do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2830 — Lufthansa Cargo/Air France Finance/British Airways/Global Freight Exchange/JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: air transport, carriage of passengers, carrier, economic concentration, freight rate, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation, service, transit

15.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 279/21

Organisation

Amounts in euro

Aim of work programme

13. Solidarité Eau Europe —
Solidarity Water Europe
(France)

14. European Federation for

Transport and Environment
(Belgium)

49 098

Sustainable water use and protection

147 705

Promoting environmentally conscious transport

15. Stichting Fern

(United Kingdom)

146 596

Improving of EU policies and practices in order to achieve
conservation and sustainable forest use

16. Mediterranean Information

219 853

Office MIO-ECSDE
(Greece)

Coordination of Mediterranean environmental NGO
activities

17. Friends of the Earth Europe

352 655

Environmental protection and sustainable development

(Belgium)

18. Birdlife International
(United Kingdom)

118 563

Working for the diversity of all life through the conser-
vation of birds and their habitats

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2830 — Lufthansa Cargo/Air France Finance/British Airways/Global Freight
Exchange/JV)

(2002/C 279/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 October 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 302M2830. 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 2037/2002 of 15 November 2002 fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in Regulation (EC) No 1897/2002
Date: 2002-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, rice, third country

16.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

L 313/19

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2037/2002

of 15 November 2002

fixing the maximum export refund on wholly milled round grain, medium grain and long grain A
rice to be exported to certain third countries in connection with the invitation to tender issued in
Regulation (EC) No 1897/2002

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 of 22
December 1995 on the common organisation of the market in
rice (1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No
411/2002 (2), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

(4)

The application of the abovementioned criteria to the
current market situation for the rice in question results
in the maximum export
the
amount specified in Article 1.

refund being fixed at

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

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

An invitation to tender for the export refund on rice was
issued pursuant
to Commission Regulation (EC) No
1897/2002 (3).

Article 5 of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 584/
75 (4), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1948/
2002 (5), allows the Commission to fix,
in accordance
with the procedure laid down in Article 22 of Regula-
tion (EC) No 3072/95 and on the basis of the tenders
submitted, a maximum export refund.
In fixing this
maximum, the criteria provided for in Article 13 of
Regulation (EC) No 3072/95 must be taken into
account. A contract is awarded to any tenderer whose
tender is equal to or less than the maximum export
refund.

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The maximum export refund on wholly milled grain, medium
grain and long grain A rice to be exported to certain third
countries pursuant to the invitation to tender issued in Regula-
tion (EC) No 1897/2002 is hereby fixed on the basis of the
tenders submitted from 11 to 14 November 2002 at 175,00
EUR/t.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 16 November 2002.

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

Done at Brussels, 15 November 2002.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 329, 30.12.1995, p. 18.
(2) OJ L 62, 5.3.2002, p. 27.
(3) OJ L 287, 25.10.2002, p. 8.
(4) OJ L 61, 7.3.1975, p. 25.
(5) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 18.
Recommencement of procedure (Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2002-11-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, electrical industry, exchange of information, merger control

C 279/22

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

15.11.2002

Recommencement of procedure

(Case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II)

(2002/C 279/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 19 February 2001 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 undertaking Schneider (France) acquires, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the
Regulation, control of the wohle of the undertaking Legrand (France) by way of a public bid.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Schneider: main switschboards, distribution panel-boards, busbar trunking, cableways and ladders, final
low-voltage panel-boards and wiring devices and systems (switches and sockets including intelligent
systems, electrical accessories and trunkings),

— Legrand: distribution panel-boards, busbar trunking, cableways and ladders, final low-voltage panel-
boards and wiring devices and systems (switches and sockets including intelligent systems, electrical
accessories and trunkings).

On 10 October 2001, the Commission declared the operation incompatible with the common
3.
market. On 22 October 2002, the Court of First Instance of the European Communities annulled the
Commission decision in its entirety. Pursuant to Article 10(5) of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89, the time
limits of the examination of the concentration start again from 23 October 2002.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within

4.
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

5.
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.2283 — Schneider/Legrand II, 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-3240/02 by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Waste water discharges contrary to environmental regulations.
Date: 2002-11-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Commission, Netherlands, environmental law, infringement of EU law, large business, type of business, wastewater, water treatment

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/117

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(23 December 2002)

The placement of advertisements is Member State’s responsibility. It is therefore not possible to enforce
such law at Union level. Furthermore, advertisements are put in place after a stretch of road has been put
into operation. As a result, making grants for construction subject to road inspection would not solve this
particular problem.

In its White Paper ‘European transport policy for 2010 (cid:1) Time to decide’ (1), the Commission set a fatality
reduction target of 50 % until 2010. One of the means would be by reducing the so-called accident black
spots at dangerous stretches of the road. Consequently, the Commission has announced in its Work
Programme for 2003 a proposal on requirements for guidelines on black spot management.

(1) COM(2001) 370 final.

(2003/C 155 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3240/02

by Alexander de Roo (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(15 November 2002)

Subject: Waste water discharges contrary to environmental regulations

Only 67 % of firms in the Netherlands comply with environmental regulations on waste water discharges.
That is the conclusion reached by the Legal Compliance Expertise Centre of the Ministry of Justice
following a sample survey of 300 discharge points in industry, within the waste treatment sector and at
storage, transshipment and port reception facilities (Government Gazette, 31 October 2002).

According to the National Waterways and Highways Agency, which commissioned the survey, one
explanation for this is the fact that the financial drawbacks of contravening the rules (fines) are simply
much less onerous than the cost of complying with them, which is higher.

It is also conspicuous that the proportion of transgressors is much higher among firms with a certified
environmental safeguards system (63 %) than among those without such a system (24 %). In addition,
larger firms slip up more often than smaller firms.

Does the Commission not agree that this situation is extremely disquieting in terms of the quality of
(surface) water in the Netherlands?

What action is the Commission contemplating in order to bring about an improvement in the compliance
regime in the Netherlands?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2003)

The Commission thanks the Honourable Member for bringing this subject to its attention.

The Commission has not had a chance to study the report referred to in the question but will ensure that a
copy is obtained in the near future.

The Commission will then take all actions that may prove necessary.