do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
List of Member States' authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with ionising radiation (According to Article 4(6) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation)
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: foodstuff, ionising radiation, irradiation, perishable goods

C 38/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.2.2002

List of Member States’ authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with
ionising radiation

(According to Article 4(6) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation)

(2002/C 38/05)

Authorised at the given maximum dose [kGy]

Product

Deep-frozen aromatic herbs

Potatoes

Yams

Onions

Garlic

Shallots

Vegetables, including pulses

Pulses

Fruit (including fungi, tomato, rhubarb)

Dried vegetables and fruits

Cereals

Flakes and germs of cereals for milk products

Flakes from cereals

Rice flour

Gum arabic

Chicken meat

Poultry

Poultry (domestic fowls, geese, ducks, guinea fowls, pigeons, quails, and
turkeys)

Mechanically recovered poultrymeat

Offal of chicken

Frozen frog legs

Dehydrated blood, plasma, coagulates

Fish and shellfish (including eels, crustaceans and molluscs)

Frozen peeled or decapitated shrimps

5

5

Shrimps

Egg white

Casein, caseinates

BE

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.15

FR

10

0.075

0.075

0.075

IT

NL

UK

0.15

0.15

0.15

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

1

2

1

7

3

1

1

1

3

7

5

3

3

1

10

4

3

5

5

5

5

10

5

3

6
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0443/02 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission. Andersen.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Court of Auditors, application of EU law, audit, auditing, award of contract, contract, private sector, provision of services, public contract

C 229 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/091)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0443/02

by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Andersen

The Andersen audit firm is heavily implicated in the Enron affair. Not long ago, reports appeared in the
European press to the effect that Andersen might also be implicated in affairs brought to light in the
United Kingdom.

Does Andersen provide services to the Commission, or has it done so in the past?

If so, exactly what contracts for what types of project did the Commission conclude with the firm in the
2000 and 2001 financial years?

Has the Commission taken steps to ensure that work carried out by Andersen is up to standard?

(2002/C 229 E/092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0450/02

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 February 2002)

Subject: Andersen

Following recent revelations and allegations in the USA and UK regarding the accountants and auditors
Andersen, would the Commission please clarify:

0 What is the total number and value of Commission contracts awarded to this company?

0 Was all work produced by this company for the Commission made publicly available and if not, why

not?

0 How does the total number and value of Commission contracts awarded to Andersen compare with
contracts awarded to comparable firms, specifically Accenture, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Ernst and
Young and Deloitte and Touche?

0 Which members of

the college of Commissioners, or their Cabinets, have held meetings with
representatives of Andersen or its advocates in the past five years, when did each of these meetings
occur, and was a record kept of the discussion?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0372/02, P-0443/02 and E-0450/02
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 April 2002)

Under Article 248 of the EC Treaty, the Court of Auditors is the sole external auditor of the Commission.
To this effect, it gives a statement of assurance as to the reliability of the accounts and the legality and
regularity of the underlying transactions. Thus the Commission, as opposed to private companies, does not
rely on private accounting firms to produce or audit its accounts.

But like many international and national public institutions, the Commission occasionally avails itself of
the services of private accountancy and consultancy firms to get their advice.

These contracts do not relate in general to accounting tasks; these are carried out by officials. The private
firms’ expertise constitutes technical input. The risk to the Community budget is limited as these advisory
services cover only some of the fields of activity carried out by the Commission. Where such companies
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0440/02 by Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Missing CAP funds in France.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU control, European Commission, France, administrative court, audit, common agricultural policy, fraud against the EU

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/87

Reply

(26 June 2002)

Article 33 TEU excludes that the Council intervenes in internal measures aimed at maintaining public order
or protecting internal security. It is thus not for the Council to take any position in respect to the issue
raised by the Honourable Member of the European Parliament.

(2002/C 229 E/097)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0440/02

by Neil Parish (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Missing CAP funds in France

There have been reports that an official French audit of the common agricultural policy by the French
Audit Office revealed a ‘secret, uncontrolled system of agricultural subsidies that is open to abuse and is
rarely penalised even when detected’, with much of the money going to activities other than agriculture.
Moreover, it has been reported that one-third of all subsidies are inflated or wrong as a result of mistakes
or fraud and that only one-fifth of these sums are ever recovered.

Could the Commission please verify the validity of this audit? How can it justify this atrocious behaviour
towards European taxpayers, and how does it plan to rectify this gross injustice? How can such a large
amount of money be so fraudulently used by the largest recipient of CAP funds?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission is also aware of the audit report of the French Court of auditors (Audit Office) on the
management of agricultural subsidies in France to which the Honourable Member makes reference. The
audit report in question does raise criticism of the French administration in a number of areas. The
Commission is in the process of examining the report in more detail. However, no confirmation of the
points raised by the Honourable Member has been found.

