ddrg/super_eurlex huggingface dataset:
27.

highlights the fact that local and regional authorities are ‘lead actors’ in the green transition. They implement 70 % of all EU legislation, 70 % of climate change mitigation measures, 90 % of climate change adaptation strategies and 65 % of the sustainable development goals, as well as carrying out one third of public spending and two thirds of public investment. They are the most familiar with local and regional challenges and should therefore be equipped with the instruments to pursue the systemic solutions that best fit the local scenario; However, this role does not mean that the responsibility is theirs alone. Higher levels of government have an obligation to support local and regional authorities in all their efforts to do so;
6.

welcomes the result of the first year of the EFSI in terms of the amount of investment it managed to activate; is concerned however by the uncertain results of the EFSI in respect of additionality, by the unbalanced geographic distribution of the projects it has funded and by the lack of detailed and transparent information surrounding it; notes that these concerns are shared by the European Court of Auditors (4) and the independent evaluation published by the Commission (5); stresses that projects should be eligible for EFSI support as of a project value of EUR 10 million so that local and regional authorities should make more use of the EFSI, including through investment platforms, and regrets that many of them still lack information on it; is convinced that addressing the problems of administrative capacity which often prevent the local and regional authorities from making use of the EFSI should be seen as a priority in the context of the European Semester;
39.

urges the Commission to move ahead with the establishment and development of Union disaster resilience goals in the area of civil protection, as non-binding objectives to support prevention and preparedness actions, while emphasising that this needs to be done in cooperation not only with national governments but also with local and regional authorities; is also looking forward to the full implementation of the Union Civil Protection Knowledge Network and urges the Commission to include disaster management expertise that is also available at subnational level. Furthermore, expects a clear plan for long-term commitment and financial reinforcement of the EU Civil Protection Mechanism and its instruments, such as rescEU and the European Medical Corps;
The European Ombudsman (98/C 44/10)

In accordance with Article 14 of the Statute of the Ombudsman, the European Ombudsman has adopted implementing provisions, which come into effect on 1 January 1998.

The implementing provisions include procedures for dealing with complaints to the Ombudsman and for public access to documents held by the Ombudsman.

The implementing provisions are available in all the official languages of the European Union. They can be obtained by writing to the Ombudsman at the address shown below or through the Internet (http://www.euro-ombudsman.eu.int).

European Ombudsman

1, avenue du Président Robert-Schuman

BP 403

F-67001 Strasbourg
Communication from the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany to the European Commission of 16 November 2000

(2001/C 87/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany informs the European Commission pursuant to Article 9(3) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the allocation of slots at Community airports as follows:

The Government of the Federal Republic of Germany, in conformity with its Communication to the Commission (OJ C 114, 20.4.2000, p. 5) regarding the imposition of public service obligations for the scheduled services between Erfurt and Munich pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community routes, has decided to reserve slots at the fully coordinated airport of Munich for scheduled services to Erfurt, where public service obligations have been imposed under Community law.

A. The reservation is for the following slots:

1. Arrival/departure from/to Munich: 07.50/08.20, days 1 to 5;

2. Arrival/departure from/to Munich: 13.20/15.30, days 1 to 4;

3. Arrival/departure from/to Munich: 13.50/14.20, only on day 5;

4. Arrival/departure from/to Munich: 18.45/19.05, days 1 to 4.

B. The reservation concerns the following period:

It begins with the start of the winter scheduling season 2000/2001 and expires at the end of the summer scheduling season 2003.
Opinion

of the Advisory Committee on concentrations given at the 87th meeting on 27 November 2000 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to case COMP/M.1940 - Framatome/Siemens/Cogema

(2001/C 308/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, it has a Community dimension as defined by Article 1(2) of the Regulation and it constitutes a case of cooperation under the EEA Agreement.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets for:

(a) PWR fuel assemblies;

(b) MOX fuel assemblies;

(c) safety-related instrumentation and control systems; and

(d) spent fuel racks.

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic market for:

(a) PWR fuel assemblies;

(b) MOX fuel assemblies;

(c) safety-related instrumentation and control systems; and

(d) spent fuel racks.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the views of the Commission expressed in the draft decision that the concentration will create a single dominant position on the markets for the supply of:

(a) PWR fuel assemblies;

(b) MOX fuel assemblies;

on the geographic markets considered, as result of which competition within the common market and the functioning of EEA Agreement will be significantly impeded.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the views of the Commission expressed in the draft decision that the concentration will not create a single dominant position on the markets for the supply of:

(c) safety-related instrumentation and control systems; and

(d) spent fuel racks;

on the geographic markets considered.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the commitments proposed by the parties would remove the competitive concerns of the notified operation in the markets identified by the Commission.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, subject to full compliance with the submitted commitments, the proposed concentration can be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of EEA Agreement.

8. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of the other points raised during the discussion of thise case.

9. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Administrative Commission on Social security for Migrant workers

(2002/C 20/06)

The annual average costs do not take into account the reduction of 20 % provided for in Articles 94(2) and 95(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72.

