do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1430/2002 of 2 August 2002 suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, award of contract, butter, intervention buying

L 206/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.8.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1430/2002

of 2 August 2002

suspending the buying-in of butter in certain Member States

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

(2)

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 of 17
May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in milk
and milk products (1), as last amended by Commission Regula-
tion (EC) No 509/2002 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999
of 16 December 1999 laying down detailed rules for the appli-
cation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 as regards
intervention on the market in butter and cream (3), as last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1614/2001 (4), and in parti-
cular Article 2 thereof,

Whereas:

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1280/2002 suspending
the buying-in of butter in certain Member States (5)
establishes the most recent
list of Member States in
which intervention is suspended. This list must be
adjusted as a result of the market prices communicated
by Belgium and Luxembourg under Article 8 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 2771/1999. In the interests of clarity, the
list in question should be replaced and Regulation (EC)
No 1280/2002 should be repealed,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Buying-in of butter by invitation to tender as provided for in
Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1255/1999 is hereby
suspended in Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Greece and
Austria.

(1)

Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 2771/1999 lays down
that buying-in by invitation to tender is to be opened or
suspended by the Commission in a Member State, as
appropriate, once it is observed that, for two weeks in
succession, the market price in that Member State is
below or equal to or above 92 % of the intervention
price.

Regulation (EC) No 1280/2002 is hereby repealed.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 3 August 2002.

Article 3

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

Done at Brussels, 2 August 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 48.
(2) OJ L 79, 22.3.2002, p. 15.
(3) OJ L 333, 24.12.1999, p. 11.
(4) OJ L 214, 8.8.2001, p. 20.

(5) OJ L 184, 13.7.2002, p. 23.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1425/2002 of 2 August 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as regards the 2002/03 marketing year for the production of potato starch
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: application of EU law, marketing, minimum price, potato, production, starch

3.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 206/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1425/2002

of 2 August 2002

amending Regulation (EC) No 97/95 as regards the 2002/03 marketing year for the production of
potato starch

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 8(5) thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1868/94 of 27
July 1994 establishing a quota system in relation to the produc-
tion of potato starch (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
962/2002 (4), and in particular Article 8 thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

The amounts applicable for the 2001/02 marketing year
as regards the minimum price and the payment to the
producer, fixed by Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92, and
the premium for potato starch producers, fixed by Regu-
lation (EC) No 1868/94, are unchanged for the 2002/03
marketing year.

Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 97/95 (5), as
last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2718/1999 (6),
establishes the minimum price, the premium to be paid
to the starch producer and the payment to be paid to the
producer for potatoes based on their starch content and
the underwater weight of 5 050 g of potato up to the
2001/02 marketing year. That Annex should therefore

be amended with a view to applying it to the 2002/03
marketing year using the same amounts as those applied
in the 2001/02 marketing year.

(3)

(4)

(5)

To ensure the continuity of the marketing years, the
measures provided for in this Regulation must apply
from 1 July 2002.

Regulation (EC) No 97/95 must be amended accordingly.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Cereals,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 97/95 the subheading ‘Part
B: 2001/02 marketing year’ is replaced by ‘Part B: 2001/02 and
2002/03 marketing years’.

Article 2

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

It shall apply from 1 July 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 2 August 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 197, 30.7.1994, p. 4.
(4) OJ L 149, 7.6.2002, p. 1.
(5) OJ L 16, 24.1.1995, p. 3.
(6) OJ L 327, 21.12.1999, p. 37.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1431/2002 of 2 August 2002 altering the export refunds on beef
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: beef, export refund, third country

3.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 206/15

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1431/2002

of 2 August 2002

altering the export refunds on beef

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Regulation (EC) No 934/2002 is amended as follows:

Article 1

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), and in particular Article 33(12) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

The export refunds on beef were fixed by Commission
Regulation (EC) No 934/2002 (3).

The negotiations on the adoption of additional conces-
sions, held within the framework of the Europe Agree-
ments between the European Community and the asso-
ciated Central and Eastern European Countries, aim in
particular to liberalise trade in products covered by the
common organisation of the market in beef and veal.
Hungary should be removed from the list of destinations
giving rise to the grant of a refund.

1. Article 4 is replaced by:

‘Article 4

The fact
that no refund has been fixed for exports to
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia and Hungary shall not be consid-
ered to mean that there is a differentiated refund.’

2. Destinations B00 and B03 are replaced by:

‘B00:

B03:

all destinations (third countries, other territories,
victualling and destinations treated as exports from
the Community) with the exception of Estonia,
Lithuania, Latvia and Hungary.