The Commission wishes to bring to the Honourable Member’s attention that
the
Commission charged with the audit of agricultural expenditure (formerly the clearance of accounts) has
carried out a substantial number of missions in France over the years. In addition, an independent French
body, the CCCOP, carries out a detailed annual examination of the European Agricultural Guidance and
Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Guarantee expenditure in France,
including the re-examination of several
hundred individual claims per year.

the service of

These controls have, over the years,
identified a number of different problems in the control system
operated in France for EAGGF Guarantee and these have led to financial corrections imposed on France in
the clearance of accounts process, totalling around € 457 million since 1994.

The Commission uses the various published reports as a part of its risk analysis when planning audit
missions to the Member States.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/02 by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission. State aid for industries establishing themselves in the Czech Republic.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Czechia, State aid, aid to undertakings, competition, control of State aid, investment aid

C 52 E/6

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

(2003/C 52 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0439/02

by Joachim Wuermeling (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: State aid for industries establishing themselves in the Czech Republic

According to press reports, the government of the Czech Republic is offering the prospect of major
advantages in return for investment. It is alleged that negotiations are currently in progress with some
50 companies wishing to establish themselves in the Czech Republic near the German border.

Total investments of some EUR 300 million are said to be at stake.

The Czech government is reportedly offering the following advantages:

(cid:1) for every job created costs up to a level of EUR 6 000 will be borne for 18 months;

(cid:1) 35 % of outlay will be paid for every person retrained;

(cid:1) the companies will be exempt from corporation tax for 10 years;

(cid:1) developed industrial plots will be sold at ‘token’ prices well below their true value;

(cid:1) import duties on high-grade technology will be waived.

Is the Commission aware of this?

Are these subsidies consistent with the association agreement and,
membership?

later,

the obligations of EU

What does the Commission envisage doing?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

the issues related to investment
The Commission is aware of
Honourable Member and is taking appropriate monitoring actions.

incentives which are raised by the

The Commission monitors the regulation of investment incentives within the framework of the accession
negotiations, as part of ensuring the Czech Republic’s alignment with Community state aid rules, as well as
the enforcement of these rules by the Czech Office for Protection of Economic Competition.

Commission monitoring aims to establish whether state aid which has actually been given, in the form of
investment incentives, has first been properly notified to the Competition Office, and whether the Office
has duly applied the rules of the acquis. This monitoring is currently ongoing.

The Commission can assure the Honourable Member that press reports such as those examples cited by
the Honourable Member, are taken up with the Office and verified.

Any issues of compatibility with the acquis, which might arise in this context may be discussed in detail
with the Czech authorities, using the consultation mechanisms foreseen by the Europe Agreement.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/02 by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Council, European Investment Bank, European Investment Fund, aid to undertakings, financial instrument, micro-enterprise, new technology, report, small and medium-sized enterprises

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/35

The Commission is aware that Malta’s special geographical situation makes it a particularly important place
of transit for birds migrating between Europe and North Africa.

In the course of the accession negotiations the Commission asked Malta for additional information on the
implementation of the ‘Habitats Directive’, and will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that it is
actually applied. It has also asked Malta to give detailed information on its timetable for the transposition
and implementation of the Directive on the conservation. It is following developments in this area closely.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2002/C 277 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0322/02

by John Purvis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Preparations for the European Council meeting in Barcelona

The 2000 Lisbon European Council asked ‘the Council and the Commission to report by the end of 2000
on the ongoing review of EIB and EIF financial instruments in order to redirect funding towards support
for business start-ups, high-tech firms and micro-enterprises, as well as other risk-capital
initiatives
proposed by the EIB’. Did it so report?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Yes, the Commission prepared together with the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the European
Investment Fund (EIF) a Commission communication called ‘Review of specific Community financial
instruments for SMEs’ (1). The Ecofin Council of 7 November 2000 welcomed this communication.

(1) COM(2000) 653 final.

(2002/C 277 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0348/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Destruction by Israel of EU investments in Palestinian territory

European investments to the value of 17 million euro have already been destroyed by Israeli attacks on
Palestinian territory. The absolute limits of pure cynicism are reached with the unremitting accusation by
the Israel government against the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat that they are not moving
repressively enough against Hamas and Jihad terrorists. It is precisely the Israelis who are deliberately
destroying all the Palestinians’ means of deploying repressive and preventive measures for the purpose of
reining in violence and terrorism.

Can the Commission state if it will support moves to demand that Israel refund the monies paid?

