do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2686 — DMData/Stralfors/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 49/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.2.2002

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2686 (cid:151) DMData/Stralfors/JV)

(2002/C 49/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 7 February 2002 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 302M2686. 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.

Inapplicability of the Regulation to a notified operation

(Case COMP/M.2638 (cid:151) 3i/Consors/100 World)

(2002/C 49/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 December 2001, the Commission decided that the notified operation in the above case does not fall
within the scope of the application of the Merger Regulation because it does not constitute a concentration
within the meaning of Article 3 of the said Regulation. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(a) of the
Merger Regulation. The full text of the decision is available only in German 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 of Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

(cid:151) in electronic form in the (cid:145)CDE(cid:146) version of the CELEX database, under document number 301M2638.

CELEX is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 338/2002 of 22 February 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain European third countries, in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2008/2001
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Europe, award of contract, export, export refund, rice

L 53/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 338/2002

of 22 February 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled medium grain and long grain A rice to be
exported to certain European third countries, in connection with the invitation to tender issued in
Regulation (EC) No 2008/2001

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22
December 1995 on the common organization of the market in
rice (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1987/2001 (2),
and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the rice in question results
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
the
amount specified in Article 1.

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was
issued pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
2008/2001 (3).

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/
75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 299/95 (5),
allows the Commission to fix, in accordance with the
procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders submitted, a
maximum export refund. In fixing this maximum, the
criteria provided for in Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No
3072/95 must be taken into account. A contract is
awarded to any tenderer whose tender is equal to or less
than the maximum export refund.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled medium grain
and long grain A rice to be exported to certain European third
countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regula-
tion (EC) No 2008/2001 is hereby fixed on the basis of the
tenders
submitted from 15 to 21 February 2002 at
212,00 EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 February 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 271, 12.10.2001, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 272, 13.10.2001, p. 15.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2724 — Royal Bank Private Equity/Cinven/Ambion) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, building materials, economic concentration, exchange of information, financial institution, merger control

22.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 49/13

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2724 (cid:151) Royal Bank Private Equity/Cinven/Ambion)

(2002/C 49/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 12 February 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 United Kingdom-based undertakings Royal Bank Private Equity Limited (RBPE), belonging to
the Royal Bank of Scotland plc group, and Cinven Limited (Cinven), controlled by the Cinven Group
Limited, acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation,
joint control of the United
Kingdom-based undertaking Ambion Brick Company Limited (Ambion), currently controlled by RBPE, by
way of purchase of shares in a newly created company constituting a joint venture, Galileo Brick Limited
(Galileo).

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

(cid:151) RBPE: banking, financial and finance-related,

(cid:151) Cinven: investment management services,

(cid:151) Ambion: manufacture and supply of bricks.

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.2724 (cid:151) Royal Bank Private Equity/Cinven/Ambion, 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-0363/02 by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Human rights issues in Vietnam.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, Viet Nam, human rights, religious discrimination

C 229 E/80

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that the organisation of such a service does not come
within its sphere of competence.

(2002/C 229 E/088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0363/02

by Eurig Wyn (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Human rights issues in Vietnam

People of faith in Vietnam are suffering oppression by State authorities. Pastor Nguyen Hong Quang, who
chairs the Administrative Committee of the Vietnamese Evangelical Mennonite denomination and runs
many projects to help the poor and destitute, has been subjected to frequent intimidation and persecution.
This is an attempt by the State authorities to dissuade the Pastor and his groups from conducting both
religious and social activities.

In October 2001 Pastor Quang was given an ultimatum to cease his church activities out of his home/
centre in Binh Khanh ward of Ho Chi Minh City.

Will the Council agree that in light of this, Article 18 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights And
The International Covenant On Civil And Political Rights, giving citizens the right to enjoy the basic rights
of human freedom of religion, expression and association are not being respected?

Will the Council therefore agree that steps should be taken to ensure that every Vietnamese citizen can
expect to enjoy these basic human rights?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to question E-0145/02 put by Christine De
Veyrac,
in
particular in the case of Vietnam.

in which it reiterated its position of principle as regards respect for the rights concerned,

Furthermore, the Council informs the Honourable Member that the EU Human Rights Working Group
based in Hanoi raised Pastor Quang’s case with the Vietnamese government on 5 March at its official
dialogue on human rights meeting.

