do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/02 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?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Compensation from Israel for the destruction of EU projects.
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU relations, Israel, Palestine, diplomatic relations, economic situation, indemnification, military intervention

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/137

(2002/C 205 E/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0420/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Package of measures to reduce live animal exports

(21 February 2002)

EU livestock export refunds have been repeatedly criticised for encouraging the transport of live animals to
non-Community countries under horrific conditions.

What measures is the Commission prepared to adopt to reduce, and in the longer term abolish, the export
of live animals to non-Community countries?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0418/02 and E-0420/02
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 April 2002)

The total amount of export refunds paid in 2001 for livestock exports was € 44,4 million (1). In recent
years subsidies paid for cattle traded for slaughtering were reduced significantly from 60,50 €/100
kilogram (kg) (in 1999) to 41,00 €/100 kg (−32 %). The export refund for breeding cattle was reduced
from 63,00 €/100kg to 53,00 €/100 kg (−16 %).

Concerning the measures to reduce live animal exports, the Commission would refer the Honourable
Member to its answer to written question P-0480/02 by Mr de Rossa (2). (It should be noted that the report
of the Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare on the welfare of animals during
transport was adopted on 11 March 2002.)

(1) Based upon licences requested for Gatt year 2000/2001.
(2) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 220.

(2002/C 205 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0424/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(22 February 2002)

Subject: Compensation from Israel for the destruction of EU projects

How does the Council intend to exert pressure on Israel to pay for the damage it has caused to EU-funded
Palestinian projects? Would international sanctions and trade embargoes be a way of making Israel pay
compensation for the damage it has caused?

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the reply to Written Question 0112/02 put by Emilio
Menéndez del Valle on the same subject.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 340/2002 of 22 February 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2010/2001
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, export refund, rice, third country

L 53/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 340/2002

of 22 February 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled long grain rice in connection with the
invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2010/2001

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 organisation 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
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
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
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
issued pursuant
2010/2001 (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 long grain rice
to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invita-
tion to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2010/2001 is
hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 15 to
21 February 2002 at 297,00 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. 19.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Commission Directive 95/13/EC — April 2001 (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, energy consumption, household electrical appliance, technical standard

C 49/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.2.2002

Commission communication in the framework of

the implementation of

the Commission

Directive 95/13/EC

April 2001

(2002/C 49/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

ESO (1)

Reference and title of the standards

Reference document

Reference of the
superseded standard

Date of cessation of use of the
superseded standard
Note 1

Cenelec

EN 61121:1999

Tumble dryers for household use (cid:151) Methods for
measuring the performance

IEC 61121:1997
(modified)

Amendent A11:2000 to EN 61121:1999

EN 61121:1993
+A11:1995
Note 2.1

Note 3

Date expired
(1.10.1999)

Date expired
(1.1.2001)

(1) ESO: (European standardisation organisation):

(cid:151) CEN: rue de Stassart/Stassartstraat 36, B-1050 Brussels; tel. (32-2) 550 08 11 fax (32-2) 550 08 19 http://www.cenorm.be;
(cid:151) Cenelec: rue de Stassart/Stassartstraat 35, B-1050 Brussels; tel. (32-2) 519 68 71, fax (32-2) 519 69 19 http://www.cenelec.org;
(cid:151) ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, tel. (33-4) 92 94 42 00, fax (33-4) 93 65 47 16 http://www.etsi.org.

Note 1: Generally the date of cessation of use will be the date of withdrawal

(dow), set by the European standardisation
organisation, but attention of users of these standards is drawn to the fact that in certain exceptional cases this can be
otherwise.

Note 2.1: The new (or amended) standard has the same scope as the superseded standard. On the date stated, the superseded

standard cannot be used any longer in the context of the Directive.

Note 3:

In case of amendments, the referenced standard is EN CCCCC:YYYY, its previous amendments, if any, and the new, quoted
amendment. The superseded standard (column 4) therefore consists of EN CCCCC:YYYY and its previous amendments, if
any, but without the new quoted amendment. On the date stated, the superseded standard ceases to give presumption of
conformity with the essential requirements of the Directive.

