do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/ECSC.1350 — RAG/Saarbergwerke/Preussag Anthrazit II (prepared under Article 15 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21)) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, coal industry, competition law, economic concentration, merger, merger control, self-employed person

17.1.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 11/11

Conclusion of a Memorandum of Understanding with the Slovak Republic on its participation in
the Community programmes MediaPlus and MediaTraining

(2003/C 11/08)

On 10 January 2003, the Memorandum of Understanding between the European Commission, on behalf
of the European Community, and the Government of the Slovak Republic on the Slovak Republic's
participation in the Community programmes MediaPlus and MediaTraining was signed.

The full text in English of the Memorandum of Understanding can be found on the following web page:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/avpolicy/media/enlarg_en.html

Final report of the Hearing Officer in case COMP/ECSC.1350 — RAG/Saarbergwerke/Preussag
Anthrazit II

(prepared under Article 15 of Commission Decision (2001/462/EC, ECSC) of 23 May 2001 on the terms of
reference of Hearing Officers in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 162, 19.6.2001, p. 21))

(2003/C 11/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

The draft decision does not give rise to any observations on the right to be heard.

Done at Brussels on 30 April 2002.

Karen WILLIAMS
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/02 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Information campaign on risks involved in eating honey.
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: consumer protection, early childhood, health risk, honey, labelling, public health

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/197

(2002/C 229 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1243/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Information campaign on risks involved in eating honey

In the United States and other countries information campaigns warn consumers of the albeit limited risks
to new-born babies which eating honey entails, on account of its botulin content.

The provision of proper consumer information would avoid the spreading of false rumours about the
dangerousness of honey by indicating that the problem only applies to a very limited number of cases and
that the risk levels are very low.

What is the Commission’s position on the matter?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2002)

The Commission has been informed about the national measures taken by some non-member countries,
and which some Member States plan to take, in order to prevent the risk of botulism in infants as a result
of eating honey.

The Commission shares the concerns of the Honourable Member regarding the protection of consumers,
particularly the most sensitive among them such as babies. This is why the Commission has asked the
Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures, in the context of public health, to assess this risk as well as
any other relevant microbiological risks relating to honey. As soon as this has been done, the Commission
will use the findings as the basis for proposing the most suitable measures, such as informing consumers
through appropriate product labelling.

in the context of

Furthermore,
its monitoring of health risks from food, the Commission receives
information on a daily basis, especially through the system of rapid alerts. If harmful effects are reported,
the Commission can then immediately take provisional risk-management measures in order to ensure or
maintain the high level of protection applying in the Community.

(2002/C 229 E/228)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1247/02

by Anne Van Lancker (PSE) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Availability of studies and reports produced with European funding

Through various action programmes the Commission provides funds to support European policy in the
Member States. In this way not only Member States but also other authorities and bodies receive European
public funds to produce studies and reports on their policy on such subjects as employment and the fight
against social exclusion. In many cases these studies are not available to the public.

Is the Commission prepared, when granting financial support to produce reports of this kind, to require
the beneficiaries to ensure that studies financed from European public funds must be made available to the
public?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. EU Health Card.
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, European Union, electronic document, exchange of information, health care, health insurance

C 229 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2002)

Ayuntamiento de Zamora submitted the project ‘Red Europea Para El Empleo Local’ in response to the
open call for proposals VP/2001/015 ‘Preparatory Measures for a local commitment for employment’
(Budget Line B5-5030). However, IRMA S.L. did not appear either as a promoter or as a partner of the
project. Nevertheless, the Commission understands that this is the project to which the Honourable
Member refers.

As regards the selection procedure, all the projects submitted in response to the open call for proposals
were selected according to the same criteria set out in the ‘Applicants guide’ of the call for proposals (point
‘VIII. Examination of applications: Selection and Award Criteria’, which applied for all applicants). The
Applicants guide is the only ‘code of good practice’ for promoters.

