do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2688 — ODS/IHC Holland/Metalix JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, economic concentration, exchange of information, mechanical engineering, merger control, metal product

C 52/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

27.2.2002

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2688 (cid:151) ODS/IHC Holland/Metalix JV)

(2002/C 52/04)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 19 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 ODS BV (ODS), controlled by Kl(cid:246)ckner & Co. AG, part of the Balli group (D) and IHC Holland
NV (IHC), belonging to IHC Caland Group (NL), acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
Regulation, joint control of Metalix BV (NL) by way of purchase of shares in a newly created company
constituting a joint venture.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

(cid:151) ODS: distribution of metal products,

(cid:151) IHC: manufacture of dredging and other machinery,

(cid:151) Metalix: steel processing.

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.2688 (cid:151) ODS/IHC Holland/Metalix JV, 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.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2669 — VTG/Warburg/Brambles European Railway Division (ERD)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, bank, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control, transport company

27.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 52/7

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2669 (cid:151) VTG/Warburg/Brambles European Railway Division (ERD))

(2002/C 52/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 18 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 undertaking VTG-Lehnkering AG (VTG, Germany), controlled by Hapag Lloyd (Germany)
and the undertaking M.M. Warburg & Co. KgaA (Warburg, Deutschland), acquire, within the meaning of
Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation, joint control of the undertaking Brambles European Rail Division (ERD,
Germany) by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

(cid:151) VTG: logistics, transport services, tourism,

(cid:151) Warburg: banking,

(cid:151) ERD: railway logistics.

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.2669 (cid:151) VTG/Warburg/Brambles European Railway Division (ERD), 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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 360/2002 of 27 February 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

28.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 58/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 360/2002

of 27 February 2002

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

In compliance with the above criteria,
the standard
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1498/98 (2), and in particular
Article 4(1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
standard values for imports from third countries,
in
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 February 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 198, 15.7.1998, p. 4.

L 58/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

28.2.2002

to the Commission Regulation of 27 February 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the
entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 10 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 50 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
212
624
999
052
068
624
628
999
220
999
052
204
999
052
204
212
220
421
508
600
624
999
204
999

052
204
528
600
624
662
999
052
600
999
060
388
400
404
508
528
720
728
999
388
400
512
528
720
999

144,8
146,5
143,5
212,2
161,8
189,7
130,1
237,7
171,8
182,3
223,0
223,0
159,3
75,7
117,5
53,4
48,6
54,8
56,3
29,6
22,3
59,5
60,8
48,2
77,7
77,7

64,1
96,2
97,8
108,4
86,5
27,1
80,0
55,2
49,6
52,4
41,6
126,2
121,8
93,5
101,1
82,8
122,8
130,0
102,5
89,1
107,1
84,5
80,3
116,7
95,5

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2020/2001 (OJ L 273, 16.10.2001, p. 6). Code ‘999’ stands for ‘of

other origin’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/02 by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council. State of the Union address given by President Bush on 29 January 2002.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, European Union, United States, head of State, speech, terrorism

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/91

(2002/C 229 E/102)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0468/02

by Bob van den Bos (ELDR) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: State of the Union address given by President Bush on 29 January 2002

What is the reaction of the Council to the State of the Union address which the President of the United
States gave on 29 January 2002?

On what points does the Council share the opinion of the American President, on what issues does it
disagree with Mr Bush, and why?

Does it share my concern that no reference at all was made to the European Union in the address? If so,
what will it do to address this issue? If not, why not?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The EU’s reaction after deplorable events of 11 September 2001 was swift and efficient, and highly
appreciated by the United States. In trying to prevent a repetition of those despicable actions, the approach
of the Union has been to try to ensure greater security for the well-being of all while respecting the
fundamental freedoms which form the basis of our civilisation.

The Council did not take a position on President Bush’s State of the Union address, which was primarily
addressed to an American audience. The EU shares the US preoccupations on international terrorism, the
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the potential spillover of regional conflicts. This does not
mean that the Council always agrees with the United States on how to handle a particular situation. Where
there is no agreement, the differences should be discussed calmly and rationally.

The Council has welcomed the recognition by President Bush in his speech of 11 March 2002 of the
including those of the European Union, in the fight
important contribution of many other countries,
against terrorism.

(2002/C 229 E/103)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0469/02

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Use of EU safety marks for the promotion of weapons of torture

I am told that, since 1990, electro-shock devices have been used to torture or ill-treat people in prisons,
detention centres and police stations in at least 76 countries, in every region of the world. It seems that
several stun weapon manufacturers are advertising that their products have been ‘awarded’ the European
CE standard mark and European guarantee.

1.

How many stun weapon manufacturers are using the CE mark on their products?

2. Which EU Member States are effectively allowing stun weapon manufacturers to use the European
Commission’s CE safety marks on their stun weapons as a quality selling point?

Can the Council clarify the process by which European CE standard marks are awarded to stun

3.
weapon manufacturers?
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

27.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 52/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

26 February 2002

(2002/C 52/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4316

Danish krone

9,0649

Swedish krona

0,6092

Pound sterling

0,8682

United States dollar

1,3939

Canadian dollar

116,38

Japanese yen

1,4761

Swiss franc

7,735

Norwegian krone

87,54

Icelandic kr(cid:243)na (2)

1,6891

Australian dollar

2,077

New Zealand dollar

9,9261

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/02 by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Political trial of the journalist Dede Abdulhalim in Greece.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, communications profession, freedom of expression, freedom of the press, penalty

C 229 E/92

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

4.