The net monthly average costs have been reduced by 20 %.

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1998(1)

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 1998 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1998 under Article 28 and 28(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 1999(2)

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 1999 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 1999 under Article 28 and 28(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 2000

I. Application of Article 94 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 2000 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 2000 under Article 28 and 28(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

(1) Average costs: Spain and Luxembourg (OJ C 27, 29.1.2000).

Average costs: the Netherlands and Austria (OJ C 207, 20.7.2000).

Average costs: Belgium, Germany and Portugal (OJ C 76, 8.3.2001).

Average costs: United Kingdom (OJ C 211, 28.7.2001).

(2) Average costs: Spain and Austria (OJ C 76, 8.3.2001).
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 97th meeting on 25 June 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2314 - BASF/Pantochim/Eurodiol

(2002/C 116/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notivied operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation, it has a Community dimension as defined by Article 1(3) of the Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant product markets for:

(a) Phthalic anhydride (PA);

(b) Phthalates;

(c) Butanediol;

(d) Gamma-Butyrolacton (GBL);

(e) N-Methylpyrrolidon (NMP); and

(f) Tetrahydrofuran (THF).

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission's definition of the relevant geographic market for:

(a) Phthalic anhydride (PA);

(b) Phthalates;

(c) Butanediol;

(d) Gamma-Butyrolacton (GBL);

(e) N-Methylpyrrolidon (NMP); and

(f) Tetrahydrofuran (THF).

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the views of the Commission expressed in the draft decision that the concentration will not create competitions concerns on the markets for the supply of:

(a) Phthalic anhydride(PA); and

(b) Phthalates;

on the geographic markets considered, as a result of which competition within the common market and the functioning of EEA Agreement would be significantly impeded.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the views of the Commission expressed in the draft decision that the concentration will not create a single dominant position of BASF neither lead to the creation of a collective dominant position of BASF and ISP on the markets for the supply of BDO, on the geographic markets considered, as a result of which competition within the common market and the EEA would be significantly impeded.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation will cerate a single dominant position on the markets for the supply of:

(a) Gamma-Butyrolacton (GBL);

(b) N-Methypyrrolidon (NMP); and

(c) Tetrahydrofuran (THF);

on the geographic markets considered, as result of which competition within the common market and the functioning of EEA Agreement will be significantly impeded.

7. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, under the circumstances of the present case, the conditions for application of the concept of the "failing company defence" are met and the notified operation can be declared compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement.

A minority disagrees.

8. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of the other points raised during the discussion of this case.

9. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/37.859 - De Post/La Poste

(Pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in certain competition proceedings - OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)

(2002/C 55/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft Decision gives rise to the following observations regarding the right to be heard:

The proceedings in this case took a normal course both in its written and its oral phase. The Statement of Objections, adopted by the Commission on 1 June 2001, was sent to La Poste, the only undertaking concerned, on 6 June 2001. The latter was granted access to the Commission's file on 12 June 2001. La Poste responded to the Statement of Objections on 12 July 2001, after the initial time limit of one month which expired on 6 July had been extended by six days.

The complainant HAYS received non-confidential versions of the Commission's Statement of Objections and of the response submitted by La Poste. HAYS commented on both in writing before the Oral Hearing. The Oral Hearing was held on 24 July 2001. Both La Poste and HAYS presented their arguments. Requests of a procedural nature were tabled neither during nor after the meeting.

It follows from the above observations that the rights of defence have been fully respected. The same is true of the complainant's right to be heard. The draft Decision deals only with objections in respect of which La Poste has been afforded the opportunities of making known its views.

Done at Brussels, 28 September 2001.

Helmuth Schröter
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/37.512 - Vitamins

(prepared under Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21))

(2003/C 5/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision does not give rise to particular comments on the proceedings which took a normal course.

The parties' rights of defence were fully respected.

The draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which the parties have been afforded the opportunity of making know their views.

Done at Brussels on 9 November 2001.

Karen Williams
Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social security for Migrant workers

Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

(2003/C 106/02)

>TABLE>

1. Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 determines that the rate for the conversion into a currency of amounts denominated in another currency shall be the rate calculated by the Commission and based on the monthly average, during the reference period specified in paragraph 2, of reference rates of exchange of currencies published by the European Central Bank.

2. The reference period shall be:

- the month of January for rates of conversion applicable from 1 April following,

- the month of April for rates of conversion applicable from 1 July following,

- the month of July for rates of conversion applicable from 1 October following,

- the month of October for rates of conversion applicable from 1 January following.

The rates for the conversion of currencies shall be published in the second Official Journal of the European Union ("C" series) of the months of February, May, August and November.
Budget of the European Training Foundation for the financial year 2003

(2003/C 91/12)

The Foundation's budget 2003 amounts to EUR 17,2 million of which EUR 11,2 million are reserved for personnel costs, EUR 1,4 million for building, equipment and other administrative expenses and EUR 4,5 million for specific operations and projects in the area of vocational education and training.

