do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2626 — Merloni/Foster Wheeler Italiana/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 323/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.11.2001

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2626 (cid:151) Merloni/Foster Wheeler Italiana/JV)

(2001/C 323/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 October 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 Italian 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)CIT(cid:146) version of the CELEX database, under document No 301M2626. 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.2561 (cid:151) Prudential/BPB)

(2001/C 323/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 November 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 301M2561. 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/01 by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission. European CE standard markings on stun weapons.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC conformity marking, arms industry, dual-use good, electrical equipment, sales promotion, torture

C 93 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2002

Could the Commission clarify the process by which the European CE-standard marks are awarded? Could
the Commission also explain how many stun-weapon manufacturers are using CE markings on their
products? Finally, what action is the Commission taking to prevent stun-weapon manufacturers from using
CE markings to promote the sales of their products?

(2002/C 93 E/254)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/01

by Elizabeth Lynne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: European CE standard markings on stun weapons

It has been brought to my attention that non-European Union manufacturers have been advertising that
their stun weapons are marked with the CE safety standard mark. These weapons are frequently used as
torture devices in prisons and detention centres. Could the Commission clarify the process by which
European CE standard marks are awarded? Also, could the Commission explain how many stun weapon
manufacturers are using the CE markings on their products? Finally, how is the Commission taking action
to prevent stun weapon manufacturers from using CE markings to promote the sales of their products?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2934/01, E-2965/01, P-3012/01, E-3108/01 and E-3191/01
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The Honourable Members are referred to the Commission’s answer to Written Question P-2783/01 from
Mr Ford (1).

(1) OJ C 81 E, 4.4.2002, p. 209.

(2002/C 93 E/255)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2948/01

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 October 2001)

Subject: Compatibility of hands-free kits for mobile telephones

Over the last few years, because of drivers’ ever increasing use of mobile telephones, the use of hands-free
kits has been made mandatory in almost all European Union Member States, above all on road safety
grounds.

Attendant on the mandatory use of hands-free kits is the problem that, because of the rapid pace of mobile
telephone development, mobile sets and hands-free kits, which are expensive, usually have to be replaced
at the same time, since the latter will be virtually incompatible. That is bound to result in less self-
discipline in hands-free use, less safety and more accidents brought about because of mobile telephone use.

Does the Commission therefore think that regulating this area makes sense?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2254/2001 of 20 November 2001 on issuing A2 export licences for fruit and vegetables
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, export licence, fruit vegetable, grape

21.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 304/11

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2254/2001

of 20 November 2001

on issuing A2 export licences for fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001
of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council
Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit
and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 3(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2102/2001 (2) set the
indicative refund rates and the indicative quantities for
A2 export licences, other than those applied for in the
context of food aid.

For tomatoes, oranges and table grapes, in view of the
economic situation and taking account of information
received by operators via their applications for A2
licences, the definitive refund rates should be set at a
different rate from the indicative rates. The percentages
for the issuing of licences for the quantities applied for
should also be set. The definitive rates may not be more
than 50 % more than the indicative rates.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1961/
the cor-
2001, applications for

rates in excess of

responding definitive rates shall be considered null and
void,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For A2 export licences for which applications have been
1.
submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 2102/
2001 the actual date of application referred to in the second
subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001
is hereby set at 21 November 2001.

2.
The licences referred to in the first paragraph shall be
issued at the definitive refund rates and at the percentages for
the quantities applied for as indicated in the Annex to this
Regulation.

3.
Pursuant to Article 3(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1961/
2001, applications referred to in the first paragraph for rates in
excess of the corresponding definitive rates set out in the
Annex shall be considered null and void.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 November 2001.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001, p. 3.

L 304/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.11.2001

Product

Tomatoes

Oranges

Table grapes

ANNEX

Definitive
refund rates
(EUR/t net)

30

30

34

Percentages
for the issuing of
licences

100 %

98 %

100 %
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2253/2001 of 20 November 2001 prohibiting fishing for sprat by vessels flying the flag of Sweden
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Sweden, authorised catch, catch quota, fishing area, sea fish, ship's flag

L 304/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

21.11.2001

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2253/2001

of 20 November 2001

prohibiting fishing for sprat by vessels flying the flag of Sweden

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12
October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the
common fisheries policy (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1965/2001 (2), and in particular Article 21(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2848/2000 of 15 December
2000 fixing for 2001 the fishing opportunities and asso-
ciated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of
fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch
are required (3), as amended by Commission Regulation
(EC) No 1666/2001 (4), lays down quotas for sprat for
2001.

