do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/02 by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Pump guns.
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: firearms and munitions, personal weapon

C 222 E/12

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

3. A licensing requirement applies in Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal

and Spain.

Although no registration or licensing requirement is currently in force in Greece or Ireland, these
countries have announced legislative plans in this area.

4. A banking licence for the conduct of money transmission business is required in France and Germany.

(1) Text available at www.fatf-gafi.org.

(2003/C 222 E/013)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2604/02

by Michl Ebner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Pump guns

Reports of incidents of murder, manslaughter and accidents involving the use of pump guns have,
unfortunately, become an everyday occurrence.

Does the Council not consider that it would be appropriate to ban pump guns, as they are used neither by
the security forces nor by members of shooting clubs or huntsmen?

Does the Council share the concern felt by the author of this question, and does it intend to take action
itself and exert its influence with the Member States? How do matters stand in this area?

Reply

(5 and 6 May 2003)

The Council certainly shares the concern expressed by the Honourable Member regarding the risks
associated with misuse of pump guns. However, it is not for the Council to initiate any actions by itself
with a view to a possible ban of pump guns as the Honourable Member suggests. It is the competence of
the Member States themselves to take any action they deem appropriate to restrict or forbid the use of
pump guns.

(2003/C 222 E/014)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2609/02

by Bruno Gollnisch (NI) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Checking the identity of airline passengers

Airline passengers on French domestic routes are subject to repeated identity checks. Consequently,
passengers travelling from Paris to Lyons, for example, are subject to controls both at check-in and on
boarding the aircraft, whereas the identity of passengers travelling from Brussels, Berlin or Madrid is not
checked either on departure or on arrival.

Are these checks imposed by the airlines for tariff-related purposes, or are they a security requirement
imposed by the French authorities? In either event, does the Commission consider that they are compatible
with European rules?

If exceptions to the Schengen rules are being made for security reasons, how does the Commission explain
the fact that, paradoxically, these security requirements are stricter on domestic than on international
routes?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.2897 — SITA SA/Sydkraft and SITA Sverige AB/Ecoplus) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, energy industry, exchange of information, merger control, waste management, waste recycling

18.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 222/25

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.2897 — SITA SA/Sydkraft and SITA Sverige AB/Ecoplus)

(2002/C 222/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 10 September 2002 the Commission received 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 undertakings SITA SA, belonging to the French group Suez Lyonnaise, and
Sydkraft AB (Sydkraft), belonging to the German group E.ON, acquire, within the meaning of Article
3(1)(b) of the Regulation,
joint control of the undertaking SITA Sverige AB (SITA Sverige), previously
controlled solely by SITA SA, by way of a shareholders argreement (the SITA Sverige concentration).

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Sydkraft: primarily electricity generation, distribution and sales; waste-to-energy (production of heat)

through its subsidiary Ecoplus,

— SITA SA: waste collection and treatment,

— SITA Sverige: waste collection and treatment in Sweden,

— Ecoplus: currently active in the waste-to-energy sector.

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.2897 — SITA SA/Sydkraft and SITA Sverige AB/Ecoplus, 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-2624/02 by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transposition of the new Postal Services Directive 2002/39/EC.
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, competition, liberalisation of the market, national implementing measure, postal service

C 52 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

(2003/C 52 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2624/02

by Markus Ferber (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Transposition of the new Postal Services Directive 2002/39/EC

This Spring, the new European Parliament and Council directive 2002/39/EC (1), amending Directive 97/
67/EC (2) with regard to the further opening to competition of Community postal services, was adopted.
The Member States must transpose this new Directive into national law by 31 December 2003.

Does the Commission possess any information about the stage which transposition has reached? May we
assume that the Member States will transpose the directive within the time limit?

Is the Commission aware which of the Member States intend to reserve outgoing cross-border postal
services?

Are these Member States required to prove separately to the Commission that the continued reservation of
outgoing cross-border post is necessary?

(1) OJ L 176, 5.7.2002, p. 21.
(2) OJ L 15, 21.1.1998, p. 14.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

The Commission is monitoring the transposition of Directive 2002/39/EC of the Parliament and of the
Council of 10 June 2002 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the further opening to competition
of Community postal services, in Member States. At the moment, it has no evidence to suggest that any of
the Member States will not be ready by the implementation deadline, although it appears that national
parliamentary procedures may be a source of possible delays.