Furthermore, the Foundation manages Phare/Cards and Tacis funds for a total amount of EUR 244,7 million.

EUROPEAN TRAINING FOUNDATION

BUDGETS 2002/2003

EXPENDITURE

>TABLE>
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at the 111th meeting on 22 July 2002 concerning a draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2706 - Carnival/P & O

(2003/C 233/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concentration within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article 1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

3. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, the relevant product market is the market of oceanic cruises. A minority disagrees because it considers there is a relevant product market for the provision of premium cruises in the United Kingdom. Another minority disagrees because it believes that the Commission has not adequately demonstrated that the relevant product market is not wider.

4. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant geographic market for oceanic cruises is national. A minority abstains.

5. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation does not strengthen a dominant position as a result of which effective competition would be significantly impeded in a substantial part of the Common Market, so that the concentration should be declared compatible with the Common Market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement pursuant to Article 8(2) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement. A minority disagrees because it considers the operation will create a dominant position in the market for the provision of premium cruises in the United Kingdom.

6. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

7. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take into account the remarks and comments made by the Advisory Committee.
The new members of the Court take the oath

(2003/C 255/07)

Mr Lenaerts and Ms Silva de Lapuerta, appointed Judges at the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 23 July 2003(1), for the period from 7 October 2003 to 6 October 2009, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2003.

Ms Kokott and Mr Poiares Pessoa Maduro, appointed Advocates General of the Court of Justice of the European Communities by decision of the Governments of the Member States of the European Communities of 23 July 2003(2), for the period from 7 October 2003 to 6 October 2009, took the oath before the Court on 6 October 2003.

(1) OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 45.

(2) OJ L 203, 12.8.2003, p. 45.
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/E-1/C.37.671 - Food Flavour Enhancers

(pursuant to Article 15 of Commission Decision 2001/462/EC, ECSC of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21))

(2004/C 64/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The Commission's investigation in this case was initiated following a statement submitted by Takeda Chemical Industries ("Takeda") to the Commission on 9 September 1999 in which it admitted participating in a world-wide cartel to fix prices and allocate quotas in nucleotides and claimed the benefit of the Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases (Leniency Notice)(1).

On 11 July 2002 the Commission sent a statement of objections to Ajinomoto Company Inc ("Ajinomoto"), Takeda, Daesang Corporation ("Daesang") and Cheil Jedang Corporation ("Cheil"). Takeda and Cheil responded in writing on 17 September 2002. Daesang and Ajinomoto responded in writing on 20 and 27 September 2002 having requested and been granted extensions to these dates. None of the parties requested an oral hearing.

On 10 September 2002 Ajinomoto submitted a request to the Hearing Officer for access to additional market information on the file, for which confidentiality had been requested by certain parties, and to which access had been rejected by the relevant Commission service dealing with the case. In response, Ajinomoto was granted access to certain information provided in a non-confidential format. A further request made by Ajinomoto for access to more specific individual information was not granted, however, in the meantime at least one party had further substantiated its request for confidentiality; and the information was considered, on balance, not to be essential in order for Ajinomoto to be able to exercise its rights of defence.

In the light of the observations submitted by the parties in their responses to the statement of objections, the duration of the infringement is reduced (to varying degrees) for all parties concerned as compared to the statement of objections. By letters of 13 and 21 November 2002 the relevant Commission service provided Ajinomoto with a further opportunity to comment on the duration of the alleged infringement. Ajinomoto provided observations to this effect on 29 November 2002.

The rights to be heard have been respected in this case. The draft decision does not contain objections to which the parties have not had the opportunity to respond.

Done at Brussels, 10 December 2002.

Karen Williams

(1) OJ C 207, 18.7.1996.
Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers

(2004/C 37/05)

The annual average costs do not take into account the reduction of 20 % provided for in Articles 94(2) and 95(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72.

The net monthly average costs have been reduced by 20 %.

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 2000(1)

I. Application of Article 94 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 2000 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 2000 under Articles 28 and 28a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 2001(2)

I. Application of Article 94 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 2001 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 2001 under Articles 28 and 28a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

AVERAGE COSTS OF BENEFITS IN KIND - 2002

I. Application of Article 94 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to the benefits in kind provided in 2002 to members of the family as referred to in Article 19(2) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs:

>TABLE>

II. Application of Article 95 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

The amounts to be refunded with regard to benefits in kind provided in 2002 under Articles 28 and 28a of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 will be determined on the basis of the following average costs (only per capita from 2002):

>TABLE>

(1) Average costs 2000:

Spain and Luxembourg (OJ C 20, 23.1.2002);

Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Austria (OJ C 182, 31.7.2002);

Italy, Portugal and Sweden (OJ C 3, 8.1.2003);

Norway and the United Kingdom (OJ C 163, 12.7.2003).

(2) Average costs 2001:

Spain and Austria (OJ C 3, 8.1.2003);

Sweden (OJ C 163, 12.7.2003).