All the proposals were subject to a detailed evaluation: each project was read and evaluated by two
independent external evaluators; both the experts and the Commission’s Selection Committee took the
decision by unanimity on the basis of the submitted application form and documentation. Accordingly, the
proposals selected were those which best met the criteria referred to in the call for proposal and the
Applicants guide.

The Commission did not select the application of Ayuntamiento de Zamora because, compared with the
proposals finally selected, the evaluators’ unanimous view was that the content of the application and the
methods foreseen therein would not achieve the objective of dissemination and networking.

(2002/C 229 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1210/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: EU Health Card

While I support what the EU Health Card is trying to achieve, would it not be preferable to have either a
page in our European passports or an endorsement in them containing this information. In this way, a lot
of expense and paperwork would be saved?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2002)

The European Council which took place in Barcelona on 15 and 16 March 2002 decided that a European
health insurance card would replace the forms that are currently needed to obtain medical care in another
Member State.

The card envisaged by the European Council is a health insurance card. It should enable its holder, when
moving within the European Union, to prove in any Member State that he or she has health insurance
cover and is entitled to medical care.

As the card is intended to facilitate the electronic exchange of information on the holder’s insurance status
between the health insurance institutions in the Member States, it would not be appropriate, as suggested
by the Honourable Member, to include the relevant information in passports.
Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Switzerland, agreement (EU), free movement of persons

L 114/480

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

30.4.2002

JOINT DECLARATION

on further negotiations

The European Community and the Swiss Confederation declare their intention of undertaking negotiations
to conclude agreements in areas of common interest such as the updating of Protocol 2 to the 1972 Free
Trade Agreement and Swiss participation in certain Community training, youth, media, statistical and
environmental programmes. Preparatory work for these negotiations should proceed rapidly once the
current bilateral negotiations have been concluded.

DECLARATION

on Swiss attendance of committees

The Council agrees that Switzerland’s representatives may, insofar as the items concern them, attend
meetings of the following committees and expert working parties as observers:

— Committees of research programmes, including the Scientific and Technical Research Committee

(CREST),

— Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers,

— Coordinating Group on the mutual recognition of higher-education diplomas,

— Advisory committees on air routes and the application of competition rules in the field of air

transport.

Switzerland’s representatives shall not be present when these committees vote.

In the case of other committees dealing with areas covered by these agreements in which Switzerland has
adopted either the acquis communautaire or equivalent measures, the Commission will consult Swiss
experts by the method specified in Article 100 of the EEA Agreement.

Information relating to the entry into force of the seven Agreements with the Swiss
Confederation in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public
procurement, scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to
conformity assessment, and trade in agricultural products

The final notification of completion of the procedures necessary for the entry into force of the seven
Agreements in the sectors free movement of persons, air and land transport, public procurement,
scientific and technological cooperation, mutual recognition in relation to conformity assessment, and
trade in agricultural products between the European Community and its Member States, on the one hand,
and the Swiss Confederation on the other hand, signed in Luxembourg on 21 June 1999, having taken
place on 17 April 2002, these agreements will enter into force, simultaneously, on 1 June 2002.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

30.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

29 April 2002

(2002/C 103/01)

1 euro

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

=

7,4335

Danish krone

9,24

Swedish krona

0,6186

Pound sterling

0,9038

United States dollar

1,413

Canadian dollar

115,69

Japanese yen

1,4637

Swiss franc

7,5745

Norwegian krone

84,72

Icelandic króna (2)

1,6689

Australian dollar

2,0122

New Zealand dollar

9,5814

South African rand (2)

(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
(2) Source: Commission.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/02 by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Food products containing free gifts.
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accident in the home, confectionery product, market approval, product safety

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/245

(2002/C 205 E/271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1008/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Food products containing toys

Suffocation is one of the most common accidents amongst children in the EU. Death by suffocation occurs
when children are still at the oral development stage and instinctively place things in their mouth.

In recent years there has been increasing concern over new food products which contain toys. Such
concern has arisen because of statistics which reveal that children are dying as a result of suffocation
caused by toys contained in food products, such as cereals and chocolate eggs.

