do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 768/98 of 7 April 1998 on the issue of import licences for garlic originating in China
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: China, bulb vegetable, import licence, originating product

8. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 109/11

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 768/98

of 7 April 1998

on the issue of import licences for garlic originating in China

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of
28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the
amended by
and vegetables (1),
market
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2520/97 (2),

in fruit

as

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 903/97 of
21 May 1997 concerning a protective measure applicable
to imports of garlic from China (3), and in particular
Article 1(3) thereof,

Whereas pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No
1859/93 (4), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1662/
94 (5), the release for free circulation in the Community of
garlic imported from third countries is subject to presen-
tation of an import licence;

Whereas Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 903/97,
restricts the issue of import licences for garlic originating
in China to a maximum monthly quantity in the case of
applications lodged from 1 June 1997 to 31 May 1998;

Whereas, given the criteria laid down in Article 1(2) of
that Regulation and the import licences already issued,
the quantity applied for on 3 April 1998 is in excess of

the maximum monthly quantity given in the Annex to
that Regulation for the month of April 1998; whereas it is
therefore necessary to determine to what extent import
licences may be issued in response to these applications;
whereas the issue of licences in response to applications
lodged after 3 April 1998 and before 5 May 1998 should
be refused,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Import licences applied for on 3 April 1998 pursuant to
Article 1 of Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93 for garlic
falling within CN code 0703 20 00 originating in China
shall be issued for 0,04934 % of the quantity applied for,
having regard to the information available to the
Commission on 7 April 1998.

For the abovementioned products applications for import
licences lodged after 3 April 1998 and before 5 May 1998
shall be refused.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21. 11. 1996, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 346, 17. 12. 1997, p. 41.
(3) OJ L 130, 22. 5. 1997, p. 6.
(4) OJ L 170, 13. 7. 1993, p. 10.
(5) OJ L 176, 9. 7. 1994, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1083/98 by Astrid THORS to the Commission. Age restrictions on driving cars or vans with trailers
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, THORS
Subjects: Finland, driving licence, elderly person, free movement of persons, road safety

29.4.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 118/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(1999/C 118/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1083/98

by Astrid Thors (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Age restrictions on driving cars or vans with trailers

Under Finnish law people who have reached the age of 70 may not drive cars or vans with trailers if the
trailer is carrying a load. According to my information, such restrictions do not apply in any other Member
State. Is this information correct and does the Commission consider that such legislation is justified? Does
the Commission consider that such national legislation is consistent with internal market principles
concerning freedom of movement?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 1998)

Council Directive 91/439/EEC on driving licences (1) aims to facilitate the free movement of people and to
enhance road safety. Article 6 harmonises the minimum, but not the maximum, age conditions for the
issue of driving licences. Furthermore, Article 7.2 of the Directive stipulates that:

Without prejudice to provisions to be adopted by the Council in this regard, each Member State shall
retain the right to determine, on the basis of national criteria, the period of validity of the driving
licences which it issues.

According to the Finnish legislation, a driving licence for categories D and D1 (buses) and for categories
C+E, C1+E, D+E and D1+E (heavy vehicle combinations) cannot be issued or renewed to those who have
reached the age of 70 years. However, the issue or renewal of driving licences for categories A and A1
(motorcycles), B (cars), B+E (cars with trailer) and C (lorries) is possible without such age restrictions.
This means that Finnish legislation does allow people over 70 to drive a car or a van with a trailer, which
fall within category B+E, whether the vehicle is loaded or not.

The Commission believes that internal market principles of freedom of movement are not infringed by this
legislation.

(1) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 764/98 of 7 April 1998 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

8. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 109/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 764/98

of 7 April 1998

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain
fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/
94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the applica-
the import arrangements for fruit and veget-
tion of
ables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2375/
96 (2), and in particular Article 4 (1) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 3813/92
of 28 December 1992 on the unit of account and the
conversion rates to be applied for the purposes of the
common agricultural policy (3), as last amended by Regu-
lation (EC) No 150/95 (4), and in particular Article 3 (3)
thereof,

Whereas Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down,
pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilat-
eral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commis-

sion fixes the standard values for imports from third
countries, in respect of the products and periods stipu-
lated in the Annex thereto;

Whereas, in compliance with the above criteria, the stand-
ard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of
Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in
the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24. 12. 1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 325, 14. 12. 1996, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 387, 31. 12. 1992, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 22, 31. 1. 1995, p. 1.

