do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/03 by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission. Waste as topsoil.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, application of EU law, bovine spongiform encephalopathy, environmental law, environmental protection, health legislation, health risk, waste management, waste recycling

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/111

(2003/C 242 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0233/03

by Eluned Morgan (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Waste as topsoil

What is the Commission’s current position on the disposal of waste as topsoil on landfill sites, due to BSE
fears? When will the Commission come to a decision on this issue? When will Member States be
informed? Does this policy apply just to the UK or to the EU as a whole?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

Member States must ensure under Article 4 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 (1) as
amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 on waste (2) that waste is disposed of or
recovered without endangering human health or the environment.

Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (3) lays down special requirements
for the landfilling of waste, including provisions for the construction and covering of landfills.

In addition, as of 1 May 2003, Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of
3 October 2002 laying down health rules concerning animal by-products not
intended for human
consumption (4) will ban the landfilling of transmissible spongiforme encephalopaties (TSE) positive or
suspect materials. Other materials that are likely to harbour the TSE agents, such as specified risk materials
must have been treated to high standards of pressure cooking to inactivate the TSE agents before
landfilling.

(1) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(2) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991.
(3) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999.
(4) OJ L 273, 10.10.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0248/03

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Application of the n+2 rule to the Structural Funds in 2003

Article 31(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1) states that
‘the Commission shall automatically
decommit any part of a commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for
which it has not received an acceptable payment application, as defined in Article 32(3), by the end of the
second year following the year of commitment …’.

The 2001 budget contained not only the commitment appropriations adopted during the budgetary
process, but also EUR 8 000 million carried over by the Commission from the financial year 2000.

Could the Commission supply information on:

(cid:1) the commitment appropriations allocated in 2001;

(cid:1) the amounts paid in respect of these commitments at 31.12.2002;

(cid:1) the appropriations (if any) already decommited by the Commission;

(cid:1) the amounts still to be settled in respect of these commitments in the current financial year;

and give a breakdown of these figures by country, region, objective and fund?

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/03 by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Funding of small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises through ROPs in Greece.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community support framework, Greece, aid system, operational programme, processing industry, regional policy, small and medium-sized enterprises, tourism

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/165

(2003/C 192 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0241/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Funding of small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises through ROPs in Greece

According to the first data gathered, only 3 000 small and medium-sized processing and tourist enterprises
have submitted funding applications through the 13 Regional Operational Programmes, despite initial
estimates that 7 000 would do so.

Will the Commission say what level of appropriations was earmarked to be allocated, what amount was
actually allocated, what are the grounds for the low level of participation of small and medium-sized
processing and tourist enterprises in the programmes in question and what action it intends to take to
address this specific problem?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(10 March 2003)

According to the information which the Commission has received from Greece, by the end of the first
series of calls for proposals the number submitted totalled 3 781.

The aid scheme for small and medium-sized firms (SMEs) to which the Honourable Member refers
provides for public expenditure of EUR 240 million.

Since the evaluation of these proposals is now in progress, the Commission has no information on the
total appropriations which will finally be allocated.

At present, since this is the first call for proposals of this type, the Commission is unable to assess the level
of participation by small firms.

Because the action is horizontal in nature, it is for the managing authority and the Monitoring Committee
for the 2000-2006 Community support framework for Greece to propose any appropriate measures which
might prove necessary.

(2003/C 192 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0268/03

by Massimo Carraro (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Rabbit Brain Powder

On 29 August 2001, an illegal laboratory for the production of rabbit brain powder (RBP) was discovered
at a rabbit slaughterhouse in Forlimpopoli (IT0531M/S EEC).

During its investigations at the laboratory, the Forli veterinary service also discovered 500 litres of acetone,
a toxic and highly volatile substance which should not be kept at slaughterhouses owing to the possibility
of airborne contamination of the meat being processed and the animals awaiting slaughter.

The Forli veterinary service therefore decided to impound both the laboratory and the RBP.

The Emilia Romagna regional administrative court in Bologna first suspended and then annulled this
measure on economic grounds, without giving due consideration to the consumer protection issues.
Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 19 November 2002
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, appointment of staff, member of the Court of Justice (EU)

4.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/15

COURT OF JUSTICE

Decisions adopted by the Court at its meeting on 19 November 2002

(2003/C 26/11)

At its meeting on 19 November 2002, the Court of Justice of the European Communities adopted the
following transitional measures which will apply for the period from the entry into force of the Nice
Treaty amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and
certain related acts, signed at Nice, 26 February 2001 (OJ C 80, 10.3.2001), until the entry into force of
the amendments to its Rules of Procedure made necessary by the Nice Treaty.