Does the Council consider that CE safety marks on stun weapons are a quality selling point?

Does the Council consider that action should be taken to prevent stun weapon manufacturers from

5.
using the CE mark to promote the sale of their products?

Reply

(26 June 2002)

The Council invites the Honourable Member to put her question directly to the Commission.

(2002/C 229 E/104)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0483/02

by Nelly Maes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Political trial of the journalist Dede Abdulhalim in Greece

Recently, legal proceedings have been brought against a number of democratic journalists in Greece. One
example is the prosecution and conviction of Dede Abdulhalim of Komotini
in Thrace, a journalist
specialising in minority affairs and proprietor of the newspaper Trakianin Sesi and of the local radio
station ISIK FM.

The circumstances were as follows. On 14 January 2000, during a music programme on the local radio
station ISIK FM, a piece of music was broadcast at the request of a listener who identified himself as
Boskurt (Grey Wolf). Next day, a complaint was lodged against the journalist because of this request. The
accusation was that the request referred to the Turkish-based extreme right-wing organisation the ‘Grey
Wolves’, which was described as a ‘criminal act’ and a ‘national betrayal of Greece’. The recording of the
broadcast in question proves that only the name of the listener, Mr Boskurt (Grey Wolf), was mentioned
without any further details.

On 25 February 2000, Mr Karaiskos brought proceedings against Mr Dede Abdulhalim before the court of
Komotini for alleged ‘insulting behaviour’. The case was heard on 6 September 2001. The judge decided by
judgment No 1 071 to sentence Mr Dede in absentia to four months’ imprisonment. The appeal is to be
heard on 12 February 2002 at the Appeal Court in Komotini.

Is the Council aware of this case?

Did these proceedings respect the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press?

Will the Council request information about this from the Member State concerned?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Council can inform the Honourable Member that it is unaware of the facts of this case and that in any
case, it has no authority to comment on judicial decisions.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/02 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Abolition of access fees at airports.
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, airport, charges for use of infrastructure, ground handling, market access, provision of services, transport company, transport infrastructure

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/1

I

(Information)

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER

(2004/C 65 E/001)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0547/02

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2002)

Subject: Abolition of access fees at airports

A large part of the aviation industry considers that paying airports further fees in addition to rent and
other airport charges, as agents and self-handling users must do to obtain a concession to provide ground
handling services, is unfair and excessive.

Lufthansa has succeeded in having the access fee abolished by judgment of a German court. Air France is
reportedly moving in the same direction.

Can the Commission comment on the German court judgment?

Does it intend to take a legislative initiative in this respect?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(17 April 2002)

The Honourable Member seems to refer to the Order of the Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court) of
Frankfurt am Main which was issued in 2001 in the legal proceedings between Hannover-Langenhagen
Airport and Lufthansa.

The issue between the two parties in this case is whether Hannover airport is entitled to require Lufthansa
to pay an access fee in respect of its check-in services on a self-handling basis for its passengers, and as a
supplier of such services for passengers of other airlines.

The Order does not contain a decision on the issue but it stays the proceedings and puts a number of
questions before the Court of Justice of the European Communities for a preliminary ruling under
Article 234 of the EC Treaty. These questions refer to the interpretation of Council Directive 96/67/EC of
15 October 1996 on access to the groundhandling market at Community airports (1), and essentially ask
the Court of Justice to clarify whether and to what extent the access fee can be levied from self handlers
and third party handlers which were already present at an airport before the entry into force of the
Directive.

The case was registered by the Court of Justice on 24 September 2001 and the Commission submitted its
observations on the case to the Court on 14 January 2002.

Regarding this particular issue no legislative initiative is envisaged, but the Commission will undertake a
comprehensive review of the Directive in 2003 which may lead to proposals for modifications of parts of
the Directive.

(1) OJ L 272, 25.10.1996.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 361/2002 of 27 February 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 936/97 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat
Date: 2002-02-27
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Canada, beef, buffalo meat, import licence, product quality, tariff quota

28.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 58/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 361/2002

of 27 February 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 936/97 opening and providing for the administration of tariff quotas
for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and for frozen buffalo meat

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17
May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef
and veal (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 2345/2001 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/97 of
27 May 1997 opening and providing for the administration of
tariff quotas for high-quality fresh, chilled and frozen beef and
for frozen buffalo meat (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 134/1999 (4), and in particular Article 7(2) thereof,

Whereas:

Canada has designated a new authority empowered to issue
certificates of authenticity. Annex II to Regulation (EC) No
936/97 should therefore be amended accordingly,

Article 1

In Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 936/97, the authority called
‘Food Production and Inspection Branch — Agriculture
Canada, Direction Générale “Production et
inspection des
aliments” — Agriculture Canada’
is hereby replaced by the
‘Canadian Food Inspection Agency — Government of Canada/
Agence canadienne d'inspection des aliments — Gouvernement
du Canada’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 28 February 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 27 February 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 315, 1.12.2001, p. 29.
(3) OJ L 137, 28.5.1997, p. 10.
(4) OJ L 17, 22.1.1999, p. 22.