Does the Commission not think that specific action should be taken in order to protect children from the
risks inherent in toys contained in food products?

(2002/C 205 E/272)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1218/02

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Food products containing free gifts

On 16 May 2000, the Commission and representatives of the 15 Member States reached the conclusion
that, on the basis of the available information, there was no proven specific risk factor involved in
attaching free gifts to food products when wrapped separately, as in the case of chocolate eggs, cereals, etc.

In the meantime, studies in Europe indicate that children of various ages have been injured or even killed
in accidents involving these products. ANEC, European Association for the Coordination of Consumer
Representation in Standardisation has been fighting to ban the mixing of food and non-food products.
However, unlike the USA, Australia and Malaysia, no legislation to this effect has yet come into force in
the European Union.

What measures does the Commission believe should be taken to prevent the common commercial practice
of including inedible objects in food products placed on sale, particularly food products destined for
children?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1008/02 and E-1218/02
given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2002)

The Commission has already answered several previous parliamentary questions on the issue raised by the
Honourable Member. He is therefore asked to refer to the joint answers given to Written Questions
E-0504/02 by Ms Karamanou and E-0548/02 by Mr Alavanos (1), and to Written Questions E-2630/00 by
Mr Moreira Da Silva, E-2631/00 by Ms Damião and E-2632/00 by Mr Lage (2).

(1) See page 153.
(2) OJ C 136 E, 8.5.2001.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1245/02 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Introduction of excise duty on wine.
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, excise duty, tax system, viticulture, wine

6.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52 E/51

The Commission proposes to publish a pre-qualification tender in the field and after screening the best
proposals received, will invite a restricted number of organisations to submit a complete project proposal.
The best of these will then be selected.

(2003/C 52 E/059)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1245/02

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Introduction of excise duty on wine

A few days ago the Commission submitted a proposal to introduce a minimum rate of excise duty on wine
of EUR 0,14 per litre as from 2003 and EUR 0,15 as from 2007. The current rate of excise duty is zero in
Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Germany.

Given that, since 1997, the Italian wine-growing sector has had to put up with a VAT increase (now 20 %)
and that the agricultural sector is already subject to the IRAP (regional tax on production):

1. Does the Commission agree that, on the agri-foodstuffs market, excise duty on wine will have an

adverse effect on the wine-growing sector?

2. Does it agree that an increase in the price of wine will be harmful mainly to consumers, who will bear

the burden of rising production costs?

3. Does it agree that the reform of the CAP has already adversely affected production costs by reducing

Community aid to the wine-growing sector;

4. How does it view the introduction in the agricultural sector of a production tax normally applied to

industrial products (traditionally referred to as ‘excise duty’)?

(2003/C 52 E/060)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1262/02

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Excise duty on wine

Organisations representing wine-producers consider the introduction of a minimum excise duty on wine of
EUR 0,14 per litre (270) from 2003 and 0,15 from 2007, proposed by the technical services of the
Commission, to be a misguided and dangerous idea, because it would obstruct the development of one of
the most advanced sectors of farming. In Italy alone it would be levied on 53 million hectolitres. In 1997
wine-producers saw VAT increase to 20 % and the proposed excise duty would be a further levy, with an
additional impact on consumption. Furthermore, since 1998 Italian agriculture has had the additional
burden of
tax on business activities), which in the ‘wine-growing provinces’ has a
substantial impact on the local economies which depend on wine.

IRAP (regional

In view of all this, does not the Commission consider that the proposed excise duty on wine would be an
unsustainable burden on producers?

It would also hit
Commission estimated the heavy direct burden on the market?

the consumer, since excise duty ultimately becomes a production cost. Has the

In view of the increase in VAT, would not the introduction of excise duty be tantamount to accepting the
principle of a double levy on consumption?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 752/2002 of 30 April 2002 altering the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: export refund, malt

1.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 115/27

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 752/2002

of 30 April 2002

altering the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 of 30
June 1992 on the common organisation of the market in
cereals (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1666/
2000 (2), and in particular Article 13(8) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

The corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt
was fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 514/
2002 (3).

