do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1180/2000 of 5 June 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 133/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1180/2000

of 5 June 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 6 June 2000.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 June 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 133/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2000

to the Commission Regulation of 5 June 2000 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry
price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 30 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0809 20 95

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
628
999
052
999
388
528
999
388
400
404
508
512
528
720
804
999
400
999

76,1
125,1
100,6
63,2
63,2
59,1
56,8
58,0
83,9
90,0
97,4
76,2
92,0
88,6
85,4
98,0
88,9
368,8
368,8

(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-1741/00 by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council. The IGC.
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: powers of the EP, seat of institution

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/107

(2001/C 72 E/132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1741/00

by Andrew Duff (ELDR) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: The IGC

In a speech in Brussels on 10 May, the French Minister with responsibility for European Affairs promised
to work (cid:145)actively and in good faith(cid:146) with the European Parliament.

In that case, why does Mr Moscovici believe that Parliament is not to be trusted with decisions about its
own working arrangements?

What does he believe to be the essential qualities of a venue of an international parliament?

How does the Strasbourg venue assist the efficiency and effectiveness of the European Parliament?

Reply

(28 September 2000)

As the Honourable Member will appreciate, the Council can only speak on specific matters where it has
reached a collective view or decision. As far as the venue of the European Parliament is concerned, this is
laid down in paragraph (a) of the Treaty protocol on the location of the seats of the institutions. It would
be entirely inappropriate for the Council as an institution to comment on views expressed by any
individual member.

(2001/C 72 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1744/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Haemophiliacs

Would the Commission provide the following information on haemophiliacs in EU countries:

1. The number/percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State

2. The percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State infected with the HIV virus

3. The percentage of haemophiliacs in each Member State infected with the Hepatitis C virus

4. Which Member States pay compensation to haemophiliacs who have been given either of these

viruses through contaminated blood products.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

The Commission does not collect information on the number of haemophilia patients in each Member
State, the percentage infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), nor the percentage infected with
hepatitis C. The incidence of haemophilia in the general population, however,
is estimated to be
approximately 1 in 10 000.

It is understood that compensation or financial assistance has been provided to people with haemophilia
who are infected with HIV through blood products in nearly all the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council. Withdrawal from EMU.
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Economic and Monetary Union, accession to the European Union

C 72 E/120

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

(2001/C 72 E/150)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1799/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Withdrawal from EMU

Will the Council guarantee that any Member State may freely withdraw from Economic and Monetary
Union by giving 12 months(cid:146) notice, for example?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

As was stated in the reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question P-0771/00, the Treaty contains
no specific provisions concerning the withdrawal of a Member State either from the European Union in
general or from the third stage of EMU.

(2001/C 72 E/151)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1801/00

by Christian Rovsing (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: Unlawful provision of state aid to Post Danmark by the Danish government

Is the Commission aware that the Danish government is providing state aid to Post Danmark for the

1.
postal distribution of newspapers and periodicals at especially low prices?

2.
Is it also aware that the rules governing the relevant aid scheme were substantially amended by the
Danish government in its Decree of 23 February 2000, which entered into force on 1 April 2000, the
result being that aid is now provided on a discriminatory basis, with some newspapers and periodicals
benefiting at others(cid:146) expense?

Can it confirm that the amendments to the aid scheme have been notified to it for approval in

3.
accordance with Article 88 (3) of the EC Treaty?

4.

If not, does it agree that the aid scheme is unlawful under the EC Treaty?

Does it also agree that the scheme, even if it has been notified, is incompatible with the common
5.
market, when it clearly and significantly distorts competition between newspapers and periodicals that
receive state aid and those that do not?

6. What action does it intend to take with regard to this aid scheme?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2000)

The Commission is not aware of state aid being granted by Denmark to Post Danmark for the distribution
of press at reduced tariffs, nor is it aware of the amendments introduced by the Danish authorities by the
Decree of 23 February 2000, as reported by the Honourable Member.

