do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/01 by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Council. Belgian system for dealing with the free movement of labour.
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU national, equal treatment, free movement of workers, identity document

C 147 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(2002/C 147 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2956/01

by Bertel Haarder (ELDR) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Belgian system for dealing with the free movement of labour

1.
Is the Council President aware of the problems EU citizens encounter with the Belgian administration
when registering their arrival to take up residence and in obtaining ID papers, and in particular the long
the
waiting times,
municipalities to which they have moved, and the issue of one temporary ID card after another before an
ID card proper is finally issued?

the need to send several reminders to obtain answers from the authorities of

Does the Council consider such a system to be appropriate for a country like Belgium, which is host

2.
to international organisations such as NATO and the European Union?

3. Will Belgium take steps to improve this system?

Reply

(1 March 2002)

The Council has no authority to reply to the Honourable Member’s questions.

(2002/C 147 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2964/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Restructuring and conversion of vineyards

On 21 August 2001, the Commission adopted Decision 2001/666/EC (1)
for the 2001/2002
marketing year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, an indicative allocation by Member State
for the restructuring and conversion of vineyards. The Commission has thus distributed the 422 million
euros earmarked for the second year of the implementation of this measure by the producer Member
States. Article 14(1) of EC Regulation No 1493/1999 (2) lays down that the allocation shall be based on
objective criteria and take account of particular situations and needs.

fixing,

Furthermore, Article 14(3) of that regulation claims that the vineyard area of each Member State will be
taken into account, while Article 13(3) states that the Community contribution will be larger for Objective
1 areas.

However,
despite their being ‘cohesion countries’.

in the proposed distribution, Portugal and Spain receive the smallest subsidies per hectare,

What then are the ‘objective criteria’ used by the Commission in distributing the aid to each Member State?

(1) OJ L 233, 31.8.2001, p. 53.
(2) OJ L 179, 14.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The Honourable Member points out that, under Commission Decision 2001/666/EC of 21 August 2001
fixing, for the 2001/2002 marketing year and in respect of a certain number of hectares, an indicative
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/01 by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Statements by the Turkish Prime Minister.
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Türkiye, head of government, public statement, refugee, terrorism

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/171

Reply

(14 February 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 (CARDS) was adopted by the Council on 5 December 2000 and entered
into force on 7 December 2000. Under Article 7 of that Regulation, the Commission shall implement the
Community assistance, assisted by the ‘CARDS Committee’ (see Article 10 of the Regulation). Each year,
pursuant to Article 12,
‘the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a
progress report on the Community assistance. That report shall contain information on the action financed
during the year and on the findings of monitoring work and shall give an assessment of the results
achieved in the implementation of the strategic framework, the multiannual indicative programmes and
the annual action programmes referred to in Article 3(1)’.

In conclusion: implementation of the assistance is the responsibility of the Commission. Each year the
Council and the Parliament are briefed in parallel on the activities and progress.

The first report will refer to 2001. That report has, of course, not yet come out.

(2002/C 134 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

Subject: Statements by the Turkish Prime Minister

(5 November 2001)

Speaking on the US television network CNN on 14 October 2001, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Bulent
Ecevit stated that his country was also a victim of terrorism perpetrated by terrorists who find refugee in
EU countries.

In view of Turkey’s status as a candidate for accession to the EU, and the Turkish Prime Minister’s
indiscriminate accusation against all 15 Member States of the Union, will the Council seek to obtain an
explanation and specific evidence to substantiate Mr Ecevit’s claim?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

This is not the first time Turkey has claimed that persons regarded as terrorists in Turkey have found
refuge in Member States of the European Union. This is neither new nor unique to Turkey. Since the
events of 11 September, Member States have been investigating possible abuses of the right to political
asylum by persons 8 particularly those with connections to the Al Quaida network 8 who, operating
from within the territory of EU Member States, have encouraged violence and terrorism elsewhere.