The Council should do more than just ask Israel to explain how destroying civilian infrastructures can help
to combat terrorism. The Council must impose damages so as to sent a clear political signal to Sharon that
he is making a strategic miscalculation.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2641 — Posten/DSV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 38/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.2.2002

Member State

Reference number, name, address

Further details of approval

Approved irradiation facilities

LU

NL

None

60Co-gamma irradiation:

(a) Reference No: GZB/VVB-991503 and

GZB/VVB-991393

Gammaster BV
Morsestraat 3
Ede

(b) Reference No: GZB/VVB-991503 and

PT

SV

UK

GZB/VVB-991393

Gammaster BV
Soevereinsestraat 2
Etten-Leur

None

None

60Co-gamma irradiation:

Reference No: EW/04

Isotron plc
Moray Road
Elgin Industrial Estate
Swindon
Wiltshire SN2 6DU

Approved for treatment of dried fruits, pulses, dehydrated
vegetables,
flakes from cereals, herbs, spices, shrimps,
poultry, frog legs, gum arabic, food additives, flavourings
and egg products in accordance with Article 7(2) of
Directive 1999/2/EC

Approval for certain herbs and spices in accordance with
Article 7(2) of Directive 1999/2/EC

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2641 (cid:151) Posten/DSV)

(2002/C 38/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 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 301M2641. 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.
Application for negative clearance (Case COMP/38.327/D-1 — Notification of an electronic "B2B" trading platform) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, electronic commerce, financial transaction, inter-company agreement

C 38/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.2.2002

Application for negative clearance

(Case COMP/38.327/D-1 (cid:151) Notification of an electronic (cid:145)B2B(cid:146) trading platform)

(2002/C 38/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 21 December 2001 the Commission received a notification of agreements pursuant to Article 4
of Council Regulation No 17 by which Centradia Group Limited, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, SociØtØ
GØnØrale SA, Banco Santander Central Hispano SA and Sampaolo IMI SpA, establish an electronic
(cid:145)business-to-business(cid:146)
trading platform, called Centradia. The electronic trading platform is based in
London, England. The object of the platform is to widen the ability of the participating banks to offer
a range of foreign exchange services to their commercial customers. If proven successful, the parties intend
to extend the range of products offered. Centradia will also exploit the know-how and other intellectual
property rights that underlies the trading platform, through Centradia Services Limited, one of Centradia ’s
sister companies.

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

2.
scope of Regulation 17.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit

3.
proposed operation.

their possible observations on the

4.
Observations must reach the Commission not later than 15 days following the date of this publi-
cation. Interested third parties are requested to indicate which passages of their observations contain
business secrets or other confidential material, which in their opinion ought not to be divulged, and to
state their reasons. In the event of such an indication being made, interested parties are requested to
submit both a confidential and a non-confidential version of their observations. Submissions can be sent to
the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 98 07) or by post under reference number COMP/38.327/D-1 (cid:151)
Centradia Group Ltd & Others, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Directorate D (cid:151) Financial Services Unit D-1,
Office 2/221,
J-70,
B-1049 Brussels.
Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2542/2001 of 21 December 2001 opening tariff quotas for the year 2002 for imports into the European Community of products originating in the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria (OJ L 341 of 22.12.2001)
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Central and Eastern Europe, foodstuff, import, originating product, processed food product, tariff quota

L 40/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

12.2.2002

CORRIGENDA

Corrigendum to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2542/2001 of 21 December 2001 opening tariff quotas for the
year 2002 for imports into the European Community of products originating in the Czech Republic, Slovakia,
Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria

(Official Journal of the European Communities L 341 of 22 December 2001)

On page 93, footnote 2 of the CN code 2203 00:

for:

‘The quota is applicable only in the period 1 June to 30 June 2002.’,

read:

‘The quota is applicable only in the period 1 January to 30 June 2002.’.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2732 — Société Générale/Fiditalia) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, consumer credit, credit institution, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control

12.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 38/21

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2732 (cid:151) SociØtØ GØnØrale/Fiditalia)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2002/C 38/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 February 2002 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
1.
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 (2),
by which the undertaking SociØtØ GØnØrale SA (SociØtØ GØnØrale, France) acquires, within the meaning of
Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation, control of the whole of the undertaking Fiditalia SpA (Fiditalia, Italy) by
way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

(cid:151) SociØtØ GØnØrale: full service bank of international dimension (retail banking including consumer credit;

asset management and private banking; investment banking and corporate finance),

(cid:151) Fiditalia: consumer credit services in Italy.

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.2732 (cid:151) SociØtØ GØnØrale/Fiditalia, 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.
(3) OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/02 by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission. Problems encountered by citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany when passing through the Republic of Bulgaria — specific information and witness statements.
Date: 2002-02-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Bulgaria, Germany, transit

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/249

(2002/C 147 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/02

by Ozan Ceyhun (PSE) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Problems encountered by citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany when passing through the

Republic of Bulgaria ’ specific information and witness statements

In connection with my question H-0793/01 and the Commission’s reply of 13 November 2001, the
Commission asked me to provide further information and details in order to assess the situation more
accurately.

I am now sending the Commission detailed information and witness statements under separate cover. I
would like to combine this with asking the Commission how, in the light of these new facts, it intends to
proceed vis-à-vis the Republic of Bulgaria as regards compliance with the Copenhagen criteria.

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.