do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2734 — Sanmina-SCI/Alcatel) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

17.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 91/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2757 — BC Partners/Galbani)

(2002/C 91/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 27 March 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:

— as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

— in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2757. 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.2734 — Sanmina-SCI/Alcatel)

(2002/C 91/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 21 March 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:

— as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

— in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2734. 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.2765 — Mitsubishi/MMC Auto Deutschland) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 91/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.4.2002

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2765 — Mitsubishi/MMC Auto Deutschland)

(2002/C 91/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 26 March 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:

— as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

— in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2765. 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.

Final report of the hearing officer in case COMP/M.2201 — MAN/Auwärter (pursuant to Article 15
of Commission Decision (C(2001) 1461/3 final) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of
hearing officers in certain competition procedures)

(2002/C 91/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft Decision does not give rise to any particular observation regarding the right to be heard. The
procedure took a normal course both during its written and its oral phase. No problems in so far were
indicated by the parties.

Done at Brussels on 12 June 2001.

Helmuth SCHRÖTER
Information relating to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol laying down the trade arrangements for certain fish and fishery products to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Estonia, of the other part
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Estonia, association agreement (EU), fish, fishery product, protocol to an agreement, tariff reduction

L 101/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.4.2002

Information relating to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol laying down the trade
arrangements for certain fish and fishery products to the Europe Agreement establishing an
association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the
Republic of Estonia, of the other part

The Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Estonia, on trade in certain fish and
fishery products, which the Council decided to conclude on 17 December 2001 (1), entered into force on 1
February 2002, since notification of the accomplishment of the procedures specified in Article 4 of that
Protocol was completed on 31 January 2002.

(1) OJ L 23, 25.1.2002, p. 30.

Information relating to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol laying down the trade
arrangements for certain fish and fishery products to the Europe Agreement establishing an
association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the
Republic of Slovenia, of the other part

The Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Slovenia, on trade in certain fish
and fishery products, which the Council decided to conclude on 17 December 2001 (1), entered into force
on 1 March 2002, notification of completion of the procedures provided for in Article 3 of the Protocol
having been given on 28 February 2002.

(1) OJ L 66, 8.3.2002, p. 18.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2757 — BC Partners/Galbani) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

17.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 91/7

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2757 — BC Partners/Galbani)

(2002/C 91/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 27 March 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:

— as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

— in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2757. 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.2734 — Sanmina-SCI/Alcatel)

(2002/C 91/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 21 March 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:

— as a paper version through the sales offices of the Office for Official Publications of the European

Communities (see list on the last page),

— in electronic form in the ‘CEN’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2734. 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.
Information relating to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol laying down the trade arrangements for certain fish and fishery products to the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Slovenia, association agreement (EU), fish, fishery product, protocol to an agreement, trade policy

L 101/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

17.4.2002

Information relating to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol laying down the trade
arrangements for certain fish and fishery products to the Europe Agreement establishing an
association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the
Republic of Estonia, of the other part

The Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Estonia, on trade in certain fish and
fishery products, which the Council decided to conclude on 17 December 2001 (1), entered into force on 1
February 2002, since notification of the accomplishment of the procedures specified in Article 4 of that
Protocol was completed on 31 January 2002.

(1) OJ L 23, 25.1.2002, p. 30.

Information relating to the entry into force of the Additional Protocol laying down the trade
arrangements for certain fish and fishery products to the Europe Agreement establishing an
association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the
Republic of Slovenia, of the other part

The Additional Protocol to the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Slovenia, on trade in certain fish
and fishery products, which the Council decided to conclude on 17 December 2001 (1), entered into force
on 1 March 2002, notification of completion of the procedures provided for in Article 3 of the Protocol
having been given on 28 February 2002.

(1) OJ L 66, 8.3.2002, p. 18.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1048/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Commission action on shark finning.
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: FAO, UNO, action programme, fishing regulations, sea fish, the EU's international role

C 277 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

Can the Commission verify whether this depiction of the situation is accurate and whether this

1.
absurd example might be one of the consequences of the Austrian Residence Act?

Does the Commission take the view that the new Residence Act could be implemented in the

2.
European Union and that it is compatible with its principles?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2002)

It is not the Commission’s practice to comment on draft legislation in fields in which the Member States
are not required to notify their plans to the Commission.