The issue of EU-Turkey cooperation in combating terrorism is addressed with Turkey in the appropriate
bodies, as part of measures to implement the action plan adopted by the Ghent European Council.

(2002/C 134 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Promotion procedures in the Commission

Every year, the Commission’s promotion procedures prompt a number of officials to lodge complaints and
some of them go on to bring actions before the CFI (Court of First Instance). The main reasons invoked are
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2155/2001 of 5 November 2001 amending Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 on special market support measures in the beef sector
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, beef, carcase, health legislation, market support, purchase price

L 289/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.11.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2155/2001

of 5 November 2001

amending Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 on special market support measures in the beef sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,
Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,
Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17
May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef
and veal (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1512/
2001 (2), and in particular Article 38(2) thereof,
Whereas:

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 of 3 April
2001 on special market support measures in the beef
sector (3), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1648/
2001 (4), lays down in its Article 5(3) that the price to
be paid to the successful
tenderer shall be adjusted
where carcasses taken over differ from the classification
class O. In Belgium, a very large part of the cow meat
production falls in the E and S classes. However, on the
basis on the one hand of the current market prices for
those animals and on the other hand of the coefficient
of adjustment fixed in the Regulation, no carcasses clas-
sified in those two classes are likely to be delivered
under the scheme. In order to improve the efficiency of
the support measure the coefficient laid down for classes

S and E in Annex IV should therefore be increased to a
level which better reflects the market reality.

(2)

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

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The coefficient of ‘1,65’ fixed for classes S and E in footnote 1
of Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 690/2001 shall be replaced
by ‘1,87’.

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 to quantities awarded under the tender on 12
November 2001 and following tenders.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 November 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 201, 26.7.2001, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 95, 5.4.2001, p. 8.
(4) OJ L 219, 14.8.2001, p. 21.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2153/2001 of 5 November 2001 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, pip fruit

6.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 289/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2153/2001

of 5 November 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,

In compliance with the above criteria,
the standard
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
standard values for imports from third countries,
in
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 November 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 November 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.

L 289/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.11.2001

to the Commission Regulation of 5 November 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 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 30 10

0806 10 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
999
052
999
052
999

052
999
052
388
524
528
600
999
052
064
400
508
999
052
060
388
400
404
800
804
999
052
400
720
999

54,1
50,5
52,3
91,8
91,8
81,5
81,5

49,1
49,1
52,3
47,3
55,6
43,3
76,1
54,9
103,3
100,2
328,9
372,3
226,2
87,5
35,4
43,0
68,8
80,0
194,9
64,3
82,0
97,1
87,3
69,9
84,8

(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’.
Council Regulation (EC) No 2156/2001 of 5 November 2001 repealing Regulation (EC) No 926/98 concerning the reduction of certain economic relations with the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Yugoslavia, economic relations, international sanctions, military equipment, public safety

6.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 289/5

COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 2156/2001

of 5 November 2001

repealing Regulation (EC) No 926/98 concerning the reduction of certain economic relations with
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community, and in particular Article 301 thereof,

(2)

Having regard to Council Common Position 2001/719/CFSP of
8 October 2001 amending Common Position 96/184/CFSP
to the former Yugoslavia and
concerning arms exports
Common Position 98/240/CFSP on restrictive measures against
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1),

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

for internal repression or terrorism had become super-
fluous.

Accordingly, the ban on the sale and supply of such
equipment to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia should
be lifted immediately,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

Regulation (EC) No 926/98 (2) is hereby repealed.

(1)

In order to give effect to Resolution 1367(2001) of the
United Nations Security Council, the Council has deter-
mined that, in relation to Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
the arms embargo should be lifted and that the ban on
the sale and supply of equipment which might be used

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that
of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Commu-
nities.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 November 2001.

For the Council

The President

R. MILLER

(1) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 49.

