do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 89/2002 of 17 January 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1558/2001
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, barley, export refund, third country

18.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/29

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 89/2002

of 17 January 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on barley in connection with the invitation to tender issued in
Regulation (EC) No 1558/2001

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of
29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the
granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be
taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 602/2001 (4), and in
particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of
barley to all third countries except for the United States
of America and Canada was opened pursuant
to
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1558/2001 (5).

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that
the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders noti-
fied,
in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix

a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria
referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the cereal 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
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

(3)

(4)

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 11 to 17 January 2002, pursuant to
the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1558/
2001, the maximum refund on exportation of barley shall be
EUR 0,00/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 January 2002.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 17 January 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 89, 29.3.2001, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 205, 31.7.2001, p. 33.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ L 279 of 23.10.2001)
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Combined Nomenclature, common customs tariff, customs regulations, statistical nomenclature, tariff nomenclature

L 15/58

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.1.2002

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 amending Annex I to Council
Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 279 of 23 October 2001)

On page 14,

in the first column,

last two entries:

for:

‘8906 90 10’,

read:

‘8906 10 00’;

for:

‘8906 90 91’,

read:

‘8906 90 10’.

On page 180,

in additional note 3, first line:

for:

‘…, 2308 90 11 and 2308 90 19, …’,

read:

‘…, 2308 00 11 and 2308 00 19, …’.

On page 410:

against CN code 6108 99 10,

in the second column:

for:

‘Other’,

read:

‘Of wool or fine animal hair’;

against CN code 6108 99 90,

in the second column:

for:

‘Of other textile materials’,

read:

‘Other’.

On pages 723, 725, and 727,
against the text ‘From 16 October to 30 November’:
in the third column:

in Annex 2:

for:

‘16 (1)’,

read:

‘16’;

delete the footnote at the bottom of the page.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/02 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Ban on catgut in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Germany, medical device, public health

C 160 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

No other special Community funds or Community compensations can be provided. Similar conditions
were applied by the Commission for other Member States when they experienced adverse weather
conditions at the end of 1999.

(2002/C 160 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0071/02

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Ban on catgut in the Federal Republic of Germany

(17 January 2002)

The German authorities have banned the use of catgut as surgical sutures because of its animal origins,
even if the raw material comes from stocks which are not at risk. At the end of November 2001, the
Scientific Steering Committee set up on the basis of Directive 93/42/EEC (1) classified catgut as safe.

Does the Commission judge this state of affairs to be compatible with Community law?

Does it intend to take action against the Federal Republic of Germany?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The question submitted to the Commission by the Honourable Member refers to an opinion delivered by
the Scientific Steering Committee at the end of November 2001. The Commission draws the attention to
the fact that the opinion focuses on sourcing from GBR I (Geographical BSE Risk category I) countries
only. Sourcing from other GBR categories (II, III and IV) was not addressed. It effectively considers ‘safe’ the
material of animal origin from closed herds and GBR I countries, including ‘catgut’.

The Commission would like to highlight that tissue used in catgut cannot undergo inactivation that would
ensure it to be prion negative < the tissue’s molecular structure would suffer damage making it unusable
for that purpose. Therefore ‘sourcing’ plays a determinant role.

At the level of risk management, however, different elements may intervene,
including the public’s
perception on the degree of safety and the level of health protection provided, in particular when suitable
alternatives are available on the market. The Commission examines with Member States the consequences
to be drawn from this opinion in the light of such elements. In that context, it will take position on the
German measures.

(2002/C 160 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0072/02

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 January 2002)

Subject: EIB funding to build new schools and replace old buildings incorporating asbestos

The continued use of many public school buildings containing asbestos in the Prefecture of Ilía (in Ioni,
Velanidi, Simopoulo, Latta, Kato Panagia, etc.) since 1967 and of 18 such schools in the Prefecture of
Thessaloniki since 1978 raises a very serious issue, particularly since other regions of the country are also
affected. In addition, the Greek Government was late in entering the relevant building projects in the
Second CFS.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Council Presidency meetings with the ERT.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Presidency of the Council of the EU, government, interest group, international meeting, type of business

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/47

The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, as indicated in its reply to Oral Question
H-0365/99, in 1999 the JICS launched % and notified to the Swedish authorities % a programme for
recruiting and training interpreters to work into or out of Swedish. Any improvement in the interpretation
cover for Swedish at Council meetings will clearly depend on the progress of that programme, which the
Council hopes to see achieved as soon as possible.

