do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Carriers' liability.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, EU migration policy, liability, migration control, transport company

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/3

amount to violations of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular its Article 6 on the right
to a fair trial and Article 1 of Protocol No 1 on the protection of property (since a driver risks having his
vehicle confiscated if he cannot pay the fine immediately).

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/005)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1590/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

Since the Commission continues to share the view that carriers’ liability legislation ‘may be an efficient tool
in fighting illegal immigration’ and the Commission is apparently also of the view that such legislation
should be fully harmonised and applied to all means of transport, does the European Commission also feel
it necessary, for the sake of consistency and of wanting to avoid double standards, to impose carriers’
liability legislation on taxi drivers as well as owners of private vehicles in regions close to the EU external
borders? It may interest the Commission to know that this is already the case in at least two Member
States, Greece and Spain.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/006)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

The Commission’s comment on the ruling of the Austrian Constitutional Court that it did not challenge
the principle of carriers’ liability as a means of restricting illegal immigration is indeed correct. However, as
the Commission is aware, courts do not have the habit of responding to questions which are not raised
and the Austrian Constitutional Court was not asked for an opinion on whether carriers’ liability is a
means of restricting illegal immigration.

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/007)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1592/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:
Amendment to the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of 5 June 2002
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: Court of First Instance
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, administrative procedure, member of the Court of Justice (EU), operation of the Institutions, rules of procedure

18.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 160/1

COURT OF JUSTICE

AMENDMENT TO THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE COURT OF FIRST
INSTANCE

of 5 June 2002

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES,

On a proposal from the President of the Court of First Instance,

Having regard to the Rules of Procedure adopted on 2 May
1991, as last amended on 6 December 2000, and in particular
Article 23 thereof,

prevented from carrying out those duties, they shall be
performed by the Assistant Registrar who shall take the
decisions reserved to the Registrar by the Rules of
Procedure of the Court of First Instance or these Instruc-
tions or delegated to him pursuant to these Instruc-
tions.’

Article 2

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE INSTRUC-
TIONS TO THE REGISTRAR,

adopted on 3 March 1994 (OJ L 78 of 22.3.1994, p. 32 et
seq.) and amended on 29 March 2001 (OJ L 119 of 27.4.2001,
p. 2 et seq.):

This amendment to the Instructions to the Registrar, which is
authentic in the languages referred to in Article 36(2) of the
Rules of Procedure, shall be published in the Official Journal of
the European Communities.

It shall enter into force on the day following its publication.

Article 1

The following paragraph shall be added to Article 1 of the
Instructions to the Registrar:

‘2. In carrying out the duties specified above, the Registrar
shall be assisted by an Assistant Registrar.
In the
absence of the Registrar or in the event of his being

Done at Luxembourg, 5 June 2002.

Registrar

H. JUNG

President

B. VESTERDORF
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2747 — Ondeo/Thames Water/Water Portal) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, economic concentration, merger control, wastewater, water, water treatment

5.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 133/7

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2747 — Ondeo/Thames Water/Water Portal)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2002/C 133/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 May 2002 the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to
1.
Article 4 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1310/97 (2),
by which the undertakings Ondeo, (Ondeo, France) belonging to the Suez Lyonnaise des Eaux Group
(France) and Thames Water (Thames Water, United Kingdom) belonging to the RWE Group (Germany),
acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation, joint control of a newly created company
constituting a joint venture (Water Portal), by way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Ondeo: water-related services such as wastewater treatment, water treatment process engineering, etc.,

— Thames Water: water and wastewater services,

— Water Portal: operation of an Internet-based market-place for the water industry.

3.
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within
the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant
to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (3), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under
the procedure set out in the notice.