Example: For EN 61121:1999, the following applies:

Cenelec

EN 61121:1999

Tumble dryers for household use (cid:151) Methods for
measuring the performance
(The referenced standard is EN 61121:1999)

IEC 61121:1997
(modified)

Amendment A11:2000 to EN 61121:1999

(The referenced standard is EN 61121:1999+
A11:2000 to EN 61121:1999)

Date expired
(1.10.1999)

EN 61121:1993
and it amendment
Note 2.1
(The superseded standard
is EN 61121:1993
+A11:1995 to
EN 61121:1993)

Note 3
(The superseded standard
is EN 61121:1999)

Date expired
(1.1.2001)
Commission Regulation (EC) No 337/2002 of 22 February 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2007/2001
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, export refund, rice, third country

23.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 53/13

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 337/2002

of 22 February 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain rice in connection with the
invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2007/2001

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 organisation 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
the
in the maximum export refund being fixed at
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
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
issued pursuant
2007/2001 (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 round grain rice
to be exported to certain third countries pursuant to the invita-
tion to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2007/2001 is
hereby fixed on the basis of the tenders submitted from 15 to
21 February 2002 at 193,00 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. 13.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 339/2002 of 22 February 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 2009/2001
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export, export refund, rice, third country

23.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 53/15

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 339/2002

of 22 February 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A
rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in
Regulation (EC) No 2009/2001

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 organisation 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
2009/2001 (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 grain, medium
grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third
countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regula-
tion (EC) No 2009/2001 is hereby fixed on the basis of the
tenders
submitted from 15 to 21 February 2002 at
203,00 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. 17.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 35, 15.2.1995, p. 8.
2002/163/EC: Commission Decision of 22 February 2002 concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Luxembourg (Text with EEA relevance) (notified under document number C(2002) 671)
Date: 2002-02-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Luxembourg, animal plague, health certificate, swine, transport of animals, veterinary inspection

L 53/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

23.2.2002

concerning certain protection measures relating to classical swine fever in Luxembourg

COMMISSION DECISION

of 22 February 2002

(notified under document number C(2002) 671)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2002/163/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Article 2

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June
1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable
in intra-Community trade in certain live animals and products
with a view to the completion of the internal market (1), as last
amended by Council Directive 92/118/EEC (2) and, in partic-
ular, Article 10(3) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

Outbreaks of classical swine fever have occurred in
Luxembourg.

Luxembourg has taken measures within the framework
of Council Directive 2001/89/EC of 23 October 2001,
on Community measures for the control of classical
swine fever (3).

These outbreaks are liable to endanger the herds of the
Members States. Certain additional measures on move-
ments and dispatch of pigs and certain pig products
from, within and through Luxembourg are therefore
appropriate.

The measures provided for in this Decision are in
accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary
Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Luxembourg shall ensure that no pigs, porcine semen, ova or
embryos are dispatched from its territory and that transit of
vehicles transporting pigs through Luxembourg is prohibited.

Luxembourg shall ensure that no pigs are moved within

1.
its territory unless the pigs:

(a) have been resident on the holding of origin for at least 30

days prior to loading, and

(b) are directly transported to a slaughterhouse for immediate

slaughter.

2.
The movements of pigs to a slaughterhouse referred to in
paragraph 1 shall only be allowed following a specific author-
isation of the competent authorities of Luxembourg.

Article 3

Luxembourg shall ensure that vehicles which have been used
for the transport of pigs are cleaned and disinfected after each
operation and the transporter shall
furnish proof of such
disinfection.

Article 4

The Member States shall amend the measures they apply to
trade so as to bring them into compliance with this Decision.
They shall

immediately inform the Commission thereof.

Article 5

This Decision shall be reviewed before 10 March 2002. It is
applicable until 15 March 2002.

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Article 6

Done at Brussels, 22 February 2002.

For the Commission

David BYRNE

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 224, 18.8.1990, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 62, 15.3.1993, p. 49.
(3) OJ L 316, 1.12.2001, p. 5.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0489/02 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?