The measure reported by the Honourable Member has not been notified to the Commission for prior
approval under the Article 88(3) (ex Article 93) EC Treaty procedure. As such, should it contain state aid
in the sense of Article 87 (ex Article 92) EC Treaty, such aid would have to be considered as illegal.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council. Funding of the pre-accession procedure for Cyprus and Malta.
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Cyprus, EU financing, Malta, financial year, pre-accession strategy

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/39

Certain islands constitute a specific group, the outermost regions, which share a range of handicaps
defined in Article 299(2) (ex Article 227) of the EC Treaty. On 14 March 2000 the Commission adopted a
report (4) on implementation of this new Article.

(1) COM(1997) 599.
(2) OJ C 143, 23.5.2000.
(3) OJ L 184, 27.7.1993.
(4) COM(2000) 147 final.

(2001/C 113 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1739/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Funding of the pre-accession procedure for Cyprus and Malta

What action does the Council intend to take to ensure that the appropriations provided for the applicant
countries Cyprus and Malta are moved from chapter B4 of the budget, concerning external aid, to
Chapter B7, concerning pre-accession aid, in accordance with the guidelines for the 2001 budget that
Parliament has already voted on (paragraph 48)?

Reply

(20 November 2000)

In its first reading of the preliminary draft general budget for the financial year 2001 the Council has
provided for those appropriations to be entered under Title B7-0 (Pre-accession strategy) with the other
budget entries concerning the applicant countries. The Council would stress that it considers that the
financing of the budget entries for the pre-accession strategy for Cyprus and Malta ought at this stage to
come under heading 4 (External action) of the financial perspective. The Budget Council discussed the
matter at its meeting on 20 July 2000.

(2001/C 113 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1787/00

by Salvador Garriga Polledo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 June 2000)

Subject: Boarding of a Community fishing vessel by Canadian inspectors

The actions of Canadian inspectors on board a Portuguese freezer vessel with a Spanish crew (the (cid:145)Santa
Mafalda(cid:146)) has once again given rise to fears that the Canadian authorities are launching a new halibut war.

On 24 April 2000 the Santa Mafalda was fishing in NAFO international waters when it was boarded by
Canadian inspectors. This has been described by the Spanish Association of Licensed Seamen (Aetinape) as
a further infringement by Canada of the International Law of the Sea.

How have the Community authorities responded to this further act of provocation (similar to the halibut
war) on the part of the Canadian inspectors concerned and to what extent can Community fishermen be
sure that such actions, which are an infringement of the International Law of the Sea, will not be allowed
to happen again?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1182/2000 of 5 June 2000 on the issue of system B export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export licence, export refund, fresh fruit, fresh vegetable, stone fruit

6.6.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 133/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1182/2000

of 5 June 2000

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,

(3)

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2190/96 of
14 November 1996 on detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit
and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
298/2000 (2), and in particular Article 5(5) thereof,

Whereas:

prejudice the proper working of
scheme in the fruit and vegetables sector.

the export refund

system B
situation, applications
To avoid this
licences for peaches and nectarines exported after 5 June
2000 should be rejected until the end of the current
export period,

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 888/2000 (3) fixes the
indicative quantities for system B export licences other
than those sought in the context of food aid.

In the light of the information available to the Commis-
sion today, there is a risk that the indicative quantities
laid down for the current export period for peaches and
nectarines will shortly be exceeded. This overrun will

Applications for system B export licences for peaches and
nectarines submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC)
No 888/2000, export declarations for which are accepted after
5 June 2000 and before 1 July 2000, are hereby rejected.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 June 2000.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 5 June 2000.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 12.
(2) OJ L 34, 9.2.2000, p. 16.
(3) OJ L 104, 29.4.2000, p. 50.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/00 by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council. Funding of European Union island regions.
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU financing, island region

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/23

Does the Commission intend to put a stop to those activities mentioned in Law No 378 of 14 June 1995
on the performance of work by local and district authorities for other public authorities which are carried
out in competition with private undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(20 July 2000)

Member States are free to buy products and services where and from whom they want, as long as they
respect the Community rules on public procurement.