(2) OJ L 130, 1.5.1998, p. 1.
Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v Vectura AS (Case E-8/01)
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: Norway
Subjects: EFTA Court, domestic market, dominant position, marketing, reduced price, restriction on competition

C 81/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

4.4.2002

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Borgarting lagmannsrett by decision of
that court of 11 October 2001 in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v Vectura AS

(Case E-8/01)

(2002/C 81/09)

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by decsion of 11 October 2001 of Borgarting lagmannsrett
(Borgarting Court of Appeal), Norway, which was received at the Court Registry on 5 November 2001, for
an Advisory Opinion in the case of Gunnar Amundsen and Others v Vectura AS, on the following
questions:

1. Will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market, in itself be sufficient for a finding that an

undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 EEA?

2. If question 1 is answered in the negative, will a market share of over 60 % in the relevant market in

itself create a presumption that an undertaking has a dominant position under Article 54 EEA?

3. If question 2 is answered in the affirmative, and an undertaking has such a market share, what other
market conditions in the relevant market might imply that the undertaking nonetheless does not have a
dominant position under Article 54 EEA?

4. If a dominant undertaking provides marketing support to some customers and not to others, could that

constitute abuse under Article 54 EEA, if that marketing support

(i) must be viewed in its entirety as being a price discount

for the dominant undertaking's

performance of distribution services for the customers in question?

(ii) must be viewed in its entirety as being compensation for marketing services which the customers

in question provide to the undertaking?

(iii) must be viewed partially as being compensation for marketing services which the customers in
question provide to the undertaking, and partially as a price discount for the dominant under-
taking's performance of distribution services for the customers in question?

5. If a dominant undertaking has unjustifiably treated its customers differently, could a finding of
infringement of Article 54 EEA be made, without a concurrent finding that the differential treatment
has impaired competition in the market in which the customers compete?
Council Common Position of 5 November 2001 concerning restrictive measures against the Taliban and amending Common Positions 1996/746/CFSP, 2001/56/CFSP and 2001/154/CFSP
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Afghanistan, UN Security Council, air transport, economic sanctions, international sanctions, military equipment

L 289/36

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.11.2001

(Acts adopted pursuant to Title V of the Treaty on European Union)

COUNCIL COMMON POSITION

of 5 November 2001

concerning restrictive measures against the Taliban and amending Common Positions 1996/746/
CFSP, 2001/56/CFSP and 2001/154/CFSP

(2001/771/CFSP)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in par-
ticular Article 15 thereof,

Afghanistan under Taliban control as designated by the UN
Sanctions Committee’.

Whereas:

Article 2

(1)

(2)

(3)

The United Nations Security Council has adopted Reso-
lutions 1076(1996) on Afghanistan and 1333(2000)
setting out measures to be imposed specifically against
the Taliban regime.

On 26 February 2001 the Council adopted Common
Position 2001/154/CFSP concerning additional restrict-
the Taliban and amending
ive measures
Common Position 96/746/CFSP (1), which took account
of the UNSCR 1333(2000).

against

There is a need to amend Common Positions 1996/746/
CFSP of 17 December 1996 concerning the imposition
of an embargo on arms, munitions and military equip-
ment on Afghanistan (2), 2001/56/CFSP of 22 January
2001 on Afghanistan (3) and 2001/154/CFSP to ensure
that their provisions are fully consistent with those in
UNSCR 1333(2000),

The following phrase shall be deleted from Article 1 of
Common Position 2001/154/CFSP:
‘and which continue to
apply to the entire territory of Afghanistan’.

Article 3

This Common Position shall take effect on the date of its
adoption.

Article 4

This Common Position shall be published in the Official
Journal.

HAS ADOPTED THIS COMMON POSITION:

Done at Brussels, 5 November 2001.