But it would observe that, from 1 June 2002, citizens of the European Union, as well as nationals of the
European Economic Area (EEA) and the Swiss Confederation and members of their families, have the right
to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, the EU, the EEA and Switzerland,
without being subject to any conditions regarding their language ability.

(2002/C 277 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1048/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Commission action on shark finning

On 14 March 2002 the European Parliament approved a resolution calling on the European Commission
to propose the prohibition of shark finning by all vessels registered to EU Member States and the landing
of severed shark fins at all EU ports, and the implementation of measures to comply with the UN
International Plan of Action for Sharks (B5-0031/2002, included in report A5-0063/2002).

What action does the Commission intend to take?

true that

Is it
initiatives to prevent shark finning are being delayed by lengthy discussions in the
Commission regarding which species should be included and the need to specify precise conversion rates
from whole sharks to fins for every species taken?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2002)

The Community supported actively the technical meetings that prepared the Food and Agriculture
Organisation (FAO) International Plan of Actions for Sharks, and its adoption at global level in 1999.

As follow up, the Commission already presented a Community draft plan of action to the FAO Committee
on Fisheries (FAO-COFI)
the FAO
international plan for sharks is scheduled for the next FAO-COFI meeting in 2003.

implementation and revision of

in February 2001. A further

The Commission is at present working on a proposal to prohibit shark finning at Community level. It is
untrue that such an initiative is being unduly delayed in the Commission by lengthy discussions on the
concerned species or other related parameters.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

17.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 91/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

16 April 2002

(2002/C 91/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4333

Danish krone

9,1453

Swedish krona

0,6126

Pound sterling

0,8803

United States dollar

1,3974

Canadian dollar

115,73

Japanese yen

1,4695

Swiss franc

7,633

Norwegian krone

85,76

Icelandic króna (2)

1,6582

Australian dollar

2,0066

New Zealand dollar

9,8428

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/02 by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission. Israel's destruction of EU-funded projects.
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU relations, Israel, Palestine, economic situation, military intervention

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/139

(2002/C 277 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1051/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Israel’s destruction of EU-funded projects

Will the Commission be pressing Israel to reimburse the EU for the damage caused to EU-funded projects
in the Occupied Territories?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to written E-0348/02 by Mrs Maes (1).

(1) See page 35.

(2002/C 277 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1053/02

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: Atmospheric and noise pollution in Logrezana (Carreño, Asturias, Spain)

Since 1989, the inhabitants of Logrezana, in the municipality of Carreño (Asturias), have been making
complaints about the atmospheric and sound pollution arising from a number of slag mills located
approximately 300 metres from their houses. These mills are responsible for a high level of potential
pollution under the definition in Annex I of Directive No 96/61 (1) concerning integrated pollution
prevention and control. The machinery used for treating the slag is generating noise levels considered
unacceptable by expert opinion.

Despite the inspections carried out by the environment ministry of the Principality of Asturias, no action
has been taken to date to implement the corrective measures which are required to put a stop to the
environmental effects of these activities, which are damaging the rights of the public to health and a clean
environment.

Can the Commission state whether the following directives are applicable to this case:

> Directive 91/156/EEC (2) amending Directive 75/442/EEC (3) on waste, which obliges the Member
States to ensure waste recovery without endangering human health and without using processes or
methods which could damage the environment;

> Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control;

> Directive 2000/14/EEC (4) on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the noise

emission in the environment by equipment for use outdoors?

What action does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis the competent authorities in order to ensure
compliance with Community law and, specifically, the proper implementation of the above directives?

(1) OJ L 257, 10.10.1996, p. 26.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 32.
(3) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(4) OJ L 162, 3.7.2000, p. 1.
Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 94/25/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 in relation to recreational craft (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European standard, approximation of laws, free movement of goods, pleasure craft, technical specification, technical standard

17.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 91/5

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of Directive 94/25/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 16 June 1994 in relation to recreational craft (1)

(2002/C 91/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

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

European
standardisation
organisation (*)

Reference and title of the standard

Reference document

Reference of the
superseded standard

Date of cessation of
presumption
of conformity of the
superseded standard
Note 1

CEN

CEN

CEN

CEN

CEN

Small craft — Permanently installed fuel systems and
fixed fuel tanks (ISO 10088:2001)

