceedings and improving the methodology of calculating the injury and profit margins.

I think we have to realise that, in a Europe where we work together and the issue of the qualified majority is there, it is not always easy to find a consensus, but since we are one economic bloc and one trading bloc, we will have to succeed quicker on this, and there I share some of your frustrations as well. But let us not assume that this is just a problem only in the Council. This is something I think we have to work on together in an effective manner.

Let me put one other issue on the agenda in that respect. We need to ensure that the benefits of the global economy are widely shared, also in Europe. That includes – yes – countering unfair trade practices, but it also includes fighting protectionism and making the argument for trade as a means to create economic opportunities for workers, consumers and companies. Some of you have mentioned that. Especially in those choices – the political, economic choices we have to make right now – it is true that it is frustrating that we do not yet have a consensual position from the Council. I think we have time limits in front of us. As I told you, the Presidency has taken a few initiatives. We will also again bring the signals from this Parliament to these working groups and I think we have to work here in the Parliament, in the Commission and in our respective national contexts on finding a solution to this problem.


  Przewodniczący. – Zamykam debatę.

Oświadczenia pisemne (art. 162)


  Alessia Maria Mosca (S&D), per iscritto. – Dopo vent'anni d'intensi cambiamenti macroeconomici, coadiuvati da una sempre più forte globalizzazione e dall’affermazione di nuovi attori economici, è fondamentale che gli strumenti di difesa commerciale vengano riformati affinché possano rispondere più efficacemente alle mutate condizioni ristabilendo, così, condizioni eque nel mercato interno. Accogliamo, quindi, la rinnovata attenzione verso questo delicato argomento ma ribadiamo, in questa sede, che ogni trattativa con il Consiglio e la Commissione europea dovrà prendere avvio dalla relazione del Parlamento europeo.

Infatti, il 16 aprile 2014, a larga maggioranza, il Parlamento, ritenendo che l'UE non debba fare concessioni che superino le previsioni dei regolamenti internazionali, ha bocciato, con il fine di tutelare gli interessi dei lavoratori e delle aziende europee, la proposta di riforma presentata dalla Commissione. Seguendo l'approccio OMC+, la concessione unilaterale di condizioni più favorevoli, infatti, garantirebbe un vantaggio competitivo ai partner commerciali arrecando, così, un grave pregiudizio all'industria europea che, all'estero, non gode di tali privilegi. Cogliamo, quindi, l'occasione per esprimere un profondo rammarico per l'impasse creatasi in seno al Consiglio. La gravità della situazione, come dimostrato dalla crisi del settore dell'acciaio e dalla continua perdita di posti di lavoro, richiede, infatti, una presa di responsabilità quanto mai urgente.

Právní upozornění - Ochrana soukromí