In order to ensure compliance with the provisions
relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks
subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by
which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a
Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota
allocated.

According to the information received by the Commis-
sion, catches of sprat in the waters of ICES divisions IIa
and IV (EC waters) by vessels flying the flag of Sweden

or registered in Sweden have exhausted the quota allo-
cated for 2001. Sweden has prohibited fishing for this
stock from 9 November 2001. This date should be
adopted in this Regulation also,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of sprat in the waters of ICES divisions IIa and IV (EC
waters) by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in
Sweden are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allo-
cated to Sweden for 2001.

Fishing for sprat in the waters of ICES divisions IIa and IV (EC
waters) by vessels flying the flag of Sweden or registered in
Sweden is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board,
transhipment and landing of this stock caught by the above
vessels after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 9 November 2001.

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

Done at Brussels, 20 November 2001.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 23.
(3) OJ L 334, 30.12.2000, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 223, 18.8.2001, p. 4.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/01 by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Free movement of persons.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, Ireland, driving licence, free movement of persons, identity document, passport

C 147 E/124

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council keeps a very close watch on all human rights developments in Turkey. The Turkish
authorities’ reactions to the action directed against
the introduction of a new type of prison, and
particularly the hunger strike which is resulting in an ever-increasing number of fatalities, are indeed a
subject for major concern. This has been pointed out repeatedly to Turkey, whether in the framework of
political dialogue or on other occasions.

With regard to the recent police operation in Kucuk Armutlu during which several hunger strikers died
and many others were injured, the Council, through the Heads of Mission in Ankara and during the lunch
given for EC-Turkey Political Directors in Brussels on 20 November last, expressed its concern to Turkey
regarding a disproportionate use of force, and asked the Turkish authorities to provide explanations.

Without wanting in any way to minimise the seriousness of an incident such as that in Kucuk Armutlu
and, generally speaking, the shortcomings still existing in Turkey regarding human rights,
it must be
acknowledged, however, as the European Commission has also done in its regular report for 2001, that
Turkey has recently made considerable progress towards greater compliance with human rights and
fundamental freedoms, in particular by means of the constitutional reforms of last October, which are
currently being implemented.

It should be noted that the Laeken European Council on 14 and 15 December 2001 established that
Turkey has made progress towards complying with the political criteria established for accession,
in
particular through the recent amendment of its constitution, and that this has brought forward the
prospect of the opening of accession negotiations. It would seem in these circumstances that it cannot be
concluded, as the Honourable Member does, that the process of Turkey’s accession must be suspended.

(2002/C 147 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3181/01

by John McCartin (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Free movement of persons

Can the Commission state whether it is necessary for an Irish citizen travelling to Belgium to carry a
national passport or whether official identification such as an Irish driving licence is sufficient?

Could the Commission further state whether it is a matter of national law or of European law to lay down
the conditions under which the right to freedom of movement may be restricted?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(6 December 2001)

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to Question 2506/01 by
Mr Speroni (1) and to the joint answer to Written Questions P-2996/01 by Mr Speroni and P-3010/01 by
Mr Gobbo (2).

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 246.
(2) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 211.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2647 — Iveco/Irisbus) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bus, economic concentration, merger control, motor vehicle industry

20.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/9

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2647 (cid:151) Iveco/Irisbus)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2001/C 323/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 12 November 2001 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant
1.
to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
1310/97 (2), by which the undertaking Iveco, belonging to the Fiat group, acquires, within the meaning
of Article 3 (1)(b) of the Regulation, control of the whole of Irisbus, by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

(cid:151) Iveco: design, manufacture and sale of coaches, buses, diesel engines and other components satisfying

various needs for transporting passengers and goods,

(cid:151) Irisbus: design, manufacture and sale of coaches and buses.

3.
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within
the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant
to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (3), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under
the procedure set out in the notice.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit

4.
proposed operation.

their possible observations on the

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication.
Observations can be sent by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference
COMP/M.2647 (cid:151) Iveco/Irisbus, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Directorate B (cid:151) Merger Task Force,
Rue Joseph II/Jozef II-straat 70,
B-1000 Brussels.