EN ISO 10088:2001

None

Inflatable boats — Part 1: Boats with a maximum
motor power rating of 4,5 kW (ISO 6185-1:2001)

EN ISO 6185-1:2001

None

Inflatable boats — Part 2: Boats with a maximum
motor power rating of 4,5 kW to 15 kW inclusive
(ISO 6185-2:2001)

EN ISO 6185-2:2001

None

Inflatable boats — Part 3: Boats with a maximum
motor
greater
of
(ISO 6185-3:2001)

15 kW and

power

rating

EN ISO 6185-3:2001

None

Small craft — Watertight cockpits and quick-draining
cockpits (ISO 11812:2001)

EN ISO 11812:2001

None

—

—

—

—

—

(*) ESO: European standardisation organisation:

CEN: rue de Stassart 36, B-1050 Bruxelles; tel. (32-2) 550 08 11, fax (32-2) 550 08 19 http://www.cenorm.be
Cenelec: rue de Stassart 35, B-1050 Bruxelles; tel. (32-2) 519 68 71, fax (32-2) 519 69 19 http://www.cenelec.org
ETSI: 650, route des Lucioles, F-06921 Sophia Antipolis; 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 presumption of conformity 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.

(1) OJ L 164, 30.6.1994, p. 15.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/02 by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission. International Adoptions in Romania.
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Romania, Spain, adoption of a child, child protection, infant mortality, international adoption, national law, orphan

C 52 E/28

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

(2003/C 52 E/034)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1039/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: International adoption of Romanian children

(15 April 2002)

Is it true that the moratorium on international adoptions introduced by the Romanian Government
paralysed 1 197 adoption requests from Spanish families which were being processed? How many of these
cases have been resolved since, under the aegis of the Emergency Order of 6 December 2001?

(2003/C 52 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1040/02

by Theresa Zabell (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: International adoption of Romanian children

(15 April 2002)

Is it true that at the end of last year, there were 50 000 children living in children’s homes in Romania,
and that 15 700 of the children had been taken into care that year? What is the annual mortality rate for
children in these homes?

(2003/C 52 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1073/02

by Juan Ojeda Sanz (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 April 2002)

Subject: International Adoptions in Romania

Over the last
few months, many Spanish families have expressed to me their concerns regarding
international adoptions in Romania. They have all signed the agreement on international cooperation and
mediation with Romania on application procedures for intercountry adoption No 0/99/008-I.

The Romanian government has suspended the procedure for assigning children and will not resume until
the introduction of new legislation on the subject. Up to this point, there has been no sign of any initiative
on the part of the Romanian executive to speed up the process of law creation.

Is the Commission aware of the suspension of these cases? If so, what steps has the Commission taken to
resolve the situation?

What is to be the fate of the children who are waiting to be adopted by a family from any one of the
Member States?

(2003/C 52 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1102/02

by Carlos Bautista Ojeda (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: International adoptions between Spain and Romania

(18 April 2002)

International adoptions between Spain and Romania first
Romanian legislation (Emergency Order of 25 June 1997, later ratified by law in May 1998).

took place in 1997,

the date of specific

The Romanian government suspended its participation in international adoptions on 14 December 2000.
On 12 June 2001, the Romanian Prime Minister announced that participation would be resumed with the
adoption of a new law on the subject. This decision was inspired by Romania’s ambition to accede to the
Corrigendum to the annual report concerning the financial year 2000 — Report on the activities financed from the general budget, together with the institutions' replies
Date: 2002-04-17
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Court of Auditors, activity report, general budget

17.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 92/13

Corrigendum to the annual report concerning the financial year 2000 — Report on the activities financed
from the general budget, together with the institutions’ replies

CORRIGENDA

(Official Journal of the European Communities C 359 of 15 December 2001)

(2002/C 92/02)

In the right-hand column of page 317, the text published as the Commission’s reply to paragraph 7.16 is the reply to para-
graph 7.17 (on the following page) and should be renumbered 7.17. The reply to paragraph 7.16 reads as follows:

‘7.16. COMMISSION’S REPLIES

The Commission has included this information in its definitive financial statements for the financial year 2000 to the end
of September 2001.

The Commission is negotiating a new agreement with the Belgian State and the Berlaymont 2000 firm with a view to
establishing the definitive renovation costs.’