The US delegation explained that these constraints do not preclude representatives advising the DOT decision-maker in an active proceeding from discussing with representatives of the Commission such matters as (1) the state of competition in any markets based upon non-confidential data; (2) the impact of existing alliances or other cooperative ventures and the results of previously imposed conditions or other limitations to address competition issues; (3) general approaches to competition analysis or methodology; (4) past cases, including records and decisions; (5) substantive law, policies, and procedures applicable to any cases; (6) issues that might ...[+++]be raised by potential cases that have not been formally initiated, so long as DOT representatives do not ‘prejudge’ the facts or results of such cases; and (7) in active proceedings, what issues have already been raised by the parties and what non-confidential evidence has been provided for the record, again up to the point of potential ‘prejudgment’ of the facts and outcome.

The strategy has the following six objectives: to reduce mercury emissions, to reduce the available quantities of mercury by cutting the relative supply and demand, to resolve the long-term problem of limiting surpluses and stocks of mercury in products which are still in use or have been stored in recent years, to protect against mercury exposure, to improve understanding of the problems caused by mercury and its unavoidable uses and to support and promote international action to address the question of mercury.

There are other ways to resolve the issue of financing in the long term that are more viable and characterised by greater solidarity.

Some of the critics claim that there is so much wrong with the WTO that we should not start a new trade round until the problems surrounding, for example, fair access to the world market for developing countries, the lack of democracy and decision-making within the WTO and the imbalance between trade and non-trade issues have been resolved.

Should a compromise solution be reached on this issue in the time remaining, which supports the important work undertaken by the EMAC Committee, then we can arrange things accordingly, otherwise our committee will keep an open mind on the matter.

We already have at our disposal many agencies at a national level, which are most efficient and which are able to deal with the vast majority of cases – and also the Court of Auditors, OLAF and other departments to deal with these issues at a European level.