Faroe

Ceuta, Melilla,
Islands,
Iceland, Norway,
Andorra, Gibraltar, Vatican City, Poland, Czech
Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania,
Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugo-
slavia, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, the
communes of Livigno and Campione d’Italia, Helgo-
land, Greenland, Cyprus, stores and provisions (desti-
nations referred to in Articles 36 and 45 and,
if
appropriate, in Article 44 of Commission Regulation
amended (OJ L 102,
as
(EC) No 800/1999,
17.4.1999, p. 11)).’

Article 2

(3)

The export refunds must be amended as a result,

This Regulation shall enter into force on 6 August 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 2 August 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 144, 1.6.2002, p. 25.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/02 by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission. European funding for Belgium and the city of Antwerp.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU aid, EU financing, economic support, town

C 92 E/164

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

In its conclusions of 25 and 26 April 2002 on combating racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia, the
Council reiterated, in particular, that there is a need to approximate national law on combating racism and
xenophobia, while at the same time guaranteeing respect for the constitutional rules and principles relating
to human rights and fundamental freedoms, and stressed the importance of the proposal for a Framework
Decision on combating racism and xenophobia which the Commission presented in November 2001 (1)
and which is currently under discussion within the Council.

Moreover, the Commission has already taken significant action to combat racism and xenophobia and to
increase public awareness of these issues in areas including employment, immigration and asylum policy,
support for refugees, education, research and external relations.

Finally, the European Monitoring Centre for Racism en Xenophobia also has an important role to play in
consciousness-raising and disseminating best practice from the Member States.

(1) COM(2001) 664 final, OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.

(2003/C 92 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: European funding for Belgium and the city of Antwerp

(2 August 2002)

The Commission subsidises through its various funds many laudable projects in the EU Member States.
Can it state how many EU subsidies Belgium receives and what the exact amounts of subsidy are for the
cities of Ghent and Antwerp?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to Belgium?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to projects in the
city of Antwerp?

Can the Commission state the precise amount of subsidies paid in 1999, 2000 and 2001 to projects in the
city of Ghent?

What type of subsidies have been granted in Antwerp?

What type of subsidies have been granted in Ghent?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(28 November 2002)

In view of the length of its answer, the Commission is sending it direct to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2003/C 92 E/218)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2399/02

by David Bowe (PSE) to the Commission

(5 August 2002)

Subject: Legislation banning the sale of air weapons to young people under 18

In the interests of public health and safety will the Commission consider bringing forward legislation
banning the placing on the market of air guns and air pistols for sale to young persons under the age of
18 years? If not, why not?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. GATS.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATS, award of contract, common commercial policy, competition law, environmental protection, public contract, services contract

C 110 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

(2003/C 110 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2373/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Local authorities are obliged to ensure that any contracts for services above a certain threshold are opened
to competition throughout the EU. Can the European Commission advise what, if any, threshold applies to
services which are subject to GATS?

(2003/C 110 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2374/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Local authorities in the UK promote environmental and social goals through the procurement of goods
and services, for example by specifying the use of recycled paper and timber from renewable resources.
Can the European Commission provide information on how GATS will
local and national
government’s ability to include environmental and social criteria in their procurement activity?

limit

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2373/02 and E-2374/02
given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(25 September 2002)

Article XIII-1 of the GATS stipulates that the provisions of the GATS concerning MFN, market access and
national treatment (i.e. GATS Articles II, XVI and XVII) do not apply to ‘laws, regulations or requirements
governing the procurement by governmental agencies of services purchased for governmental purposes
and not with a view to commercial resale or with a view to use in the supply of services for commercial
resale’.

GATS Article XIII-2 gives World Trade Organisation (WTO) Members a mandate to develop multilateral
rules to be applied to government procurement of services under the GATS. Until such multilateral rules
are agreed, GATS does not impose any obligation/constraint on thresholds, nor on the possibility to
promote environmental and social considerations when awarding contracts.

In the context of GATS Article XIII-2 negotiations, the European Communities and their Member States
have tabled a proposal on 15 July 2002 (S/WPGR/W/39) on a general framework for such rules. This
framework and the implementation of clear procurement rules (in particular transparency rules) would
contribute to good governance. This proposal suggests for instance that criteria used by public authorities
in their procurement activity should be transparent. It also stresses the flexibility offered by GATS to WTO
Members, who can decide which sectors to open up to international competition and which restrictions to
market access and national treatment to maintain. We will of course keep in mind our domestic regime,
regarding in particular thresholds and the taking into account of environmental and social requirements,
when negotiating future GATS rules.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. GATS.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: GATS, common commercial policy, decision-making, impact study, international negotiations, local authority, political participation, regional authority, trade agreement

C 110 E/50

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2002)

The feasibility study ‘Pooling Open Source Software’ was initiated under the IDA (Interchange of Data
between Administrations) programme to consider how the re-use of software applications developed by
and for public administrations could be improved.

