do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 379/1999 of 19 February 1999 amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: analytical chemistry, international standard, olive oil, product quality

20. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 46/15

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 379/1999

of 19 February 1999

amending Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 on the characteristics of olive oil and
olive-residue oil and on the relevant methods of analysis

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation No 136/66/EEC of
22 September 1966 on the establishment of a common
organisation of the market in oils and fats (1), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1638/98 (2), and in
particular Article 35a thereof,

Whereas Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 (3),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2248/98 (4),
defined the characteristics of olive oil and olive-residue
oil and the relevant methods of analysis;

in order

to harmonise the conditions

Whereas,
for
preparing samples of olive oil for analysis as provided for
in Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91, that Regulation should
require the international standard EN ISO 5555 to be
used in addition to standard EN ISO 661, which already
applies;

Whereas in order to allow a period of adjustment to the
new standards and to give time for introducing the means
of applying them, the applicability of this Regulation
should be deferred;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
the Management
in accordance with the opinion of
Committee for Oils and Fats,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 2568/91 is replaced
by the following:

‘3.
Samples for determining the characteristics of
oil as provided for in Annex I shall be taken in
accordance with international standards EN ISO 661
on the preparation of test samples and EN ISO 5555
on sampling.'

Article 2

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

It shall apply from the first day of the fourth month
following its entry into force.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ 172, 30. 9. 1966, p. 3025/66.
(2) OJ L 210, 28. 7. 1998, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 248, 5. 9. 1991, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 282, 20. 10. 1998, p. 55.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 373/1999 of 19 February 1999 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

L 46/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 373/1999

of 19 February 1999

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-
tion of
the import arrangements for fruit and veget-
ables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/
98 (2), and in particular Article 4 (1) 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 20 February
1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24. 12. 1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 198, 15. 7. 1998, p. 4.

20. 2. 1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 46/7

to the Commission Regulation of 19 February 1999 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 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
212
624
999
068
999
220
999
052
204
999
052
204
212
220
600
624
999
204
999

052
204
464
600
624
999
052
600
999
039
060
400
404
528
706
720
728
999
052
388
400
512
528
624
999

109,8
41,9
117,1
115,7
96,1
160,7
160,7
180,0
180,0
128,4
122,8
125,6
52,1
39,7
37,1
27,2
46,5
54,7
42,9
77,5
77,5

59,6
69,2
61,8
70,5
74,9
67,2
60,1
54,8
57,4
76,4
35,6
70,9
69,3
145,2
107,2
81,7
66,6
81,6
132,7
96,8
80,7
67,5
77,6
55,2
85,1

(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. 385/99 by Jan WIERSMA The political situation in the Dominican Republic
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Parliament, WIERSMA
Subjects: Dominican Republic, democracy, political opposition, political situation, rule of law

C 341/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.11.1999

Is it possible under these circumstances for the ECU 70 million shortfall to be offset by the end of the
Programme, so as to fulfill promises made to Parliament by Commissioner Cresson? If not, what action is to be
taken?

(1) OJ C 356, 20.11.1998, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 105.

(1999/C 341/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0383/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Implementation of Joule-Thermie Programme within the 4th Framework Research Programme

Will the Commission quantify any disparities between the actual expenditure up to the end of the Programmes
and the indicative amounts set out in Annex II to the Council Decision on the Specific Programme on Energy
Research in the 4th Framework Programme (94/806/EC) (1), as partly reported in Court of Auditors Special
Report No 17/98 (2) and, in particular, whether the large shortfall of approx. ECU 70 million as at December
1997 for renewables under Joule was actually made up by the end of 1998?

Will the Commission explain any such disparities?

In particular, as a result of controversy in 1995/1996, Commissioner Cresson guaranteed that the proportion
allocated for renewable energy research would be achieved. Will the Commission indicate the implications of
failure to reach the target proportion if that is in fact the case?

