do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 838/2002 of 21 May 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2002-05-21
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit

22.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 134/3

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 838/2002

of 21 May 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 22 May 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2002.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

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

L 134/4

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.5.2002

to the Commission Regulation of 21 May 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 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 50 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
999
052
220
628
999
052
999
052
204
212
220
388
600
624
999
528
999
060
388
400
404
508
512
524
528
720
804
999

58,3
35,8
47,0
95,3
151,2
150,5
132,3
85,9
85,9
88,8
48,8
64,5
85,7
49,5
49,0
80,2
66,6
54,5
54,5
16,2
96,0
142,0
110,7
78,7
100,2
83,4
85,7
142,1
102,6
95,8

(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’.
Declaration by the Community on the attendance of Lithuanian representatives at committee meetings
Date: 2002-05-21
Institutions: European Community
Subjects: Community acquis, EU law, Lithuania, committee (EU), industrial product, shareholding

L 202/40

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.7.2002

Declaration by the Community on the attendance of Lithuanian representatives at committee
meetings

In order to ensure a better understanding of the practical aspects of the application of the acquis
communautaire, the Community declares that the Republic of Lithuania is invited, under the following
conditions, to the meetings of the committees established or referred to under the Community law on
machinery, lifts, personal protective equipment, electromagnetic compatibility, electrical safety and simple
pressure vessels.

This participation shall be limited to meetings or parts thereof during which the application of the acquis
is discussed;
it shall not entail attendance at meetings intended to prepare and issue opinions on
implementation or management powers delegated to the Commission by the Council.

This invitation may be extended, on a case-by-case basis,
Commission.

to groups of experts convened by the
Declaration by the Community on the attendance of Latvian representatives at committee meetings
Date: 2002-05-21
Institutions: European Community
Subjects: Community acquis, EU law, Latvia, committee (EU), industrial product, shareholding

L 202/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

31.7.2002

Declaration by the Community on the attendance of Latvian representatives at committee
meetings

In order to ensure a better understanding of the practical aspects of the application of the acquis
communautaire, the Community declares that the Republic of Latvia is invited, under the following
conditions, to the meetings of the committees established or referred to under the Community law on
electrical safety, electromagnetic compatibility, toys and construction products.

This participation shall be limited to meetings or parts thereof during which the application of the acquis
is discussed;
it shall not entail attendance at meetings intended to prepare and issue opinions on
implementaion or management powers delegated to the Commission by the Council.

This invitation may be extended, on a case-by-case basis,
Commission.

to groups of experts convened by the
Decision of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Coal and Steel Community, meeting within the Council of 21 May 2002 amending Decision 2001/934/ECSC on certain measures applicable with regard to Kazakhstan concerning trade in certain steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty
Date: 2002-05-21
Institutions: Representatives of the Governments of the Member States
Subjects: Kazakhstan, import licence, iron and steel product, quantitative restriction

L 137/20

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

25.5.2002

II

(Acts whose publication is not obligatory)

CONFERENCE OF THE REPRESENTATIVES
OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES

DECISION OF THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF
THE EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL

amending Decision 2001/934/ECSC on certain measures applicable with regard to Kazakhstan
concerning trade in certain steel products covered by the ECSC Treaty

of 21 May 2002

(2002/384/ECSC)

THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN COAL AND
STEEL COMMUNITY, MEETING WITHIN THE COUNCIL,

In agreement with the Commission,

HAVE DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

Decision 2001/934/ECSC of the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within
the Council of 19 December 2001 (1) is amended as follows:
— in Article 1, the words: ‘During the period 1 January 2002 to 30 June 2002,’ shall be replaced by:

‘During the period 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002,’;
— Annex II shall be replaced by the text in the Annex hereto.

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European
Communities.

Article 2

Done at Brussels, 21 May 2002.

The President

R. DE MIGUEL

(1) OJ L 345, 29.12.2001, p. 78.

25.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 137/21

ANNEX

‘ANNEX II

QUANTITATIVE LIMITS

1 January to 31 December 2002

Products

SA Flat products

SA1

Coils

SA1a Coils for re-rolling

SA2 Heavy plate

SA3 Other flat products

Tonnes

50 000

5 000

0

53 000’
Order of the President of the Court of 21 May 2002
Date: 2002-05-21
Institutions: EFTA Court
Subjects: EFTA Court, dominant position, marketing, reduced price, restriction on competition

25.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 177/7

EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA

EFTA COURT

ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COURT

of 21 May 2002

(2002/C 177/06)

In Case E-8/01, Gunnar Amundsen AS and Others v Vectura AS, concerning the issue of whether there has
been an infringement of Article 54 EEA, and a claim for compensation for loss resulting from the
infringement, the President of the Court made and Order of 21 May 2002, the operative part of which
orders Case E-8/01 removed from the Register.

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 30 May 2002

in Case E-4/01: Request for an Advisory Opinion from Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur (Reykjavík
District Court): Karl K. Karlsson hf. and The Icelandic State

(State alcohol monopoly — incompatibility with Article 16 EEA — State liability in the event of a breach of EEA
law — Conditions of liability)

(2002/C 177/07)

In Case E-4/01: request to the Court under Article 34 of the Agreement between the EFTA States on the
establishment of a Surveillance Authority and a Court of Justice by Héraðsdómur Reykjavíkur for an
Advisory Opinion in the case pending before it concerning the questions of whether
the State
monopoly on the import and wholesale distribution of alcoholic beverages in force in Iceland until 1
December 1995 was incompatible with the EEA Agreement, and, if so, whether a prospective importer of
alcoholic beverages is entitled to compensation from the State for financial loss incurred as a result of that
monopoly, the Court, composed of Thór Vilhjálmsson, President, Carl Baudenbacher and Per Tresselt
(Judge-Rapporteur), Judges, gave a judgment on 30 May 2002, the operative part of which declares as
follows:

1. The maintenance after 1 January 1994 of a State monopoly on the import of alcoholic beverages is

incompatible with Article 16 EEA.

2. An EEA State will, under the EEA Agreement, be liable to a prospective importer of alcoholic beverages
for loss or damage incurred as a result of the maintenance of a State monopoly on the import of
alcoholic beverages, provided that the conditions for State liability are fulfilled. Where those conditions
are fulfilled, compensation by the State for such loss and damage must be based on national liability
law. The rules on compensation laid down by national law must not be less favourable than those
relating to similar domestic claims and must not be framed so as to make it in practice impossible or
excessively difficult to obtain compensation.

3. It is, in principle, for the national court to decide whether the conditions for State liability are fulfilled.
In that assessment, the following considerations are to be taken into account: (1) Article 16 EEA is
intended to confer rights on individuals; (2) the breach of Article 16 EEA is sufficiently serious to entail
liability; (3) whether there is a direct causal link between the breach of Article 16 EEA and any damage
sustained, is for the national court to decide.