do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 485/2000 of 3 March 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

4.3.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 59/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 485/2000

of 3 March 2000

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

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

the standard
In compliance with the above criteria,
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 (2), and in particular
Article 4(1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
in
standard values for imports from third countries,
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

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

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 4 March 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 3 March 2000.

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.

L 59/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.3.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 3 March 2000 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

(EUR/100 kg)

204
212
624
999
052
068
628
999
220
999
052
204
628
999
052
204
212
600
624
999
052
600
999
039
204
388
400
404
508
512
528
720
728
999
388
400
512
528
624
999

87,8
158,6
160,7
135,7
120,1
76,9
146,6
114,5
201,2
201,2
86,6
34,5
127,8
83,0
55,5
34,8
38,2
38,1
53,7
44,1
30,6
66,8
48,7
114,7
82,6
132,4
96,4
85,7
94,9
96,0
100,1
62,6
91,1
95,7
80,4
107,4
78,8
96,0
67,2
86,0

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2543/1999 (OJ L 307, 2.12.1999, p. 46). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/00 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Leader+ funding for Ireland.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, EU initiative, Ireland, rural development

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/121

(2000/C 374 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0622/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Ireland(cid:146)s implementation of EU environmental legislation

Would the Commission provide a summary of all the outstanding pieces of EU environmental legislation
which Ireland has so far failed to implement in part or in whole, comment on Ireland(cid:146)s record in
responding to Commission requests for information and outline any concerns it has about specific
directives and their perceived non-implementation.

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2000)

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission(cid:146)s annual reports on monitoring the application of
Community law for an overview of the main issues of non-compliance with environmental legislation in
the Member States, including Ireland.

As regards comments on Ireland(cid:146)s record in responding to Commission requests for information on
environmental complaints, the Commission has since mid-1999 been making systematic use of letters of
formal notice pursuant to Articles 10 (ex Article 5) and Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty in
relation to Member States which do not provide timely responses to such requests. Two such letters have
been addressed to Ireland.

The Honourable Member is requested to identify the specific directives she has in mind.

(2000/C 374 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0623/00

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Leader+ funding for Ireland

Bearing in mind the success of and the importance of the previous Leader programmes to Ireland(cid:146)s rural
areas, and bearing in mind the current uncertainty regarding the scope and distribution of the next round
of Leader+ funding, would the Commission provide an update on the state of negotiations between itself
and the Irish Government, give an approximate date when detailed plans for the Leader+ initiatives will be
published, comment on which areas are likely to receive what amounts, and make a statement on the
precise arrangements for the delivery of the funds.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2000)

The Commission is finalising the texts for Leader+ and the final version will be formally agreed and
journal shortly. Member States will be invited to present their proposals for
published in the Official
programmes within six months of publication. Member States have been informed of the proposed
allocations. Negotiations with Ireland will only commence when the proposal for a Leader+ programme
has been presented to the Commission. The detailed information requested will become available with the
proposal when Ireland has made its selection of local action groups for funding.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0615/00 by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. EU Delegation in Havana, Cuba.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Commission Delegation, Cuba

C 374 E/118

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

(2000/C 374 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0610/00

by Roger Helmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: The EU ban on phtalates in toys

Please can you forward me a copy of a letter from James Bridges (Head of the EU(cid:146)s Scientific Committee
on Toxicity, Eco-toxicity and the Environment (cid:129) CSTEE) to the Commission, which stated that the
Committee disagreed with the proposed ban and put forward the idea of migration limits as an alternative
to the ban?

Furthermore, it would be extremely helpful if Professor Bridges could present his scientific findings on this
issue to the Environment Committee of the European Parliament.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 May 2000)

The Commission has already sent the requested correspondence to the chairman of the public health and
environment committee of the Parliament.

As regards the possible presence of Professor Bridges before the environment committee, such a request
will have to be addressed to him directly given the status of scientific committees(cid:146) members as independent
from the Commission.

(2000/C 374 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0615/00

by Joaquim Miranda (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: EU Delegation in Havana, Cuba

Given that the EU(cid:146)s representation in Cuba is merely a subsidiary of the Commission Delegation in Mexico,
and that Cuba both participated as an observer in the entire post-LomØ Convention negotiating process
and very recently stated its wish to sign the Agreement which will replace the Fourth LomØ Convention, is
the Commission taking any steps to possibly open a European Union Delegation in Havana?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

There are no extra human and financial resources foreseen for opening new delegations in the 2000
budget. The available resources are committed to the existing external representations of the Commission.

There is a case to be made for the opening of a delegation in Cuba for the reasons stated in the question.
However, a similar case could also be made for a number of other countries where the Community has
important economic or political interests.

Any opening of a new delegation would have to be the result of redeployment of staff. Priorities will have
to be set. They would need to be decided in the framework of the exercise which is under way to assess
the needs of the external service over the lifetime of this Commission. A communication to the Council
and the Parliament on the development of the external service, the best use of its existing means and, if it
is found to be necessary, proposals for extra resources should be presented later in the year 2000.

Thus, while the Commission has the matter under review it can not give any undertaking on the opening
of a delegation in Cuba or elsewhere.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/00 by Jorge Hernández Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Lack of a left-luggage facility at Malaga airport.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Andalusia, European Regional Development Fund, airport, competence of the Member States, consumer protection, eligibility criteria

C 46 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

Will the Commission examine the idea that the outermost regions should be included by definition under
Objective 1, without taking into account their level of income, in order to alleviate the problems posed by
their extreme geographical remoteness from their respective metropolitan centres?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2000)

When it adopted the regulations on the Structural Funds (1), the Council decided that the seven outermost
regions of the Community were eligible under Objective 1 under the criterion of 75 % of average gross
domestic product (GDP). At that time, the statistical data available showed that all these regions satisfied
that criterion. They remain eligible throughout the 2000-2006 programming period.

As regards the period from 2007, the Commission stated in the report (2) that it has just forwarded to the
Council on the implementation of Article 299 (former Article 227)(2) of the EC treaty that it intends to
consider how best to reflect the individual situations of these regions recognised by Article 299(2) in
eligibility for the Structural Funds.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.
(2) COM(2000) 147 final.

(2001/C 46 E/022)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0608/00

by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Lack of a left-luggage facility at Malaga airport

(3 March 2000)

The airport at Malaga (Spain), which has received EU funding from the ERDF, has helped to boost the
tourist (and, hence, the economic) development of Andalusia(cid:146)s entire Costa del Sol and it provides
convenient facilities for all its users, who currently number 8,5 million per year.

However, those facilities do not include storage for left luggage, an essential service which many transit
passengers would like to be able to use at airports, railway stations and other transport termini.

Does the Commission think that such a service can be denied to passengers on safety or other grounds
(which is the reason given by the Malaga airport authorities), thus inconveniencing passengers who may
need such a facility?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(6 April 2000)

From a technical point of view, projects part-financed by the European Regional Development Fund are
designed and developed by a Member State(cid:146)s competent authority in the context of an approved economic
development strategy as agreed with the Commission. As a result, the Commission is not in a position to
impose conditions for the use of the part-financed infrastructure other than those that ensure compliance
with the legal framework for their operation.