do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2069 — Alstom/Fiat Ferroviaria) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

1.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 159/3

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2069 (cid:151) Alstom/Fiat Ferroviaria)

(2001/C 159/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 18 September 2000 the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is only available in English and will be
made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

(cid:151) as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

(cid:151) in electronic form in the (cid:145)CEN(cid:146) version of the CELEX database, under document No 300M2069. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2265 (cid:151) Ricoh/Lanier Worldwide)

(2001/C 159/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 January 2001 the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to
declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. The full text of the decision is only available in English and will be
made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

(cid:151) as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

(cid:151) in electronic form in the (cid:145)CEN(cid:146) version of the CELEX database, under document No 301M2265. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, euro, exchange rate, national currency

1.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 159/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

31 May 2001

(2001/C 159/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4556

Danish krone

9,125

Swedish krona

0,5973

Pound sterling

0,848

United States dollar

1,3146

Canadian dollar

101

Japanese yen

1,5206

Swiss franc

7,93

88,81

Norwegian krone

Icelandic kr(cid:243)na (2)

1,6727

Australian dollar

2,0628

New Zealand dollar

6,7855

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1611/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Financial aid to the European Movement in Malta.
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Movement, Malta, financial aid

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/15

(2002/C 93 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1611/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Financial aid to the European Movement in Malta

(1 June 2001)

How much has the European Union paid in financial aid to date to the European Movement in Malta and
what support is planned for the European Movement in the future in terms of financial and other
resources?

(2002/C 93 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1612/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Funding of EU campaigns in Malta

What does the Commission plan to do to persuade the citizens of Malta that Malta’s membership of the
EU is a desirable aim? The Commission has reportedly dispatched staff to Malta to conduct a pro-EU
campaign there.

Will the Commission say what financial and human resources have been set aside for this year and future
years for EU information in Malta?

(2002/C 93 E/019)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1613/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Malta and the directive on wild birds

Does the Commission intend to grant Malta an exemption from the directive on wild birds should that
country become a Member State of the Union, or are transitional periods under discussion to allow Malta
to comply with that directive?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1610/01, E-1611/01, E-1612/01 and E-1613/01
given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(27 July 2001)

It is for the Maltese authorities to adopt a position on Maltese becoming an official language; this matter
will be dealt with at the end of the negotiations under the ‘institutions’ chapter. Any candidate country
wanting its national
language of the European Union is under the
obligation to translate the acquis communautaire into that language, using its own resources. In that case
the Commission can give technical assistance to help these countries set up the framework needed to carry
out the work. Without prejudging its final position on the matter, Malta has informed the Commission
that it has started translating the acquis communautaire into Maltese.

language to become an official

To date the EU has not given any grants to the European Movement in Malta, nor has it any plans to
finance or otherwise back this Movement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1603/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Advance payment by the Greek Government of Community funds under the third Community Support Framework in the form of government bonds.
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Greece, Structural Funds, application of EU law, bond, issue of securities

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/61

(2002/C 40 E/058)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1603/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Advance payment by the Greek Government of Community funds under the third Community

Support Framework in the form of government bonds

The Greek Government is planning to make advance payments of Community funds to contractors
responsible for CSF-financed projects in the form of bonds to be issued by the Ministry of Finance, which
are guaranteed on the basis of revenue from Community funds over the next few years.

Will the Commission say whether this procedure is consistent with Council Regulation (EC) 1260/1999 (1)
laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission has seen press reports commenting on financial arrangements being considered or
entered into by the Greek government, which may have implications for the operation of European
structural policies in Greece. The Commission is seeking further information from the greek authorities
with a view to adopting a position.

(2002/C 40 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/01

by Juan Naranjo Escobar (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: European police force

Peacekeeping missions in the Balkans have shown that troops alone cannot cope with the numerous public
order tasks which are necessary to maintain stability in the areas concerned. The decision to create a 5 000-
strong police force to work alongside rapid reaction troops on future peacekeeping missions was again
discussed at a meeting held on 10 May, at which each Member State set out its contribution to the
European police force.

When does the Commission consider that it will be able to develop and decide on the appropriate form for
the basic legal framework to enable a European police force to become operational? Does the Commission
consider that this initiative should be backed up with a judicial and penal element, so as to allow for
judges and prison officials to participate in EU missions?