(2002/C 229 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3700/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Council Presidency meetings with the ERT

The European Round Table of Industrialists (ERT) lobby group states that it meets (or at least tries to meet)
the government of every Member State that holds the Council Presidency.

In its answer to my question (H-0894/01 (1)), the Belgian Presidency stated that Mr Verhofstadt, the Belgian
Prime Minister, had a meeting with the ERT on 20 November 2001.

Can the Council state whether all governments that have held the Council Presidency since 1995 have had
meetings with the ERT and, if so, when?

(1) Written answer of 12 December 2001.

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council would ask the Honourable Member to address his question directly to the Governments of the
Member States which assumed the Presidency of the EU Council in previous years.

(2002/C 229 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3704/01

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Development of democracy in Belarus

Following the latest presidential election in Belarus, in September 2001, the situation as regards political
democracy there can only be described as disastrous. Belarus is the only blank space on the map of Europe
where there is, from a formal point of view, no political democracy with free elections, freedom of
expression and freedom of the press.

How does the Commission assess the situation in Belarus now, and how can the European Union support
the development of the opposition’s democratic role in forming public opinion in Belarus?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(19 February 2002)

The Commission is deeply concerned by recent developments in Belarus, in particular that the Government
of Belarus has shown no inclination to take into account the Union’s view on a range of issues affecting
democracy and human rights in that country.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. Irradiated food.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: foodstuff, irradiation, labelling

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/221

Reply

(18 March 2002)

The Council is aware of the improvement in systems of education for all but suggests that the Honourable
Member should put his question direct to the Commission, which is competent to deal with the type of
problem raised in it.

(2002/C 147 E/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Irradiated food

Does the Commission believe that only the term ‘irradiated’, or a similar term, should be used to describe
food that has undergone irradiation treatment on relevant labels?

At present in the United Kingdom, a number of different terms such as ‘treated by cold pasteurisation’,
‘sterilised with electron beam (E-beam) technology’ and ‘electronically pasteurised’ are all used.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

Labelling of irradiated foods is regulated by Article 6 of Directive 1999/2/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 22 February 1999 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods
and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation (1). It provides that the words ‘irradiated’ or ‘treated
with ionising radiation’ shall be used to indicate that the foodstuff or an ingredient of the foodstuff has
been irradiated. This wording is therefore mandatory and aims at ensuring full transparency for the
consumer.

Information about food irradiation is available on the following web site: http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/
fs/sfp/sfp_index_en.html.

(1) OJ L 66, 13.3.1999,.

(2002/C 147 E/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: NHS authorities

Can the Commission confirm that the United Kingdom Government is not permitted, as a matter of
European Community law, to forbid NHS authorities to contract for health services from suppliers based
in other Member States in a situation in which such authorities are permitted to contract with private
suppliers of health services who are based in the UK?

Is it permissible for the UK Government to prohibit NHS authorities from contracting with suppliers of
health services in other Member States until UK regulations are adopted setting out the terms under which
such overseas contracting can take place? In particular, is such a restriction acceptable when the NHS
authorities are responsible by law for health care in their locality?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 86/2002 of 17 January 2002 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 23rd partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1430/2001
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, white sugar

18.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 16/25

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 86/2002

of 17 January 2002

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar for the 23rd partial invitation to tender issued
within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No
1430/2001

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19
June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the
sugar sector (1), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof,

(3)

(4)

Following an examination of the tenders submitted in
invitation to tender, the
response to the 23rd partial
provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted.

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2001 of 13 July
2001 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
refunds on exports of white sugar (2)
levies and/or
requires partial invitations to tender to be issued for the
export of this sugar.