Member States must make sure that undertakings, private or public, do not receive overcompensation
for any service or product of general economic interest, which they are requested to provide under
Article 86(2) (ex Article 90) of the EC Treaty, in order to avoid the use of such overcompensation to cross
subsidise their other commercial activities. As long as the above principles are respected the Commission
has no power to intervene.

The Commission is currently examining the implications under the Community rules on public procure-
ment of the law and the examples of its concrete application mentioned in the Danish Ministry of
Interior(cid:146)s statement to the Commission of 31 March 2000.

(2001/C 103 E/024)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1737/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Funding of European Union island regions

What action does the Council intend to take in order to create the necessary legal basis for the funding of
European Union island regions from the EU budget set for 2001, in accordance with the provisions of the
Treaty of Amsterdam and the guidelines for the 2001 budget that Parliament has already voted on
(paragraph 33)?

Reply

(9 November 2000)

1.
The Council recognises that island regions suffer from structural handicaps as a result of their being
islands. It has always attributed the greatest importance to financial instruments intended, when that is
justified, to integrate those regions more satisfactorily into the internal market under equitable conditions.

2.
In the context of economic and social cohesion, the Structural Funds are, in this connection, an
important instrument for action, having a positive effect on the growth and convergence of island regions.

3.
Under the new regulatory framework of the Structural Funds, the least favoured islands in the
European Union meeting the criteria of eligibility defined in the general Regulation may benefit specifically
from Community financial help under Objective 1 (regions lagging behind in development) or Objective 2
(areas undergoing social and economic conversion).
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council. Freedom of the press in Russia.
Date: 2000-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Russia, common foreign and security policy, freedom of the press

C 72 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

Current statistical methods for determining olive oils(cid:146) geographical origin via a database contain inherent
inaccuracies which may cause oils to be wrongly classified, but the Commission is following with great
interest the research being undertaken into improving those methods.

(1) OJ L 248, 5.9.1991.

(2001/C 72 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1764/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Council

(5 June 2000)

Subject: Freedom of the press in Russia

Does the Council believe that the search carried out by the FSB (the former KGB) in the offices of the
independent MediaMost Press Group is an indication of a new climate, 10 years after the fall of the Berlin
Wall and some years after the abolition of Communism in Russia?

Is the Council concerned about this attack on the freedom of the press and on MediaMost and its television
station, NTV, whose President, Vladimir Goussinsky, is also an important figure in the Russian Jewish
Community?

Will the Council ask the Russian President, Vladimir Putin, to ensure freedom of expression and to
denounce such practices, unacceptable in a state based on the rule of law, is a member of the Council of
Europe and which hopes, one day, to join the European Union?

Reply

(26 September 2000)

The Council noted with concern the search carried out by the FSB in the offices of the MediaMost Press
Group. It has repeatedly stressed to the Russian authorities, notably at the EU-Russia Summit on 29 May,
that freedom and independence of the media are an essential component of any democratic, free and open
society. Respect for fundamental democratic principles is a cornerstone of the partnership between the EU
and Russia and an essential element of the PCA.

Support for consolidation of Russian public institutions, particularly its executive, legislative and judicial
bodies in accordance with democratic principles is among the principal objectives of the EU(cid:146)s Common
Strategy on Russia. The Council will continue supporting democratic reforms in Russia and closely
following developments in this area, with particular attention to the freedom of the media.

(2001/C 72 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1768/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(31 May 2000)

Subject: The Hallmarking of Precious Metals

At present, there is no harmonisation of weight limits above which hallmarking is compulsory. In the UK
it is 7,78 gm for sterling silver, whereas in Holland it is 1 gm, causing problems when selling goods there,
even when they have been marked by the Assay Office in Britain.

Would the Commission give further consideration to a practical solution to this, which would be to
harmonise the weight limit throughout the EU, thus creating a level platform in the supply of precious
metal jewellery?