Does the Commission believe that there will be a European police force by 2003, in view of that fact that
some Member States have still not resolved the internal clash of competences which is the sole stumbling
block to their contributing to the force?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Condemnation of Turkey by European Court of Human Rights.
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Türkiye, accession criteria, application of EU law, human rights

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/199

past it ignored a similar judgment by the same court condemning it in the Loizidou case of 1996:

(cid:129) What direct action does it intend to take to ensure respect for the judgments of the European Court of

Human Rights by Turkey?

(cid:129) What will be the consequences of Turkey(cid:146)s behaviour in violating its commitments to the European
Institutions in respect of its prospects of accession to the European Union, and what specific will these
consequences take in the European Union(cid:146)s political and economic relations with Turkey?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the recent judgement by the European Court of Human Rights to which the
Honourable Member refers.

As a candidate country Turkey needs to fulfil the Copenhagen criteria, inter alia on human rights.

This is among the subjects included in the Accession Partnership and the enhanced political dialogue with
Turkey. The Commission will give its assessment of
the performance of all candidates under the
Copenhagen criteria in the regular reports on progress in preparation for membership, to be adopted in
November 2001.

It may also be recalled to the Honourable Member that mention was made of the case of Loizidou against
Turkey in the last regular report, published in November 2000 (1).

(1) COM(2000) 713 final.

(2001/C 350 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1604/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Condemnation of Turkey by European Court of Human Rights

In a recent judgment on 10 May 2001, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) condemned Turkey
for wide-ranging and systematic violation of 14 articles of the European Convention on Human Rights in
Cyprus.

This judgment follows on from the same Court(cid:146)s 1998 judgment in the Lo(cid:239)zidou case, with which Turkey
has yet to comply and the Turkish Foreign Ministry has announced in regard to the new judgment that
Turkey is unable to implement it.

Since the Court(cid:146)s judgment is binding and final, will the Commission include full and unconditional
acceptance of ECHR judgments among Turkey(cid:146)s (cid:145)short-term obligations(cid:146) under the EU-Turkey partnership
agreement?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2001)

The Commission would refer
Mr Zacharakis (1).

(1) See page 198.

the Honourable Member

to its answer

to written P-1599/01 by
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1085/2001 of 1 June 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2283/2000
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, export refund, rice, third country

2.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 149/23

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1085/2001

of 1 June 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A
rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2283/2000

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 1667/2000 (2),
and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the rice in question results
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
amount specified in Article 1.

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
issued pursuant
2283/2000 (3).

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/
75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/95 (5),
allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a
maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the
criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is
awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less
than the maximum export refund.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled grain, medium
grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third
countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regula-
tion (EC) No 2283/2000 is hereby fixed on the basis of the
tenders submitted from 25 to 31 May 2001 at 225,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 1 June 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 260, 14.10.2000, p. 13.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1083/2001 of 1 June 2001 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2281/2000
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, export refund, rice, third country

2.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 149/21

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1083/2001

of 1 June 2001

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the
invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2281/2000

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 1667/2000 (2),
and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the rice in question results
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
amount specified in Article 1.

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
issued pursuant
2281/2000 (3).

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/
75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/95 (5),
allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a
maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the
criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is
awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less
than the maximum export refund.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice
to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invita-
tion to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2281/2000 is
hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 25 to
31 May 2001 at 210,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 2 June 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 1 June 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 3.
(3) OJ L 260, 14.10.2000, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/01 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Ban on drift nets.
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: application of EU law, conservation of fish stocks, fishing net, fishing regulations

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/197

(2001/C 350 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1587/01

by Rosa MiguØlez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Ban on drift nets

On 8 June 1998 the Council decided to ban the use of drift nets, establishing a moratorium of four years,
during which time there should be a gradual reduction in the number of boats using these nets, so that
they are phased out completely by December 2001. However, the tuna fleet, which uses nets compatible
with preserving fish resources and long since abandoned the use of drift nets, is concerned at certain
moves to prevent the forthcoming total abolition of these nets.

Can the Commission confirm that the Council decision will be implemented?