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.2747 — Ondeo/Thames Water/Water Portal, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Directorate B — 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.
(3) OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2148 — ABB/Avireal/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 133/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.6.2002

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2148 — ABB/Avireal/JV)

(2002/C 133/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 November 2000 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 German 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 ‘CDE’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 300M2148. 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.2801 — RWE/Innogy)

(2002/C 133/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 May 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 302M2801. 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/02 by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission. Interpretation guide for the Wild Birds Directive.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, application of EU law, environmental law, hunting regulations, interpretation of the law, protection of animal life

C 301 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

(2002/C 301 E/200)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1597/02

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Interpretation guide for the Wild Birds Directive

Article 16 of Directive 79/409/EEC (1)
(Directive on the conservation of wild birds) provides for the
establishment of a committee for the adaptation of the Directive to technical and scientific progress,
the Member States and chaired by a Commission
consisting of representatives of NGOs and of
representative.

This committee of experts is at present helping the Commission to draw up an interpretation guide for the
Directive.

In view of the approaching hunting season, there is an urgent need for this guide to be completed as
quickly as possible.

1. When does the Commission intend to adopt the guide?

2. Will the guide allow Member States a certain flexibility when implementing the Directive, particularly
when fixing hunting seasons?

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(15 July 2002)

1.
The Commission confirms that a guidance document aimed at clarifying legal and technical
considerations relating to the hunting provisions of Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the
conservation of wild birds is currently under preparation. It is intended to finalise this document before the
end of 2002.

2.
The guide is aimed at assisting Member States in fulfilling their role in fixing hunting seasons under
Article 7(4) of the Directive. It will also examine the possibilities for use of derogations under Article 9 of
the Directive, where this can be justified in the context of the objectives and requirements of the Directive.

(2002/C 301 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1601/02

by Alexander Radwan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Funding for the University of Oradea in Romania

The University of Oradea in Romania, is involved in several EU programmes.

There are also institutes in the Member States which belong to the University of Oradea.

Does the University of Oradea receive payments directly from the European Union which it then

1.
forwards, or are the institutes funded directly?

Does the University of Oradea give exact details of which faculties and institutes receive money from

2.
the funds granted by the EU and of how much they receive?

3.

4.

How detailed must the accounts be?

To what extent is it ensured that the money is used only for public purposes?

5. What payments are received by the various institutes, and is it possible to inspect the accounts?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2803 — Telia/Sonera) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Commission, Finland, Sweden, economic concentration, merger control, telecommunications

5.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 133/9

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2803 — Telia/Sonera)

(2002/C 133/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 28 May 2002 the Commission received a 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 Telia AB (Telia), of Sweden, acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of
the Regulation, control of the whole of Sonera Corporation (Sonera) of Finland, by way of purchase of
shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Telia: Swedish-based telecommunications company which provides
communication, international carrier operations and fixed networks,

services mainly in mobile

— Sonera: Finnish-based telecommunications company which provides mobile and advanced telecom-

munications, fixed networks business and service businesses.

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.2803 — Telia/Sonera, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Directorate B — 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Carriers' liability.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: air transport, border control, illegal migration, liability, organisation of transport, transport company, transport staff

C 242 E/4

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Since the Commission considers that ‘it is possible for Member States to adopt carriers’ liability laws and to
respect, at the same time, the obligations to which they subscribed under the 1951 Geneva Convention’,
and in many but not all countries applying such legislation a carrier is exempt from paying a fine if a
claim for protection lodged by an insufficiently-documented traveller is considered admissible, does the
Commission consider it reasonable to require an airline check-in staff member, who normally has no more
than five minutes to examine travel documents, to decide whether a would-be passenger is a bona fide
asylum-seeker, a task which even the most rapid, efficient, competent and well-trained officials of any
Member State are very often unable to do within two days?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1593/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers’ liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

Is the Commission aware that in many airports around the world the task of checking in passengers is
often done by the personnel of the country’s national airline and not by the staff of the airline which is
sanctioned if it carries insufficiently-documented passengers?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

(2003/C 242 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1594/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Carriers liability

Further to my questions on carriers’ liability (E-0488/02 (cid:1) 0493/02) (1) and the Commission’s reply of
4 April 2002, could the Commission comment on the following point:

If carriers’ liability is indeed to be extended to taxi drivers and owners of private vehicles in regions close
to EU external borders, should not all transport firms, again for the sake of avoiding double standards, also
be fined if irregular migrants are found on board their vehicles, including private or state-owned inter-city
buses?