Appointment of Presidents of the Chambers

The Court confirmed the appointments of the Presidents of the Chambers made at its meeting on 17
September 2002 (OJ C 261, 6.10.2002).

Composition of the Chambers

The Court confirmed the composition of the Chambers determined at the same meeting on 17 September
2002.

Assigning of cases to benches

Until the adoption of rules for the appointment of the Judges called upon to form part of the Grand
Chamber, the Court has decided to sit as the full Court for cases which are not assigned to a chamber of
three or five Judges.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/03 by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Environmental impact of the Segarra-Garrigues irrigation project.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Spain, application of EU law, environmental impact, environmental protection, water management in agriculture

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/119

Regulation’s driving time and rest period rules, which are monitored by a tachograph installed within the
vehicle and can be checked at the roadside and indeed on the premises by the enforcement authorities.

(1) OJ C 51, 26.2.2002.

(2003/C 242 E/121)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0323/03

by Salvador Jové Peres (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Environmental impact of the Segarra-Garrigues irrigation project

What criteria have been followed to determine the exclusion zones defined for the Segarra-Garrigues
irrigation project? Is the defined exclusion zone the sole habitat for the steppe fauna which is to be
protected? Could the exclusion zone not be distributed in a less concentrated and more balanced way?

Is the Commission sure that these zones have been determined using exclusively scientific, and in
particular ecological criteria? Is the Commission sure that these zones have not been determined on the
basis of political criteria?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

It is for the Spanish authorities alone to determine the exclusion zones defined for the Segarra-Garrigues
irrigation project. Nonetheless, as this project could affect the conservation of several bird species referred
to in Annex I to Directive 79/409/EEC (1), the Commission will ensure that the provisions of that Directive
and of Directive 92/43/EEC (2) are complied with in this particular case.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (cid:1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (cid:1)

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2003/C 242 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0342/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Procedure for awarding contracts for projects financed by ISPA

Is it true that the procedure used for assessing tenders when awarding contracts for projects cofinanced by
ISPA and the EBRD is the one laid down by the latter institution, despite the fact that the EBRD only
finances a small proportion of each project?

How can the Commission ensure adequate supervision of the awarding of such contracts in the candidate
countries (and especially Poland and Romania, where this type of situation has already arisen), bearing in
mind that the EBRD procedures are deemed less restrictive and transparent than those which ISPA applies
to the other projects it finances?

Why does the Commission not apply its own assessment and selection procedures, which are subject to
the control of other Community institutions? Why does it elect to follow the procedures of third party
institutions?
Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations: .,.. % on 1 February 2003 — Euro exchange rates
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Central Bank, euro, exchange rate, interest

C 26/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2003

COMMISSION

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

.,.. % on 1 February 2003

Euro exchange rates (2)

3 February 2003

(2003/C 26/08)

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

1,0729

129,27

7,4377

0,6553

9,2334

1,4684

82,92

7,479

1,9553

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

0,57927

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

31,56

NZD

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

Exchange
rate

0,6224

0,4197

4,1153

35613

231,0655

41,894

1758000

1,8405

1,6303

8,3685

1,979

1,8699

243,73

KRW

South Korean won

1264,41

3,4521

ZAR

South African rand

9,1747

___________
(1) Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender,

the interest rate is the marginal rate.

(2) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.2844 — Linde/Komatsu/Forklift) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, gas, hoisting equipment, industrial building, marketing, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

C 26/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

4.2.2003

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.2844 — Linde/Komatsu/Forklift)

(2003/C 26/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 19 December 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 302M2844. 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 216/2003 of 4 February 2003 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

5.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 29/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 216/2003

of 4 February 2003

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(2)

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
import arrangements
last
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (2), and in parti-
cular 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 5 February 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 4 February 2003.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17.

L 29/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2003

to the Commission Regulation of 4 February 2003 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 10 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 50 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
212
628
999

052
204
999

220
999

052
204
999

052
204
212
220
624
999

204
999

052
204
220
464
600
624
999

052
220
600
999

400
404
720
999

388
400
524
528
720
999

74,4
57,0
123,3
109,3
91,0

117,8
114,7
116,3

82,4
82,4

108,8
177,4
143,1

59,2
50,2
43,5
32,0
84,4
53,9

70,8
70,8

65,1
58,0
74,7
141,0
76,1
77,9
82,1

66,9
69,4
66,0
67,4

87,8
99,0
103,0
96,6

102,7
120,4
115,5
85,1
41,0
92,9

(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’.