L 109/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 4. 98

to the Commission Regulation of 7 April 1998 establishing the standard import values for
determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 10 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(ECU/100 kg)

204
212
624
999
052
999
220
999
052
204
999
052
204
212
600
624
999
600
999
052
060
388
400
404
508
512
524
528
720
804
999
388
508
512
528
999

90,6
108,5
190,6
129,9
112,5
112,5
174,9
174,9
101,9
98,6
100,3
57,9
37,1
47,1
46,7
49,1
47,6
67,9
67,9
44,7
43,9
92,7
95,8
99,6
86,5
90,7
83,9
75,5
65,8
108,7
80,7
71,1
73,1
67,0
92,3
75,9

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2317/97 (OJ L 321, 22. 11. 1997, p. 19). Code

‘999' stands for ‘of other origin'.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1080/98 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. Prolongation of existing block exemption regulations
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, GIANSILY
Subjects: competition policy, report, vertical agreement

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/71

(98/C 402/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy

On 18 July 1997, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on Vertical
Restraints in EC Competition Policy (A-0242/97 (1)).

In the wake of the conference organized by DG IV on 6 and 7 October to consult interested parties, MEPs have the
impression that the Commission has no clear sense of direction and, on the contrary, is continuing to envisage a
variety of complex and confused alternatives, without taking any account of the objections raised to the options
contained in the Green Paper on the basis of market share.

Does the Commission consider that it is reasonable to pursue this unpromising approach, which gave rise to
almost unanimous opposition from industry and distributors, and serious reservations on the part of Parliament,
the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions and various national governments?

(1) OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 347.

(98/C 402/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Prolongation of existing block exemption regulations

The conference organized by DG IV on 6 and 7 October 1997 to consult interested parties on the Green Paper on
Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy (COM(96) 0721) does not seem to have arrived at any very clear
conclusions.

In the light of that meeting, does the Commission agree that it would be sensible to simply prolong the existing
block exemption regulations for a further fifteen years or so?

At a time of budgetary restraint forced on Member States and citizens by the Treaty of Maastricht, would not such
an approach enable the Commission to make savings in operational expenditure while avoiding the need for firms
to go through complex bureaucratic notification procedures?

(98/C 402/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy and the restriction or abolition of the block

exemption system

Does the Commission intend to publish a White Paper setting out the approach decided on after the conference
held on 6 and 7 October 1997 by DG IV to consult interested parties about the Green Paper on Vertical Restraints
in EC Competition Policy?

What timetable does it envisage?

How does it intend, in particular, to respond to the almost unanimous objections raised to its proposal to abolish
or restrict the block exemptions granted to certain vertical agreements on the basis of the market share of the
enterprises concerned?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1079/98 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. The Commission's Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, GIANSILY
Subjects: competition policy, report, vertical agreement

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/71

(98/C 402/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy

On 18 July 1997, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on Vertical
Restraints in EC Competition Policy (A-0242/97 (1)).

In the wake of the conference organized by DG IV on 6 and 7 October to consult interested parties, MEPs have the
impression that the Commission has no clear sense of direction and, on the contrary, is continuing to envisage a
variety of complex and confused alternatives, without taking any account of the objections raised to the options
contained in the Green Paper on the basis of market share.

Does the Commission consider that it is reasonable to pursue this unpromising approach, which gave rise to
almost unanimous opposition from industry and distributors, and serious reservations on the part of Parliament,
the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions and various national governments?

(1) OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 347.

(98/C 402/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Prolongation of existing block exemption regulations

The conference organized by DG IV on 6 and 7 October 1997 to consult interested parties on the Green Paper on
Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy (COM(96) 0721) does not seem to have arrived at any very clear
conclusions.

In the light of that meeting, does the Commission agree that it would be sensible to simply prolong the existing
block exemption regulations for a further fifteen years or so?

At a time of budgetary restraint forced on Member States and citizens by the Treaty of Maastricht, would not such
an approach enable the Commission to make savings in operational expenditure while avoiding the need for firms
to go through complex bureaucratic notification procedures?

(98/C 402/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy and the restriction or abolition of the block

exemption system

Does the Commission intend to publish a White Paper setting out the approach decided on after the conference
held on 6 and 7 October 1997 by DG IV to consult interested parties about the Green Paper on Vertical Restraints
in EC Competition Policy?

What timetable does it envisage?

How does it intend, in particular, to respond to the almost unanimous objections raised to its proposal to abolish
or restrict the block exemptions granted to certain vertical agreements on the basis of the market share of the
enterprises concerned?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1081/98 by Jean-Antoine GIANSILY to the Commission. Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy and the restriction or abolition of the block exemption system
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, GIANSILY
Subjects: competition policy, report, vertical agreement

22.12.98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 402/71

(98/C 402/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1079/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy

On 18 July 1997, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the Commission(cid:146)s Green Paper on Vertical
Restraints in EC Competition Policy (A-0242/97 (1)).

In the wake of the conference organized by DG IV on 6 and 7 October to consult interested parties, MEPs have the
impression that the Commission has no clear sense of direction and, on the contrary, is continuing to envisage a
variety of complex and confused alternatives, without taking any account of the objections raised to the options
contained in the Green Paper on the basis of market share.