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1430/
2001 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the
state and foreseeable development of the Community
and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to
tender in question.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 23rd partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued
pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 1430/2001 the maximum
amount of the export refund is fixed at 39,678 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 January 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 17 January 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 192, 14.7.2001, p. 3.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 90/2002 of 17 January 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on rye in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1005/2001
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, rye, third country

L 16/30

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.1.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 90/2002

of 17 January 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on rye in connection with the invitation to tender issued in
Regulation (EC) No 1005/2001

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of
29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the
granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be
taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3),
as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 602/2001 (4), and in
particular Article 7 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of
rye to all
to
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1005/2001 (5).

third countries was opened pursuant

Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 provides that
the Commission may, on the basis of the tenders noti-
fied,
in accordance with the procedure laid down in
Article 23 of Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, decide to fix

a maximum export refund taking account of the criteria
referred to in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95.
In that case a contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
bid is equal to or lower than the maximum refund.

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the cereal 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
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For tenders notified from 11 to 17 January 2002, pursuant to
the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1005/
2001, the maximum refund on exportation of rye shall be
EUR 29,99/t.

This Regulation shall enter into force on 18 January 2002.

Article 2

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

Done at Brussels, 17 January 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 147, 30.6.1995, p. 7.
(4) OJ L 89, 29.3.2001, p. 16.
(5) OJ L 140, 24.5.2001, p. 10.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, national currency, third country

17.1.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 13/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 January 2002

(2002/C 13/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4306

Danish krone

9,2141

Swedish krona

0,6135

Pound sterling

0,8817

United States dollar

1,4027

Canadian dollar

115,83

Japanese yen

1,4705

Swiss franc

7,912

Norwegian krone

90,87

Icelandic kr(cid:243)na (2)

1,7136

Australian dollar

2,101

New Zealand dollar

10,4349

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2693 — ADM/ACTI) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, agricultural product, distributive trades, economic concentration, merger control, wholesale trade

C 13/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.1.2002

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2693 (cid:151) ADM/ACTI)

(2002/C 13/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 8 January 2002 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant 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 Archer Daniels Midland (ADM), USA, acquires, within the meaning of Article
3(1)(b) of the Regulation, sole control of the whole of Alfred C. Toepfer International GmbH (ACTI),
Germany, by way of purchase shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

(cid:151) ADM: procuring, processing and merchandising of agricultural products,

(cid:151) ACTI: wholesale/international trade with agricultural commodities.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within

3.
the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

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.2693 (cid:151) ADM/ACTI, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Directorate B (cid:151) Merger Task Force,
J-70,
B-1049 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/01 by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission. Toxicological tests.
Date: 2002-01-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: financing, human nutrition, testing, toxic substance, water, water analysis, water management

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/113

(2002/C 172 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Animal testing

Is the Commission taking steps to introduce new non-animal tests into Annex V of the Dangerous
Substances Directive in preparation for implementation of the chemicals policy?

What steps are being taken to ensure that the current process of validation and acceptance of new non-
animal tests is speeded up so that existing animal tests can be replaced in time for implementation of the
chemicals policy?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2002)

The Commission supports the development and validation of non-animal tests, in particular through the
work of the European Centre for Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM), a part of the Joint Research
Centre. Once such methods have been validated, they are then included into Annex V of Council Directive
67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions
relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (1). This effort will continue
both during the preparation of the new chemicals legislation and after it comes into force. Work is also
continuing on the revision of existing animal test methods in Annex V to reduce, where possible, the
number of animals used.

The progress on the validation of new non-animal test methods is under review, in order to establish
which methods will be available on the timescales referred to in the White Paper on a ‘Strategy for a future
Chemicals Policy’ (2).

(1) OJ P 196, 16.8.1967.
(2) COM(2001) 88 final.

(2002/C 172 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/01

by Nicholas Clegg (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 January 2002)

Subject: Toxicological tests

Has the Commission ever carried out or funded any toxicological testing to ascertain the safety of the
silicofluorides used in artificial water fluoridation schemes? If so, when were they carried out and what are
the results of the tests?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission has not carried out or funded toxicological testing on silicofluorides.

intended for human
Council Directive 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality of water
consumption (1) has fixed a maximum level for fluoride at 1,5 miligramm per liter; this level has been
established in line with the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines to protect human health.

(1) OJ L 330, 5.12.1998.