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 105.
(2) OJ C 356, 20.11.1998, p. 39.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0382/99 and P-0383/99
given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

In addition to the €153.3 million, quoted in the Court of auditors special report no 17/98, in 1998, the JOULE
programme has committed €97 million in favour of projects in the field of renewable energies.

The total amount of Community funding for this area is €250.3 million, which corresponds to 58.8 % of the
budget, compared to the indicative percentage of 58.6 % in Annex II of the Council Decision 94/806/EC of
23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including
demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (1). Regarding the separated allocation for
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the breakdown of Table 2 in the Court of auditors special report is
fully in line with the footnote included in Annex II of the above mentioned Council Decision.

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 105.

(1999/C 341/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0385/99

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: The political situation in the Dominican Republic

Is the Commission aware of the problems that have recently occurred in the Dominican Republic, especially
concerning the way in which the government is treating the opposition?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 316/99 by John McCARTIN to the Commission. Recipients of investments in the pigmeat sector in Ireland
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: EU aid, Ireland, financial aid, pigmeat

21.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 207/177

(1999/C 207/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0316/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Recipients of investments in the pigmeat sector in Ireland

Given that more than EUR 100 million, mostly EU money, was invested in the Irish pigmeat sector in the last
fifteen years, will the Commission give a breakdown of which companies in Ireland received this money?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 1999)

The Commission is sending direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.

(1999/C 207/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0340/99

by Peter Skinner (PSE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Disparities in car pricing in Europe

Given the vast disparity in car pricing between the UK and the rest of Europe by many car manufacturers, as
was shown by the Commission report into pre-tax prices, does the Commission intend to put an end to the
price fluctuations that exist?

Answer given by Mr Van Miert on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 1999)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to Written Questions E-2577/98 and
E-2999/97 by Mrs Pollack (1) and Mr Mather (2).

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.1999, p. 150.
(2) OJ C 15, 25.5.1998.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 383/99 by Hiltrud BREYER Implementation of Joule-Thermie Programme within the 4th Framework Research Programme
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: BREYER, European Parliament
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, energy research, renewable energy, small and medium-sized enterprises

C 341/104

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.11.1999

Is it possible under these circumstances for the ECU 70 million shortfall to be offset by the end of the
Programme, so as to fulfill promises made to Parliament by Commissioner Cresson? If not, what action is to be
taken?

(1) OJ C 356, 20.11.1998, p. 39.
(2) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 105.

(1999/C 341/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0383/99

by Hiltrud Breyer (V) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Implementation of Joule-Thermie Programme within the 4th Framework Research Programme

Will the Commission quantify any disparities between the actual expenditure up to the end of the Programmes
and the indicative amounts set out in Annex II to the Council Decision on the Specific Programme on Energy
Research in the 4th Framework Programme (94/806/EC) (1), as partly reported in Court of Auditors Special
Report No 17/98 (2) and, in particular, whether the large shortfall of approx. ECU 70 million as at December
1997 for renewables under Joule was actually made up by the end of 1998?

Will the Commission explain any such disparities?

In particular, as a result of controversy in 1995/1996, Commissioner Cresson guaranteed that the proportion
allocated for renewable energy research would be achieved. Will the Commission indicate the implications of
failure to reach the target proportion if that is in fact the case?

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 105.
(2) OJ C 356, 20.11.1998, p. 39.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-0382/99 and P-0383/99
given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

In addition to the €153.3 million, quoted in the Court of auditors special report no 17/98, in 1998, the JOULE
programme has committed €97 million in favour of projects in the field of renewable energies.

The total amount of Community funding for this area is €250.3 million, which corresponds to 58.8 % of the
budget, compared to the indicative percentage of 58.6 % in Annex II of the Council Decision 94/806/EC of
23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including
demonstration, in the field of non-nuclear energy (1994 to 1998) (1). Regarding the separated allocation for
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs), the breakdown of Table 2 in the Court of auditors special report is
fully in line with the footnote included in Annex II of the above mentioned Council Decision.