(2002/C 229 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0370/02

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 February 2002)

Subject: Improving the coordination of the Northern Dimension with the sixth Framework Programme on

Research and Development

The maintenance of the balance of the EU’s regional development calls for equal investment in all EU
regions. The Northern Dimension is an important political initiative for the promotion of cooperation
between the EU’s northern areas and the states in the Baltic Sea region. In order to obtain the greatest
benefit, the EU’s various programmes should work together more effectively with one another.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to improve coordination between the Northern
Dimension initiative and existing EU programmes, particularly the 6th Framework Programme on
Research and Development?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

22.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 49/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 February 2002

(2002/C 49/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4298

Danish krone

9,1314

Swedish krona

0,6105

Pound sterling

0,8701

United States dollar

1,3823

Canadian dollar

116,79

Japanese yen

1,4793

Swiss franc

7,7375

Norwegian krone

87,91

Icelandic kr(cid:243)na (2)

1,6883

Australian dollar

2,081

New Zealand dollar

9,9539

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2223 — Getronics/Hagemeyer/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

22.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 49/17

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2625 (cid:151) B.Braun/Acordis/MAT)

(2002/C 49/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 11 February 2002 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 German 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)CDE(cid:146) version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2625. 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.2223 (cid:151) Getronics/Hagemeyer/JV)

(2002/C 49/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 April 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 301M2223. 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.2625 — B.Braun/Acordis/MAT) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

22.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 49/17

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2625 (cid:151) B.Braun/Acordis/MAT)

(2002/C 49/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 11 February 2002 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 German 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)CDE(cid:146) version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2625. 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.2223 (cid:151) Getronics/Hagemeyer/JV)

(2002/C 49/16)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 2 April 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 301M2223. 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-0496/02 by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission. Impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the Canary Islands.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Canary Islands, FIFG, aquaculture, environmental impact, environmental protection, fishing industry, impact study, inshore fishing

C 205 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Commission accept that the Directive requires unnecessary or inappropriate designation of sensitive zones:
the identification and designation of such zones constitutes one of the primary tools for reducing pollution
in a targeted and balanced way.

(1) Source: European Economic Area (EEA)).
(2) OJ L 375, 31.12.1991.

(2002/C 205 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0496/02

by Manuel Medina Ortega (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the Canary Islands

In view of possible incompatibilities in the use of sea areas and coastal waters, can the Commission
provide information on the research carried out into the impact of aquaculture on coastal fishing in the
Canary Islands? Can it also provide information on aid granted under the FIFG during the period
1994-1999 and during the current programming period for the fishing industry in the Canaries, with a
breakdown of the amounts for aquaculture and for coastal fishing? What checks does the Commission
carry out on compliance with protection requirements? With what resources have these activities been co-
financed by the Spanish authorities?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 March 2002)

The Commission has not carried out any studies on the impact of aquaculture on inshore fishing in the
Canary Islands, and it is not aware of any research into this matter.

The Commission does have information on aid granted under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries
Guidance (FIFG) to aquaculture in the Canary Islands in the 1994-1999 and 2000-2006 programming
periods. However, there are no separate figures for aid to small-scale coastal fishing, since the data refer to
aggregate aid to the fishing fleet as a whole under the measures implementing the FIFG programme.

The figures for 1994-1999 are as follows:

8 Aquaculture: € 1 802 079;

8 Fishing fleet: € 27 571 500.

As regards the period 2000-2006, by 30 September 2001 the Canary Islands authorities had made no
payment for either aquaculture or the fleet.

The protection requirements referred to by the Honourable Member are unclear. The Commission does not
directly monitor compliance with such requirements;
it is up to the Member States to check on the
application of regional planning provisions in accordance with national law.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Carriers' liability.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, EU migration policy, border control, illegal migration, international human rights law, liability, right of asylum, rights of aliens, transport company

C 301 E/44

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

On 1 October 2001, the Austrian Constitutional Court declared that the country’s carriers’ liability law was
unconstitutional and therefore null and void. The Austrian Supreme Court noted that carriers were
delegated a number of tasks normally performed by officials at immigration desks and that it was therefore
not clear how they could avoid depriving asylum-seekers of their right to claim protection as guaranteed
under the 1951 Geneva Convention.

Taking these factors into consideration, does the European Commission still support the views expressed
by Commissioner Vitorino in favour of carriers’ liability legislation?

(2002/C 301 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0489/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Does the European Commission consider that it is realistically possible for Member States to have adopted
carriers’ liability laws and, at the same time, respect the obligations to which they subscribed under the
1951 Geneva Convention which give asylum-seekers the right to claim protection?

(2002/C 301 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

is the European Commission’s opinion on the view that

there is no difference between an
What
immigration official repatriating an asylum-seeker to his own country, where he faces persecution, and an
airline’s refusal to allow him to board a flight because of the possibility of fines being imposed on the
airline under carriers’ liability legislation?

(2002/C 301 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0491/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

instead of curbing the activities of immigrant
Does the European Commission share the view that,
smugglers or the flow of irregular migration or asylum-seekers as was intended, carriers’ liability laws have
resulted in some cases of traffickers making use of more ingenious and often dangerous methods,
benefiting from higher fees charged, thereby contributing to an increasing number of deaths of irregular
migrants or asylum-seekers?

(2002/C 301 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0492/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ libaility

Is the European Commission aware of the numerous bona fide travellers, even EU nationals of European
origin, who are subjected to lengthy checks and interrogation as a result of the carriers’ liability laws and
who may even be refused the right to board their flight, despite the fact that they hold valid travel
documents?