Does the Commission consider that it is reasonable to pursue this unpromising approach, which gave rise to
almost unanimous opposition from industry and distributors, and serious reservations on the part of Parliament,
the Economic and Social Council, the Committee of the Regions and various national governments?

(1) OJ C 286, 22.9.1997, p. 347.

(98/C 402/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1080/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Prolongation of existing block exemption regulations

The conference organized by DG IV on 6 and 7 October 1997 to consult interested parties on the Green Paper on
Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy (COM(96) 0721) does not seem to have arrived at any very clear
conclusions.

In the light of that meeting, does the Commission agree that it would be sensible to simply prolong the existing
block exemption regulations for a further fifteen years or so?

At a time of budgetary restraint forced on Member States and citizens by the Treaty of Maastricht, would not such
an approach enable the Commission to make savings in operational expenditure while avoiding the need for firms
to go through complex bureaucratic notification procedures?

(98/C 402/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1081/98

by Jean-Antoine Giansily (UPE) to the Commission

(7 April 1998)

Subject: Green Paper on Vertical Restraints in EC Competition Policy and the restriction or abolition of the block

exemption system

Does the Commission intend to publish a White Paper setting out the approach decided on after the conference
held on 6 and 7 October 1997 by DG IV to consult interested parties about the Green Paper on Vertical Restraints
in EC Competition Policy?

What timetable does it envisage?

How does it intend, in particular, to respond to the almost unanimous objections raised to its proposal to abolish
or restrict the block exemptions granted to certain vertical agreements on the basis of the market share of the
enterprises concerned?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 769/98 of 7 April 1998 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, export licence

L 109/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

8. 4. 98

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 769/98

of 7 April 1998

on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/
96 of 14 November 1996 on detailed rules for imple-
menting Council Regulation (EEC) No 1035/72 as
regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 213/98 (2), and in partic-
ular Article 5 (5) thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EC) No 520/98 (3) fixes
the indicative quantities for system B export licences
other than those sought in the context of food aid;

Whereas, in the light of the information available to the
Commission today, there is a risk that the indicative
quantities laid down for the current export period for
lemons will shortly be exceeded; whereas this overrun will

prejudice the proper working of the export refund scheme
in the fruit and vegetables sector;

Whereas, to avoid this situation, applications for system B
licences for lemons exported after 7 April 1998 should be
rejected until the end of the current export period,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for system B licences for lemons submitted
to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 520/98,
pursuant
export declarations
accepted after
7 April and before 20 May 1998, are hereby rejected.

for which are

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 8 April 1998.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Brussels, 7 April 1998.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15. 11. 1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 22, 29. 1. 1998, p. 8.
(3) OJ L 66, 6. 3. 1998, p. 8.
Council Regulation (EC) No 780/98 of 7 April 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 as regards the procedure for adopting the appropriate measures where an essential element for the continuation of support measures for a Mediterranean Partner is lacking
Date: 1998-04-07
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Mediterranean third countries, economic reform, financial cooperation, financing of aid, social change, technical cooperation

15. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 113/3

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 780/98

of 7 April 1998

amending Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 as regards the procedure for adopting the
appropriate measures where an essential element for the continuation of support
measures for a Mediterranean Partner is lacking

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 235 thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission (1),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parlia-
ment (2),

Whereas Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1488/
96 of 23 July 1996 on financial and technical measures to
accompany (MEDA) the reform of economic and social
structures in the framework of the Euro-Mediterranean
partnership (3) provides that the said Regulation is based
on the respect for democratic principles and the rule of
law and also for human rights and fundamental freedoms,
which constitute an essential element thereof, the viola-
tion of which element will justify the adoption of appro-
priate measures;

Whereas Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1488/96
provides that the definitive procedure for adopting the
appropriate measures where an essential element for the
continuation of support measures to a Mediterranean
partner is lacking is to be determined by 30 June 1997;

Whereas it is therefore necessary to amend Regulation
(EC) No 1488/96 to determine such a procedure;

Whereas the Treaty has not provided, for the adoption of
this Regulation, powers other than those of Article 235,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 1488/96 shall be
replaced by the following:

‘Article 16

When an essential element for the continuation of
support measures
is
missing,
the Council may, acting by a qualified
majority on a proposal from the Commission, decide
upon appropriate measures.'

to a Mediterranean partner

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day
following that of its publication in the Official Journal of
the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member
States.

Done at Luxembourg, 7 April 1998.

For the Council

The President

D. BLUNKETT

(1) OJ C 386, 20. 12. 1997, p. 9.
(2) OJ C 104, 6. 4. 1998.
(3) OJ L 189, 30. 7. 1996, p. 1.