IDA launched this study:

(cid:1) to explore opportunities for greater cost-efficiency in Information Technology implementations in the

European public sector;

(cid:1) to respond to the eEurope 2002 action plan’s call to promote the use of open source software in the

public sector;

(cid:1) and to assess the feasibility of a recommendation resulting from the IDA symposium on open source

in public administrations (held in Brussels in February 2001).

The contractor carrying out the study (Unisys) was asked to assess the technical, organisational, legal and
financial aspects of the sharing of software. The recommendations that have been issued are those of the
contractor. No formal position has been taken by the Commission on these recommendations. However, a
number of options for practical action are currently being considered by the Commission. Where these
concern the IDA programme, proposals have to be approved by Member States, represented in the
Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC).

Software licences and software sharing are interrelated, and the study’s call for software owned by public
administrations to be issued under open source licences should be seen in this context. For software to be
shared among administrations, access to the source code needs to be granted (for modification purposes),
and no restrictions should apply to the distribution of the software. Both conditions are met by open
source software licences.

(2003/C 110 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2370/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a complex agreement covering a broad range of
services, and it has a potentially significant impact on the ability of local/regional authorities to regulate
and deliver services. Given the uncertainty surrounding the potential impact of GATS on sub-national
authorities, would the European Commission state what objective assessments on the potential impact of
GATS have been undertaken?

(2003/C 110 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2371/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: GATS

Given that regional/local authorities are responsible for regulating and delivering many of the services
covered by the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), will the European Commission clarify to
what extent these regional/local authorities have been consulted on the current negotiations with the
World Trade Organisation?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1424/2002 of 2 August 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit, stone fruit

3.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 206/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1424/2002

of 2 August 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 3 August 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 2 August 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 206/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

3.8.2002

to the Commission Regulation of 2 August 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the
entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 50 10

0806 10 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

0809 20 95

0809 30 10, 0809 30 90

0809 40 05

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
999
052
999
388
524
528
999
052
064
220
508
600
624
999
388
400
508
512
524
528
804
999
052
388
512
528
804
999
052
400
404
999
052
999
064
999

72,3
72,3
75,1
75,1
54,9
64,1
53,7
57,6
125,5
114,9
117,4
75,3
143,2
190,3
127,8
89,1
124,1
65,7
92,0
31,4
107,5
99,3
87,0
124,7
94,8
79,7
92,6
66,9
91,7
411,1
321,0
254,4
328,8
104,5
104,5
61,2
61,2

(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-2379/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Death penalty.
Date: 2002-08-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU policy, United States, death penalty

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/161

(2003/C 92 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2379/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Death penalty

Could the Commission provide details of any representations which the EU has made, or which it plans to
make, to the US Administration regarding the death penalty?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Representations made by the Union to the United States on the death penalty have taken several forms.
The last general demarche on the issue was undertaken in February 2000 when the Union called upon the
United States to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, with a view to its complete
elimination. The Union urged the United States to withdraw its reservation on Article 6 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), concerning the prohibition on imposing the death penalty
on minors. Furthermore, the Union called upon the United States to respect the strict conditions under
which the death penalty may be used, which are set forth in several international instruments. The Union
has also demonstrated its commitment to working for the abolition of the death penalty in the United
States through its involvement in individual cases. This has included the submission of amicus curiae briefs
to the United States Supreme Court and letters to Governors and Boards of Pardons and Paroles
considering death penalty cases.

A full list of recent representations made by the Union to the United States regarding specific cases where
the death penalty has been invoked can be found at the website of the Commission’s Delegation in
Washington (1)

The Union also continues to raises the issue of the death penalty on a regular basis during bilateral
contacts with the United States Administration under the New Transatlantic Agenda, and in the context of
its twice-yearly troika meetings with the United States on human rights issues.

(1) http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/deathpenhome.htm#ActiononUSDeathRowCases.

(2003/C 92 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2381/02

by Geoffrey Van Orden (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 August 2002)

Subject: Treatment of asylum-seekers in the EU

How does each Member State count the number of migrants (refugees, asylum-seekers, etc.) seeking

1.
admission (i.e. do they include all family members in their calculations or just heads of families)?

2. What State benefits are these migrants entitled to in each of the Member States of the EU?

3.

At what stage are migrants entitled to vote in each of the Member States of the European Union?