do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/01 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Bank charges.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank charges, credit transfer, deposit money, electronic money, euro, intra-EU payment

C 40 E/224

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

projects such as ITER or JET. The Commission is proposing to continue the coordination at European level
which has proved its worth, but is counting on Member States to assume a larger share of research which
is less obviously linked with the Next Step and/or JET.

The potential of fusion as a source of clean energy will be realised only at the end of a lengthy process.
Taking into account
the
Commission(cid:146)s proposal
is a positive step in the process of establishing the conditions required for
sustainable development.

the other research priorities set out

framework programme,

in the next

(1) COM(2001) 94 final.

(2002/C 40 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2223/01

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Bank charges

The cost of cross-border bank transactions is often exorbitant. No transaction, be it a credit transfer, a
payment by card or cheque, or a withdrawal from an ATM, attracts the same fee when effected within a
single country as when carried out between two EU Member States.

On each occasion a not-insignificant commission is charged (cid:129) a practice which is regularly condemned by
consumers(cid:146) associations.

In response to this state of affairs, is the Commission planning to bring bank charges relating to cross-
border transactions into line with those relating to domestic transactions?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2001)

On 25 July 2001 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation on cross-border payments in
euro (1). This introduces the principle of non-discrimination: charges for cross-border payments should be
no different from charges for domestic operations.

The Commission took this decision largely for the reasons cited by the Honourable Member. The most
recent studies show that transfers are still subject to extremely high charges. A study of 1 048 transfers of
ECU 100 between the 12 Member States in 1993 found average charges of € 23,93. A recent study, in
2001, looked at 1 480 transfers of € 100 between the 15 Member States and found average charges of
€ 23,92 (provisional finding). The costs of purely domestic transactions are much lower. The persistence of
such differences, which are regularly condemned by consumers(cid:146) associations, can undermine the credibility
of the euro: some users will see only the practical difficulties of the currency changeover and none of the
real benefits.

The Commission hopes that the two branches of the European legislature, the Council and Parliament, will
reach agreement quickly, so that this text can be adopted before the end of 2001.

(1) COM(2001) 439 final.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2466 — Sodexho/Abela (II)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

24.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 206/7

the date of commencement of

(b) subsequent annual payments commencing on the sixth
anniversary of
the
licence of term (following exercise of the option to
hold the licence for a second term) when the sum of
GBP 470 will be payable for each square kilometre in
the area to which the licence then relates and rising by
annual increments of GBP 470 until an annual sum of
GBP 7 050 is payable for each square kilometre
comprised in the licence area, subject
to biennial
review in line with movements in the Index of the
Price of Crude Oil acquired by Refineries (published
in the Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics) if
the Secretary of State so determines. The Secretary of
State will not make a beinnial determination increasing

lower

than that

or decreasing the annual payments due unless the
in the payment set being
determination will result
set by the
over 5 % higher or
the first
previous determination, or in the case of
than
biennial
GBP 7 050 for each square kilometre. Further details
concerning the payments due are available from the
Department of Trade and Industry. The map is also
available
and Gas website,
http://www.og.dti.gov.uk

on the DTI’s Oil

determination,

5 % higher

over

(c) a royalty at the rate of 12,5 % payable in respect of
petroleum won and saved from any field part of which
received development consent prior to 1 April 1982.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2466 (cid:151) Sodexho/Abela (II))

(2001/C 206/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 June 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 301M2466. 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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1511/2001 of 24 July 2001 determining the percentage of quantities covered by applications for export licences for eggs which may be accepted
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: egg, export licence

L 200/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1511/2001

of 24 July 2001

determining the percentage of quantities covered by applications for export licences for eggs which
may be accepted

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1371/95 of
16 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for implementing the
system of export licences in the egg sector (1), as last amended
by Regulation (EC) No 2336/1999 (2), and in particular Article
3(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 1371/95 provides for specific meas-
ures where applications for export
licences concern
quantities and/or expenditure which exceed the normal
trade patterns or where there is a risk that they will be
exceeded,
the limit referred to in
Article 8(12) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2771/
75 (3), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 1516/96 (4), and/or the corresponding expenditure
during the period in question.