Article 1

In Article 1 of Common Position 1996/746/CFSP and Article
2(g) of Common Position 2001/56/CFSP the term ‘Afghanistan’
‘the territory of
shall be replaced by the following phrase:

For the Council

The President

R. MILLER

(1) OJ L 57, 27.2.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 342, 31.12.1996, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 21, 23.1.2001, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3049/01 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Controls on the health and safety of workers.
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, administrative sanction, humanisation of work, labour inspectorate, occupational health, occupational safety

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/187

safety of services in tourist facilities in more general terms, can be covered by horizontal initiatives on the
safety of services, a subject on which Parliament has recently asked the Commission to present a report
and appropriate proposals in 2003.

(1)

‘Drowning accidents in the garden involving children under five % July 2000 % URN00/906’; ‘Drowning in the
home & garden % June 2001 % URN 01/903’.

(2002/C 134 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3049/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Controls on the health and safety of workers

(5 November 2001)

In its reply to my question E-0906/01 (1) on controls on the improvement of the health and safety of
workers the Commission provided a table showing that Greece has made the least effort to carry out
inspections and had imposed penalties on 55 undertakings.

Since the issue remains a serious one and controls are still inadequate, will the Commission say:

1. What charges have been brought against the above undertakings? Have penalties actually been

imposed and, if so, what kind of penalties?

2. What measures does the Commission intend to take to increase inspections in Greece and to make

them more substantial?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 119.

(2002/C 134 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3050/01

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Additional information on workers’ health and safety

(5 November 2001)

In its reply to my Question E-0906/01 (1) on adequate controls by the Member States in compliance with
Article 4(2) of framework directive 89/391/EEC (2) on the improvement of the safety and health of workers,
the Commission states: ‘As far as the specific situation in Greece is concerned, the Commission requested
further information from the plaintiff (Petition 00/4404) following the complaint made by the General
Confederation of Greek Workers. After receiving this information, the Commission also sent a letter to the
Greek Government requesting information on the introduction of measures … Although a reminder letter
on this matter has been sent to the Greek authorities, they have not yet provided the information
requested by the Commission’.

Despite all the above, the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs has asked the plaintiff for
additional information (Doc. 62383 of 1 August 2001). Since this remains an urgent matter and controls
inadequate, will the Commission say why it has not opened infringement proceedings under
are still
Article 226 with the information on which the complaints are based or which it has collected itself and
why it is continuing to ask for additional information from the plaintiff?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 119.
(2) OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3048/01 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Lloyd's and Directive 73/329/EEC.
Date: 2001-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, indemnification, infringement of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), insurance company

C 147 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

(cid:1) soundness of the financial package,

(cid:1) direct or indirect socio-economic effects, in particular on employment, and

(cid:1) environmental consequences.

It emerged from the information supplied by Rede Electrica National (REN), the project promoter, that the
project
financial
for a new electricity connection between Portugal and Spain has a high level of
profitability. This was the main reason why the Commission did not propose any financial support for this
project.

(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.

(2002/C 147 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3048/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Lloyd’s and Directive 73/329/EEC

According to information received by associate members of the Lloyd’s of London insurance market,
Lloyd’s is holding its approximately 30 000 associate members responsible for losses incurred in the wake
of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the US. The latter consider that this position to be unacceptable
and that it arises from an incorrect application of Directive 73/239/EEC (1).

Can the Commission state its position on the matter and indicate whether there is a possible failure to
comply with Directive 73/239/EEC?

(1) OJ L 228, 16.8.1973, p. 3.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 2002)

The Commission is taking very seriously the many complaints it has received regarding alleged
infringements of the Community insurance directives with respect to Lloyd’s. The Commission has now
completed its preliminary analysis and has decided to launch formal proceedings under Article 226
(ex-Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

These complaints arose primarily as the result of claims for asbestosis liabilities in the 1980s in the United
States. As far as the events of 11 September 2001 are concerned, the Commission is not aware of any
potential infringements of the Community insurance directives.

(2002/C 147 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3052/01

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Council

(5 November 2001)

Subject: Release of hostages

Amnesty International has announced that the Israeli Government and the Hizbollah in Lebanon are
holding hostages in defiance of the rules of international law and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.