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994, p. 105.

(1999/C 341/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0385/99

by Jan Wiersma (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: The political situation in the Dominican Republic

Is the Commission aware of the problems that have recently occurred in the Dominican Republic, especially
concerning the way in which the government is treating the opposition?
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 312/99 by Klaus LUKAS European Training Foundation and missing EU funds - continued
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Parliament, LUKAS
Subjects: France, Poland, fund (EU), international school, redemption

29.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 341/91

(1999/C 341/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/99

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: European Training Foundation and missing EU funds (cid:29) continued

Reply E-3560/98 (1) by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission left several questions unanswered. The
member undersigned therefore wishes to put the following questions to the Commission:

How much of the ECU 471 000 mentioned in the above reply has the Commission now recovered?

How much money did the Commission transfer to this Franco-Polish project between September 1996
and January 1997?

How much money has the Commission managed to recover by selling materials supplied to the project?

How much money does the Commission yet hope to receive, and when?

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999.

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The Franco-Polish School has reimbursed the sum of €264 538 to the Commission.

Between September 1996 and January 1997, two payments were made to the Franco-Polish School for an
amount of €143 125 (€69 450 on 17 September 1996 and €73 675 on 13 December 1996).

In a letter dated 11 February 1999, the liquidator made an initial proposal to the Commission (cid:29) via the Turin
Foundation (cid:29) that the equipment relating to project JEP 09742-97 should be put on sale. He proposes
accepting the amount of PLN 5 000 (approximately €1 208), which is the price in the highest bid received
following the invitation to tender. The Commission is currently examining the liquidator’s proposal.

The Commission is unfortunately unable to inform the Honourable Member of an amount, even an
approximate one, because the liquidation procedure is still in progress. It will ensure that the Community’s
interests are upheld as well as possible in order to recover the maximum amount.

(1999/C 341/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Beef and veal imports into the EU

Can the Commission state how much beef and veal will be imported into the European Union under GATT
and other agreements in the current year, how much of this has already entered the market and what the
amount of the import levy is?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

The Commission does not have statistics for the quantities of beef which have been actually imported under
preferential arrangements for the current year.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 376/1999 of 19 February 1999 concerning tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender for the export to certain third European countries of wholly milled round, medium and long grain a rice issued in Regulation (EC) No 2565/98
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, rice, third country

L 46/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20. 2. 1999

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 376/1999

of 19 February 1999

concerning tenders submitted in response to the invitation to tender for the
export to certain third European countries of wholly milled round, medium and
long grain A rice issued in Regulation (EC) No 2565/98

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of
22 December 1995 on the common organisation of the
market in rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
2072/98 (2), and in particular Article 13 (3) thereof,

Whereas an invitation to tender for the export refund on
rice was issued under Commission Regulation (EC) No
2565/98 (3);

Whereas Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No
584/75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/
95 (5), allows the Commission to decide, in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation
(EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of
the tenders
submitted, to make no award;

Whereas on the basis of the criteria laid down in Article
13 of Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 a maximum refund
should not be fixed;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are
the Management
in accordance with the opinion of
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No action shall be taken on the tenders submitted from
15 to 18 February 1999 in response to the invitation to
tender for the export refund on wholly milled round,
medium and long grain A rice to certain third European
countries issued in Regulation (EC) No 2565/98.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 20 February
1999.

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

Done at Brussels, 19 February 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30. 12. 1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 265, 30. 9. 1998, p. 4.
(3) OJ L 320, 28. 11. 1998, p. 46.
(4) OJ L 61, 7. 3. 1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15. 2. 1995, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 319/99 by John McCARTIN Beef and veal imports into the EU
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: GATT, beef, customs duties, import, import licence, preferential agreement, veal

29.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 341/91

(1999/C 341/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/99

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: European Training Foundation and missing EU funds (cid:29) continued

Reply E-3560/98 (1) by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission left several questions unanswered. The
member undersigned therefore wishes to put the following questions to the Commission:

How much of the ECU 471 000 mentioned in the above reply has the Commission now recovered?