taking account of

(2)

Uncertainty is a feature of the market in certain egg
products. The impending adjustment of
the refunds
applicable to those products has led to the submission

of applications for export licences for speculative ends.
There is a risk that the issue of licences for the quantities
applied for on 16 and 17 July 2001 may lead to an
overrun in the quantities of the products concerned
normally disposed of by way of
trade. Applications
covering the products concerned in respect of which
export licences have not yet been granted should be
rejected,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

No further action shall be taken in respect of applications
submitted for export licences for eggs of 16 and 17 July 2001
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1371/95 in respect of category
three of Annex I to that Regulation which should have been
issued from 25 July 2001.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 July 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 133, 17.6.1995, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 281, 4.11.1999, p. 16.
(3) OJ L 282, 1.11.1975, p. 49.
(4) OJ L 189, 30.7.1996, p. 99.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2856/2000 of 27 December 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No 2508/97 laying down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the schemes provided for in the Europe Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia, and the Agreements on free trade between the Community and the Baltic States (OJ L 332 of 28.12.2000)
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Baltic States, Central and Eastern Europe, liberalisation of trade, milk, milk product

24.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 199/29

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2856/2000 of 27 December 2000 amending Regulation (EC) No
2508/97 laying down detailed rules for the application to milk and milk products of the schemes provided for in
the Europe Agreements between the Community and the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Poland, the
Czech Republic, the Slovak Republic, Bulgaria, Romania and Slovenia, and the Agreements on free trade
between the Community and the Baltic States

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 332 of 28 December 2000)

On page 53,

in Annex I, Table I, second last column:

for:

‘From 1.7.2000 to 30.6.2001’,

read:

‘From 1.7.2001 to 30.6.2002’;

on page 53,

in Annex I, Table I,

last column:

for:

‘Annual

increase from 1.7.2001’,

read:

‘Annual

increase from 1.7.2002’;

on page 53,

in Annex I, Table K, second last column:

for:

‘From 1.7.2000 to 30.6.2001’,

read:

‘From 1.1.2001 to 31.12.2001’;

on page 53,

in Annex I, Table K,

last column:

for:

‘Annual

increase from 1.7.2001’,

read:

‘Annual

increase from 1.1.2002’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/01 by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Agricultural questions in an international context.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European standard, animal health, application of EU law, game meat, import policy, international trade, public health

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/81

(2002/C 93 E/099)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2221/01

by Ingo Friedrich (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Agricultural questions in an international context

(24 July 2001)

In New Zealand (cid:30) unlike the United States (cid:30) removal of the antlers of wild deer is allowed. The antlers
are then sold for a high price to Asian countries, leaving the carcass of the deer as a waste product. When
such carcasses are imported into the EU, this inevitably means a lowering of prices for the game trade in
the Member States.

1. What is the Commission doing to enforce EU standards in the case of imports?

2.

Can violations of EU rules be penalised in the context of international trade?

Can dumping prices for game imported from third countries be prohibited if they are clearly based

3.
on standards which do not conform to European legislation?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

1.
Although some Member States have banned the harvesting of antler velvet, this is not the case in
Community law. Since Community trade policy reflects its internal rules, there is no reason why the
Community should impose any restrictions on venison from animals from which antlers have been
harvested for velvet.

2.
In the context of the specific question answered under point 1, since there is no violation of
Community rules, the question does not arise. In more general terms, where there are infringements of
Community meat import legislation, the Member States are responsible for setting and applying the
appropriate penalties.

3.
All meat, including venison, must meet Community animal and public health standards. Countries
are approved individually, on the basis of their animal and public health status, which includes conditions
for humane slaughter. Any meat which meets these standards may be imported, at the best price the
importer is able to obtain.

(2002/C 93 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2228/01

by Patricia McKenna (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Legal units in the European Commission and the EU

(18 July 2001)

What is the average caseload per lawyer in the Internal Market, Agriculture, Regional Affairs, Environment,
Fisheries, Competition and Social Affairs DGs?