With regard to the reservation of outgoing cross-border mail, at present the Commission has indications
that one Member State (Luxembourg) intends to continue to reserve this mail segment.

The Commission will verify compliance of the national transposition measures with the new Directive,
particularly any reservation of outgoing cross-border mail, in the light of the criteria established in the
Directive.

Such results will only be known in 2003. The Commission will keep the Parliament informed about its
findings.

(2003/C 52 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2632/02

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: CITES (cid:1) Ivory trade

Since CITES downlisted a number of elephant populations in 1997, thus re-opening some ivory trade from
Africa,
it is estimated that thousands of elephants are still being poached within Africa. Would the
Commission confirm what position it and the EU Member States will take at the forthcoming Santiago
meeting of CITES in relation to the proposal by India and Kenya to reinstate a full ban on the trade in
ivory?
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1657/2002 of 18 September 2002 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, grape, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit, stone fruit

19.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 251/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1657/2002

of 18 September 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 19 September 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 September 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 251/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2002

to the Commission Regulation of 18 September 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 50 10

0806 10 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

0809 30 10, 0809 30 90

0809 40 05

Third country
code (1)

Standard import
value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
060
096
999
052
628
999
052
999
388
524
528
999
052
064
400
664
999
052
388
400
512
804
999
052
388
720
999
052
999
052
060
064
066
094
624
999

49,0
64,9
40,2
51,4
101,8
143,3
122,6
81,0
81,0
58,4
55,4
56,4
56,7
67,9
100,6
166,7
99,1
108,6
50,0
81,8
103,7
82,3
86,4
80,8
99,3
69,8
50,1
73,1
116,3
116,3
74,5
63,5
60,2
99,4
53,9
145,8
82,9

(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’.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 1660/2002 of 18 September 2002 on the issuing of system A3 export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, citrus fruit, export licence, export refund, fruit vegetable, grape

L 251/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

19.9.2002

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1660/2002

of 18 September 2002

on the issuing of system A3 export licences in the fruit and vegetables sector

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001
of 8 October 2001 laying down detailed rules for implementing
Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds
on fruit and vegetables (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1176/2002 (2), and in particular Article 4(4) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1546/2002 (3) opens an
invitation to tender setting the indicative refund rates
and indicative quantities for system A3 export licences
other than those tendered for as part of food aid.

In the light of the tenders submitted, the maximum
refund rates and the percentages for reducing the quanti-
ties awarded for tenders quoting those maximum rates
should be set.

In the case of
lemons and table
grapes, the maximum rate necessary to award licences

tomatoes, oranges,

for the indicative quantity up to the quantities tendered
for is not more than one-and-a-half times the indicative
refund rate,

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetable,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

In the case of tomatoes, oranges, lemons and table grapes, the
maximum refund rates and the percentages for reducing the
quantities awarded under the invitation to tender opened by
Regulation (EC) No 1540/2002 shall be as set out in the
Annex.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 September 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2002.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8.
(2) OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 69.
(3) OJ L 233, 30.8.2002, p. 6.

19.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 251/7

ANNEX

Product

Maximum refund rate
(EUR/t net)

Percentage awarded of quantities
tendered for quoting the maximum
refund rate

Tomatoes

Oranges

Lemons

Table grapes

25

40

25

20

100 %

100 %

100 %

100 %
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/02 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Motorcycle helmets and fines in Greece.
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, Greece, road safety, safety device, tax system

C 52 E/188

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2003

(2003/C 52 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2595/02

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 September 2002)

Subject: Motorcycle helmets and fines in Greece

Recently, the Greek authorities have been imposing fines and impounding motorcycles ridden by drivers
not wearing helmets. However, Greek motorcyclists protest that the cost of a safe, good quality helmet is
between EUR 300 and EUR 600 in Greece mainly because of the high level of duty and taxes imposed by
the Greek authorities.

What is the Commission’s view of the level of Greek duties and taxes on helmets? What is the precise
amount of tax levied in the other 14 Member States of the Union?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2003/C 52 E/208)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2600/02

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Budget heading B3-4102 and the fight against child labour

(18 September 2002)

Resolution B4-0692/1998, included in Parliament’s report A4-0004/1999, called on the competent bodies
to deepen our knowledge of child labour in the EU, in the context of an assessment of the application of
Council Directive 94/33/EC (1).