How much money did the Commission transfer to this Franco-Polish project between September 1996
and January 1997?

How much money has the Commission managed to recover by selling materials supplied to the project?

How much money does the Commission yet hope to receive, and when?

(1) OJ C 289, 11.10.1999.

Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission

(1 April 1999)

The Franco-Polish School has reimbursed the sum of €264 538 to the Commission.

Between September 1996 and January 1997, two payments were made to the Franco-Polish School for an
amount of €143 125 (€69 450 on 17 September 1996 and €73 675 on 13 December 1996).

In a letter dated 11 February 1999, the liquidator made an initial proposal to the Commission (cid:29) via the Turin
Foundation (cid:29) that the equipment relating to project JEP 09742-97 should be put on sale. He proposes
accepting the amount of PLN 5 000 (approximately €1 208), which is the price in the highest bid received
following the invitation to tender. The Commission is currently examining the liquidator’s proposal.

The Commission is unfortunately unable to inform the Honourable Member of an amount, even an
approximate one, because the liquidation procedure is still in progress. It will ensure that the Community’s
interests are upheld as well as possible in order to recover the maximum amount.

(1999/C 341/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0319/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Beef and veal imports into the EU

Can the Commission state how much beef and veal will be imported into the European Union under GATT
and other agreements in the current year, how much of this has already entered the market and what the
amount of the import levy is?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 March 1999)

The Commission does not have statistics for the quantities of beef which have been actually imported under
preferential arrangements for the current year.
WRITTEN QUESTION No. 322/99 by John McCARTIN Investment in the pigmeat sector in Ireland
Date: 1999-02-19
Institutions: European Parliament, MCCARTIN
Subjects: EU aid, Ireland, agro-industry, marketing, meat processing industry, monopoly, pigmeat, production aid, use of aid

12.11.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 325/105

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(9 March 1999)

For the current General agreements on tariffs and trades (GATT) (cid:23) year (1998-1999) the quantity of beef
(expressed in carcass weight) which the Community is allowed to export with the benefit of export aid is
1 025 852,6 tonnes (including a carry over of 78 052,6 tonnes from the previous year).

On the base of the requests for export licences, until the end of January 1999, 388 157 tonnes (carcass
equivalent) of beef were declared to be exported. The total amount of refund accordingly to be paid is
€338 430 589,6.

(1999/C 325/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(19 February 1999)

Subject: Investment in the pigmeat sector in Ireland

Given that EUR 100 million, 75 % of which is EU money, was spent in the Irish pigmeat sector in the last
15 years, can the Commission state whether it has carried out any studies to establish whether this investment
has brought any benefit to farmers producing pigs, and will it agree that the European money has been used to
create a monopoly of a small number of processors in the Irish market who are now abusing their position to
make exorbitant profits?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

It is a condition of Community aid under successive legislation since 1977 that investments for processing and
marketing must contribute to improving the situation of the basic agricultural production sector in question,
and having regard to the specific nature of each sector, they must guarantee the producers of the basic
products an adequate and lasting share in the resulting economic benefits (Council Regulation (EC) 951/97 of
20 May 1997 on improving the processing and marketing conditions for agricultural products (1)). Each
application for funding under the Regulation has been examined in the light of this requirement. The
Commission can agree that there has been some concentration in pig processing capacity in Ireland, but this is
mainly due to acquisition rather than undue aid allocated to a particular group.

(1) OJ L 142, 2.6.1997 (Article 12).

(1999/C 325/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0323/99

by John McCartin (PPE) to the Commission

(23 February 1999)

Subject: Price of lamb and sheepmeat

Will the Commission provide statistics on the average prices paid for sheepmeat and lamb in each Member
State for the most recent period for which the information is available?