(1) OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13.
(2) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 1; corrigendum: OJ L 40, 13.2.1998, p. 17.
(3) OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2001 of 15 November 2001 amending the rates of the refunds applicable to certain products from the milk sector exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty (OJ L 300 of 16.11.2001)
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: butter, export refund, powdered milk

L 303/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

20.11.2001

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2216/2001 of 15 November 2001 amending the rates of the
refunds applicable to certain products from the milk sector exported in the form of goods not covered by
Annex I to the Treaty

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 300 of 16 November 2001)

On page 30, recital 1:

for:

‘… 1 July 2001 …’,

read:

‘… 1 November 2001 …’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3201/01 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Substandard work in the region of Malakasa.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, EU control, Greece, product quality, road building, sanction (EU)

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2003/C 161 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3201/01

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Substandard work in the region of Malakasa

(20 November 2001)

In the recent flooding in Greece (4.11.01) the section of the Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Evzoni highway in
the region of Malakasa was again seriously damaged so that it had to be closed to traffic. In response to an
earlier question on this topic (E-3481/00 (1)), the Commission had answered that the Greek authorities had
notified it that the contractors responsible were being obliged to repair the construction faults detected in
the project out of their own pockets before the end of 2000.

Will the Commission say:

1. When did the contractors hand over the section of the project in question?

2. Do any rules exist about the provisional delivery of a project to ensure that it meets safety standards

so that citizens do not suffer the consequences of substandard work?

3. Why has the repeated reconstruction of the section in question on each occasion been marred by

substandard work?

4. What specific penalties have been imposed on the contractors?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 62.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 February 2002)

The Commission was not informed of the date when the section of the Patras-Athens-Thessaloniki-Evzoni
motorway around Malakassa was handed over but it has asked the Greek authorities for this information.

The procedures relating to the provisional acceptances of works are a matter for national legislation and
are not therefore the responsibility of the Commission.

The work relating to the section of this motorway was part-financed under the Community support
framework (CSF) for Greece for 1989-1993 and the corresponding operational programme (OP) was
closed in 1995. The corrective measures taken by the Greek authorities to remedy the defects caused by
the geological and technical problems encountered after closure of that OP were part-financed under the
Greek CSF for 1994-1999. This work has not yet been finished and so it is premature to evaluate the
outcome.

With regard to possible penalties to be imposed on the contractors, the Commission would refer the
Honourable Member to its reply to his Written Question P-2890/01 (1).

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 2.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/01 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Public relations.
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Union, accession to the European Union, broadcasting, dissemination of EU information, public awareness campaign, television

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2003/C 28 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/01

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Public relations

Will the Commission indicate what the EU, the governments and their partners are spending on public
relations in the candidate countries, and will it also forward copies of all advertisements paid for in the
press and copies of all publicity materials broadcast on radio and television?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(16 January 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-3014/01 (1),
in which the Commission informed him of the activities undertaken in the enlargement communication
strategy in the candidate countries, and the purposes to which funds were allocated.

As far as the use of radio and TV is concerned, the Commission representatives in the candidate countries
and Commission officials visiting the candidate countries appear in the media on a regular basis, given the
level of interest in the Union. Much of the content of their appearances is publicity in the broad sense, in
as far as they are invited to explain issues related to the Union and the enlargement process. However, the
Commission’s communication strategy in the candidate countries does not generally use paid
advertisements as a way of informing the public.

Many advertisements would have appeared in the press announcing, for example, the holding of a debate
or an information event in one of the many hundreds of such instances that there will have been by now
in the candidate countries. Some of these may have been paid for indirectly as part of a co-organised
information event, for example, by the Commission Delegation and the local mayor.

The Commission is in the process of establishing a register of all physical materials published by the
Delegations in the candidate countries as part of their communication strategy. This register will be
annexed to a note which the Member of the Commission responsible for Enlargement will make available
to the Parliament in the near future as part of his effort to keep the budgetary authority informed of the
way in which the communication strategy is being implemented.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 3.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2001-11-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

20.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 323/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

19 November 2001

(2001/C 323/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4438

Danish krone

9,3665

Swedish krona

0,6186

Pound sterling

0,8793

United States dollar

1,3928

Canadian dollar

108,48

Japanese yen

1,4651

Swiss franc

7,922

Norwegian krone

94,79

Icelandic kr(cid:243)na (2)

1,6868

Australian dollar

2,115

New Zealand dollar

8,4952

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.