On the basis of today's cif prices and cif forward delivery
prices, taking foreseeable developments on the market

into account, the corrective amount at present applic-
able to the refund on malt should be altered,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The corrective amount referred to in Article 13(4) of Regula-
tion (EEC) No 1766/92 which is applicable to the export
refunds fixed in advance in respect of the products referred to
is hereby altered to the amount set out in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 1 May 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 30 April 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 181, 1.7.1992, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 193, 29.7.2000, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 79, 22.3.2002, p. 25.

L 115/28

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

1.5.2002

to the Commission Regulation of 30 April 2002 altering the corrective amount applicable to the refund on malt

ANNEX

Product code

Destination

Current
5

1st period
6

2nd period
7

3rd period
8

4th period
9

5th period
10

1107 10 11 9000
1107 10 19 9000
1107 10 91 9000
1107 10 99 9000
1107 20 00 9000

A00
A00
A00
A00
A00

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0
0

0
–1,18
0
–1,18
–1,39

0
–2,36
0
–2,36
–2,77

0
–3,54
0
–3,54
–4,16

(EUR/t)

(EUR/t)

Product code

Destination

6th period
11

7th period
12

8th period
1

9th period
2

10th period
3

11th period
4

1107 10 11 9000
1107 10 19 9000
1107 10 91 9000
1107 10 99 9000
1107 20 00 9000

A00
A00
A00
A00
A00

0
–4,72
0
–4,72
–5,54

0
–5,91
0
–5,91
–6,93

0
–7,09
0
–7,09
–8,31

0
–8,27
0
–8,27
–9,70

0
–9,45
0
–9,45
–11,09

0
–10,63
0
–10,63
–12,47

NB: The product codes and the ‘A’ series destination codes are set out in Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3846/87 (OJ

L 366, 24.12.1987, p. 1) as amended.
The numeric destination codes are set out in Regulation (EC) No 2020/2001 (OJ L 273, 16.10.2001, p. 6).
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/02 by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission. Modernisation of N2 motorway in Switzerland.
Date: 2002-04-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Alpine Region, Switzerland, commercial vehicle, joint committee (EU), motorway, public works, road safety, transit, tunnel

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/169

(2002/C 277 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1244/02

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(30 April 2002)

Subject: Modernisation of N2 motorway in Switzerland

Modernisation work has been in progress for a numbert of months on the Swiss N2 motorway, between
Bern and Basle, along an important section of the European road network. Work is being carried out in
particular on the Oberburg tunnel and viaduct, and the long Belchen tunnel (3,2 km).

The latter has, for some time now, been operating as a single-tube tunnel, with two-way traffic, but no
safety distances, no restrictions on heavy goods traffic and no other active or passive safety measures.

In the context of agreements with Switzerland, does the Commission have any information on this subject?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(21 June 2002)

The Commission does not have any information on the matter raised by the Honourable Member.

The Honourable Member refers to measures taken following the meeting of European ministers of the
Alpine region in Zurich on 30 November 2001.

The declaration adopted in Zurich and the measures recommended in it are outside the Commission’s area
of responsibility.

However, the joint committee on the EU/Switzerland agreement is able to handle all matters relating to the
difficulties being encountered by EU transport firms in transit across Switzerland as well as those to do
with the fluidity of Alpine traffic, in cooperation with the traffic observatory provided for in Article 45 of
that agreement.

The next meeting of the joint committee is to take place in July 2002, and will provide an opportunity to
discuss the matter.

(2002/C 277 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1255/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Free movement of goods, services and people

Is the Commission aware of the enormous damage done to the economy of Alderney by the arbitrary
decision of the French Government to impose a no-fly zone around the Cap de la Hague nuclear plant?

Does the Commission endorse this decision? If so, does it feel that such no-fly zones should be imposed
around similar or all nuclear plants in the EU? What compensation is available to those whose livelihoods
are affected by such decisions?