(1) OJ C 301 E, 5.12.2002, p. 45.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1587/02, E-1588/02,
E-1589/02, E-1590/02, E-1591/02, E-1592/02, E-1593/02 and E-1594/02
given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(9 July 2002)

All eight questions posed by the Honourable Member relate directly to the issue of carriers’ liability and
should therefore be answered jointly.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

5.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 133/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 June 2002

(2002/C 133/01)

1 euro =

USD

JPY

DKK

GBP

SEK

CHF

ISK

NOK

BGN

CYP

CZK

EEK

HUF

LTL

Currency

US dollar

Japanese yen

Danish krone

Pound sterling

Swedish krona

Swiss franc

Iceland króna

Norwegian krone

Bulgarian lev

Cyprus pound

Czech koruna

Estonian kroon

Hungarian forint

Lithuanian litas

Exchange
rate

0,9435

116,44

7,4333

0,645

9,1451

1,4682

85,38

7,4435

1,9530

LVL

MTL

PLN

ROL

SIT

SKK

TRL

AUD

CAD

Currency

Latvian lats

Maltese lira

Polish zloty

Romanian leu

Slovenian tolar

Slovak koruna

Turkish lira

Australian dollar

Canadian dollar

0,57988

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

30,365

NZD

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

Exchange
rate

0,5811

0,4118

3,7939

31537

225,6141

43,795

1358000

1,64

1,4417

7,3591

1,9158

1,6831

242,63

KRW

South Korean won

1141,73

3,4529

ZAR

South African rand

9,1449

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2801 — RWE/Innogy) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Publications Office of the European Union, database, dissemination of EU information, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 133/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

5.6.2002

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2148 — ABB/Avireal/JV)

(2002/C 133/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 8 November 2000 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 German 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 ‘CDE’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 300M2148. 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.2801 — RWE/Innogy)

(2002/C 133/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 17 May 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 302M2801. 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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 961/2002 of 5 June 2002 fixing the storage aid for unprocessed dried grapes and unprocessed dried figs from the 2001/02 marketing year
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU aid, dried product, grape, pip fruit, storage

L 148/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

6.6.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 961/2002

of 5 June 2002

fixing the storage aid for unprocessed dried grapes and unprocessed dried figs from the 2001/02
marketing year

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 of 28
October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in
products processed from fruit and vegetables (1), as
last
amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 453/2002 (2),
and in particular Article 9(8) thereof,

grapes and unprocessed dried figs (5) and of the fact that
the storage aid is to be calculated on the basis of the
technical cost of storage and of financing the buying-in
price paid for the products.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Products Processed from Fruit and Vege-
tables,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 provides for
aid to be granted to storage agencies for the quantities of
sultanas, currants and dried figs that they buy in and for
the actual duration of storage.

Article 2 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 449/2001
of 2 March 2001 laying down detailed rules for the
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as
regards the aid scheme for products processed from fruit
and vegetables (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1343/2001 (4), lays down the dates of the marketing
years.

The storage aid for unprocessed dried grapes and unpro-
cessed dried figs from the 2001/02 marketing year
should be fixed and, to that end, account should be
taken of Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No
1622/1999 of 23 July 1999 laying down detailed rules
for applying Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/96 as
regards the scheme for the storage of unprocessed dried

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For products from the 2001/02 marketing year, the storage aid
provided for in Article 9(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2201/96
shall be:

(a) EUR 0,1405 per day and per tonne net weight until 28
February 2003 and EUR 0,1144 per day and per tonne net
weight from 1 March 2003 for dried grapes;

(b) EUR 0,1261 per day and per tonne net weight for dried

figs.

Article 2

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

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

Done at Brussels, 5 June 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 29.
(2) OJ L 72, 14.3.2002, p. 9.
(3) OJ L 64, 6.3.2001, p. 16.
(4) OJ L 181, 4.7.2001, p. 16.

(5) OJ L 192, 24.7.1999, p. 33.