In addition, in the 2002 budget Parliament entered two remarks under item B3-4102 (‘Analysis of and
studies on the social situation, demographics and the family’), concerning the need to ‘finance the drawing-
up of a … report on the state of child labour in the EU’ and ‘the launching of a European information
campaign against child labour’.

Given the above:

(cid:1) What measures have been taken in pursuit of the objectives included under budget item B3-4102
concerning the drawing-up of an annual report and the launching of a European information
campaign against child labour?

(cid:1) What measures have been taken in the last decade to combat child labour in the EU, and what is the

Commission’s assessment of those measures?

(cid:1) What is the Commission’s view on the establishment of a Community programme for the integration
of children who have been subjected to child labour, as proposed in resolution B4-0692/1998,
annexed to EP report A4-0004/1999?

(1) OJ L 216, 20.8.1994, p. 12.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(28 October 2002)

The Social Situation Report of the Commission (cid:1) co-edited by Directorate General Employment and
Eurostat- contains analyses on child poverty which is closely linked to child labour as poverty and social
exclusion breed child labour. Thus, fighting poverty and long-term unemployment, taking care of jobless
households or households in which there is domestic violence,
improving education, means also
combating child labour.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2937 — Questor Bermuda/Teksid) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, investment company, merger control, motor vehicle industry, restrictive-practice authorisation

18.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 222/27

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2937 — Questor Bermuda/Teksid)

(2002/C 222/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 September 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 302M2937. 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 1658/2002 of 18 September 2002 applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural product, export refund, primary product, processed foodstuff

19.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 251/3

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1658/2002

of 18 September 2002

applying a reduction coefficient to refund certificates for goods not covered by Annex I to the
Treaty, as provided for by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Commu-
nity,

(2)

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 of 6
December 1993 laying down the trade arrangements applicable
to certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural
products (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 2580/
2000 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000
of 13 July 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the
application of the system of granting export refunds on certain
agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered
by Annex I to the Treaty and the criteria for fixing the amount
of such refunds (3), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
1052/2002 (4), and in particular Article 8(5),

Whereas:

(1)

The total amount of applications for refund certificates
valid from 1 October 2002 exceeds the maximum

referred to in Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/
2000.

A reduction coefficient shall be calculated on the basis of
Article 8(3) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 1520/2000.
Such coefficient should therefore be applied to amounts
requested in the form of refund certificates valid from 1
October 2002 as established in Article 8(6) of Regulation
(EC) No 1520/2000,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The amounts for applications of refund certificates valid from 1
October 2002 are subject to a reduction coefficient of 0,42.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 19 September 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 18 September 2002.

For the Commission

Erkki LIIKANEN

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 318, 20.12.1993, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 298, 25.11.2000, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 177, 15.7.2000, p. 1.
(4) OJ L 160, 18.6.2002, p. 16.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

18.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 222/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

17 September 2002

(2002/C 222/01)

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

0,9649

118,64

7,4273

0,6297

9,0978

1,4717

85,25

7,356

1,9461

0,5732

30,38

LVL

MTL

PLN

ROL

SIT

SKK

TRL

AUD

CAD

HKD

NZD

Currency

Latvian lats

Maltese lira

Polish zloty

Romanian leu

Slovenian tolar

Slovak koruna

Turkish lira

Australian dollar

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

Exchange
rate

0,5868

0,4122

4,028

32065

228,2132

43,386

1612000

1,7683

1,5217

7,5257

2,06

1,7189

243,27

KRW

South Korean won

1175,92

3,4524

ZAR

South African rand

10,2747

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2936 — TMI/Darfon/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-09-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: ceramics, economic concentration, electronic component, electronics industry, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 222/26

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

18.9.2002

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2863 — Morgan Stanley/Olivetti/Telecom Italia/Tiglio)

(2002/C 222/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 30 August 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 Italian 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 ‘CIT’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 302M2863. 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.2936 — TMI/Darfon/JV)

(2002/C 222/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 September 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 302M2936. 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.