How many legal units and lawyers are there in each of the abovementioned DGs to handle complaints and
legal proceedings?

What is the average caseload per lawyer per EU country?
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2336 — Thomson Multimedia/Technicolor) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 206/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

24.7.2001

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2336 (cid:151) Thomson Multimedia/Technicolor)

(2001/C 206/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 February 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 301M2336. 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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1507/2001 of 24 July 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, leaf vegetable

L 200/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.7.2001

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1507/2001

of 24 July 2001

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 25 July 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 24 July 2001.

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.

25.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 200/13

to the Commission Regulation of 24 July 2001 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 90 70

0805 30 10

0806 10 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

0809 10 00

0809 20 95

0809 30 10, 0809 30 90

0809 40 05

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
999
052
999
052
999
388
524
528
999
052
508
600
624
999
388
400
404
508
512
524
528
720
800
804
999
052
388
512
528
804
999
052
064
999
052
061
400
404
999
052
999
064
624
999

74,1
74,1
66,8
66,8
73,1
73,1
78,9
88,4
74,3
80,5
140,4
164,7
112,0
118,2
133,8
96,2
85,2
122,9
84,9
104,3
52,9
79,5
135,2
215,3
99,9
107,6
133,6
82,3
69,0
67,2
143,4
99,1
185,4
116,1
150,8
303,6
258,3
242,2
245,5
262,4
146,7
146,7
91,1
231,2
161,1

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2000 (OJ L 243, 28.9.2000, p. 14). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, euro, exchange rate, national currency

24.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 206/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

23 July 2001

(2001/C 206/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4471

Danish krone

9,2907

Swedish krona

0,6097

Pound sterling

0,8676

United States dollar

1,34

Canadian dollar

107,62

Japanese yen

1,5055

Swiss franc

7,9865

Norwegian krone

88,18

Icelandic kr(cid:243)na (2)

1,7103

Australian dollar

2,118

New Zealand dollar

7,1242

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/01 by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Growing numbers of stray dogs in southern and central European towns.
Date: 2001-07-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, domestic animal, public health, urban problem

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/133

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Community legislation actually in force (1) fixes clear definitions of all driving licence categories. The
definitions of all these categories, including category C1, trucks ranging from 3,5 to 7,5 tonnes, have been
discussed at several occasions by the governmental experts on driving licences, in the framework of the
implementation of the current Directive.

These discussions revealed that the actual category C1 comprises two types of vehicles with a cut off point
around six tonnes. Bringing the definition of category C1 in line with the technical characteristics of the
vehicles contained within the category, will make it possible to have a closer to reality driving education
and driving test and will thus enhance road safety. Similarly, small improvements have been proposed by
experts for categories B, D1 and D in which the word (cid:145)seat(cid:146) will be replaced by (cid:145)passengers(cid:146) and completed
by requirements on weights and dimensions in order to prevent that large vehicles can be driven with a
normal car driving licence only.

The Commission will therefore consider in the near future whether the actual definitions can be improved
in this sense.

(1) Council Directive 91/439/EEC of 29 July 1991 on driving licences (cid:129) OJ L 237, 24.8.1991.

(2002/C 81 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2218/01

by Hanja Maij-Weggen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 July 2001)

Subject: Growing numbers of stray dogs in southern and central European towns

Is the Commission aware that numbers of stray dogs and cats in southern and central European towns
continue to increase?

Does the Commission know that, given the extent of the problem, it has become almost impossible for
animal protection organisations to catch these animals?

Is the Commission aware that these stray dogs and cats are not only suffering from neglect, but can also
represent a growing public health problem?

Is the Commission aware that in Bucharest, Romania, alone there are about 100 000 stray dogs running in
packs, and that in Athens and Corfu, Greece, and Naples and Pompeii, Italy, for example, there are also
large numbers of stray animals?

What can the Commission do to help solve this problem?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

The Commission is aware that the problem of stray dogs and cats is a serious one in certain European
cities.

However, the responsibility for finding a solution to this particular problem is one for the authorities
within the Member States and third countries concerned. The Community has no competence in relation
to this matter.