Can it guarantee that the obligation to phase out the nets is being complied with? If not, why are they not
being phased out during the moratorium? What reasons can the Commission see for France, Great Britain,
Italy and Ireland not to comply with this obligation? What steps has it taken to force these countries to
comply?

Can the Commission give the European Parliament the list of boats which still use these nets? Since the
sector concerned claims that the list sent to the Commission by the Member States at the beginning of the
moratorium was falsified, does it believe that the list it now has is correct?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2001)

The Commission is firmly committed to enforcing Council Regulation (EC) No 1239/98 of 8 June 1998
amending Regulation (EC) No 894/97 laying down certain technical measures for the conservation of
fishery resources (1).

It has already provided the Parliament, in 2000 and after its specific request, with a report on enforcement
in 1998 and 1999 of Community legislation on the use of driftnets targeting highly migratory species. The
report contain the elements showing that Member States are complying with Council Regulation (EC) No
1239/98.

Within that report, the Honourable Member will find the figures of fishing boats using driftnets.

The report referring to year 2000 will shortly be completed.

(1) OJ L 171, 17.6.1998.

(2001/C 350 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1588/01

by Adeline Hazan (PSE) to the Commission

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Right to family reunification

On 28 and 29 May 2001, the forthcoming Council of Ministers of Justice and Home Affairs will debate
the proposals for a European Union directive on the right to family reunification.

This text is crucial for the achievement of a normal family life, as laid down in Article 8(1) of the European
Convention on Human Rights which stipulates that: (cid:145)Everyone has the right to respect for his [private and]
family life(cid:146).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/01 by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council. Proposal for an EU-wide police force and border protection service.
Date: 2001-06-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, border control, paramilitary force, police

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/39

Which measures will the Council take to put an end to pressure and attacks on human rights defenders in
Tunisia and to influence the Tunisian government to immediately and unconditionally release NØjib Hosni
and allow him freedom of movement in Tunisia and abroad?

Reply

(26 November 2001)

With regard to Mr NØjib Hosni, the Council notes with satisfaction his release from the El-Kef prison on
12 May 2001 after nearly five months of imprisonment following a presidential pardon. By the same
token, it notes that two other political prisoners, Mr BØchir Abid and Mr Haroun Mbarek, have been set
free, although only on conditional terms, at the end of May. Both are members of political parties
prohibited in Tunisia. Finally, the Council welcomes the release from detention of Sihem Ben Sedrine on
August 11 and hopes that the charges of insulting an official, which have been raised against her, will be
dealt with according to a due procedure of law.

The Council will continue to raise human rights issues, including such individual cases as that of Mr Hosni,
with the Tunisian authorities whenever the need arises and at any level it deems appropriate, including in
its political dialogue with Tunisia.

(2002/C 81 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1585/01

by John Cushnahan (PPE-DE) to the Council

(1 June 2001)

Subject: Proposal for an EU-wide police force and border protection service

Recently German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called for Europe to upgrade to an FBI-style unit to
prevent international criminals from exploiting a border-free Europe. Will this issue be on the agenda of
the forthcoming JHA Council? If not, when is it expected to be addressed?

Reply

(21 November 2001)

No formal initiatives or proposals for an EU-wide police force and border protection services has been
introduced in the Council framework.

(2002/C 81 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/01

by Frank Vanhecke (TDI) to the Council

(1 June 2001)

Subject: The Cyprus issue

During his visit to Brussels in late April 2001, Erg(cid:252)n Olgun, the representative of the Turkish Cypriot
President, Rauf Denktash, warned in unmistakable terms that the latent Turkish-Greek conflict on the
island of Cyprus would escalate if the European Union acted upon the agreement reached by EU Heads of
State or Government in December 2000 in Helsinki and did not regard the division of the island as
constituting an obstacle to the island(cid:146)s accession to the European Union (see the 3 May 2001 edition of
(cid:145)European Voice(cid:146)).

Erg(cid:252)n Olgun, the spokesman for the Turkish-Cypriot Government, spoke of (cid:145)incalculable consequences(cid:146) if
accession negotiations with Cyprus were continued without any official negotiations with the Turkish-
Cypriot Government.