do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/03 by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Landfill in Moncorneil-Grazan, France — Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste.
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, application of EU law, environmental law, waste management

C 242 E/114

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

(2003/C 242 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0256/03

by Caroline Jackson (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Landfill in Moncorneil-Grazan, France (cid:1) Directive 1999/31/EC on the landfill of waste

It has been brought to my attention that a landfill in Moncorneil-Grazan, France, may not be operating in
compliance with requirements as laid down in Article 8 and Annexes I and III of the Landfill Directive
(1999/31/EC (1)). Has the Commission received a formal complaint concerning the above case and if so,
has it requested further information from the French Government?

(1) OJ L 182, 16.7.1999, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission has received a complaint concerning the landfill
in Moncorneil-Grazan. The case is
currently being examined with a view to assessing compliance with Council Directive 75/442/EEC of
15 July 1975 on waste (1) as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991 (2) and Council
Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (3). The Commission has requested further
information from the French Government.

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

(2003/C 242 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0262/03

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Health criteria for award of EU eco-label

the aims of

the EU’s eco-label

is to promote more environment-friendly production and
One of
consumption but
the scheme can be improved in several respects. The Danish press reported on
23 January 2003 that consumers are surprised that products bearing the eco-label might well contain
allergenic substances such as the preservative methyldibromo glutaronitrile.

The fact that the scheme focuses only on environmental criteria and does not take health issues into
account in awarding the label is not, it is argued, in line with consumer expectations. Will the Commission
therefore say what its future plans are for a revision of the eco-label scheme and whether it is aware of any
investigations concerning problems with the awarding of the EU eco-label? Will the Commission also say
whether it has carried out or intends to conduct surveys into consumers’ and producers’ wishes concerning
the incorporation of health criteria and/or other factors into the scheme?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The press article on which the written question is based does not reflect the nature of the Union eco-label
accurately, since the scheme does take health issues into account. The eco-label criteria that have to be met
for a product to be awarded the eco-label also cover, in most cases, health and safety aspects, such as not
allowing the use of chemicals with health-related risks.
2003/267/EC: Decision No 3/2002 of 5 February 2003 of the Joint Committee set up under the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European Community and Japan on the publication of lists of confirmed facilities under the Sectoral Annex on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) for Chemicals and the Sectoral Annex on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) for Medicinal Products
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: Joint Committee
Subjects: Japan, agreement (EU), chemical product, medicinal product, mutual recognition principle, publication, research body

16.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 98/17

DECISION No 3/2002

of 5 February 2003

of the Joint Committee set up under the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between the European
Community and Japan on the publication of lists of confirmed facilities under the Sectoral Annex
on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) for Chemicals and the Sectoral Annex on Good Manufacturing
Practice (GMP) for Medicinal Products

(2003/267/EC)

THE JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on Mutual Recognition between Japan and the European Community and
in particular Article 8(3)(b) thereof,

Whereas the Joint Committee is, unless otherwise decided, responsible for the publication on a sector-by-
sector basis of lists of the confirmed facilities,

Whereas the information contained in the lists of confirmed facilities is mostly of interest to the authorities
of the Parties which can make the lists available to the public,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

1. The lists of confirmed facilities under the Sectoral Annex on Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) for Chemi-
cals and the Sectoral Annex on Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) for Medicinal Products shall not be
published by the Joint Committee. This is without prejudice to the Parties' respective legislation on
public access to documents.

2. A Party may, if so required by their domestic legislation, publish the lists of confirmed facilities it has

provided to the Joint Committee and the other Party.

3. This Decision, done in duplicate, shall be signed by the co-chairs. This Decision shall be effective from

the date of the later of these signatures.

Signed in Tokyo on 5 February 2003.

Signed in Brussels on 20 December 2002.

On behalf of Japan

Jun SHIMMI

On behalf of the European Community

Philippe MEYER
Commission Regulation (EC) No 227/2003 of 5 February 2003 correcting Regulation (EC) No 214/2003 re-establishing the preferential customs duty on imports of uniflorous (bloom) carnations originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Middle East, floriculture, import, originating product, restoration of customs duties, tariff preference

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 31/15

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 227/2003

of 5 February 2003

correcting Regulation (EC) No 214/2003 re-establishing the preferential customs duty on imports
of uniflorous (bloom) carnations originating in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 4088/87 of 21
December 1987 fixing conditions for the application of prefer-
ential customs duties on imports of certain flowers originating
in Cyprus, Israel, Jordan and Morocco and the West Bank and
the Gaza Strip (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No
1300/97 (2), and in particular Article 5(2)(b) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

duties

The purpose of Commission Regulation (EC) No 214/
2003 (3) is to repeal Commission Regulation (EC) No 24/
2003 of 6 January 2003 suspending the preferential
customs
the Common
Customs Tariff duty on imports of multiflorous (spray)
carnations originating in the West Bank and the Gaza
Strip (4) and re-establish the preferential customs duties
on imports of multiflorous (spray) carnations originating
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

re-establishing

and

(2)

The title, the recitals and the operative part of Regula-
tion (EC) No 214/2003 contain an error in that they
refer to uniflorous (bloom) carnations rather than multi-

florous (spray) carnations. Regulation (EC) No 214/2003
should therefore be corrected with retrospective effect
for imports of multiflorous (spray) carnations originating
in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EC) No 214/2003 is hereby corrected as follows:

1. In the title and recitals 5 and 6, the words ‘uniflorous
(bloom) carnations’ are replaced by ‘multiflorous (spray)
carnations’.

2. In Article 1(1), the words ‘uniflorous (bloom) carnations’ are

replaced by ‘multiflorous (spray) carnations’.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day of its publica-
tion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply to imports of multiflorous (spray) carnations from
4 February 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 February 2003.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 382, 31.12.1987, p. 22.
(2) OJ L 177, 5.7.1997, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 28, 4.2.2003, p. 39.
(4) OJ L 2, 7.1.2003, p. 29.
Administrative Commission of the European Communities on Social security for Migrant workers — Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: Administrative Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers, European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate, migrant worker, national currency, social security, social-security benefit

C 27/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2003

ADMINISTRATIVE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ON SOCIAL SECURITY FOR
MIGRANT WORKERS

Rates for conversion of currencies pursuant to Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

(2003/C 27/02)

EUR

DKK

GBP

NOK

SEK

ISK

CHF

Article 107 (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72

Reference period: January 2003

Application period: April, May and June 2003

DKK

GBP

NOK

SEK

ISK

CHF

EUR

—

7,43243

0,657109

7,33282

0,134545

—

0,0884110

0,98660

9,17335

1,23423

84,4527

1,46209

11,36273

0,196718

1,52182

11,3108

—

11,1592

13,9602

128,522

2,22504

0,136373

1,013580

0,0896121

—

1,25100

11,5171

0,199390

0,109011

0,810220

0,0716324

0,799361

—

9,20632

0,159385

0,0118409

0,088007

0,00778079

0,086827

0,108621

—

0,0173125

0,683952

5,08343

0,449431

5,01530

6,27413

57,7616

—

1. Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 determines that the rate for the conversion into a currency of amounts
denominated in another currency shall be the rate calculated by the Commission and based on the
monthly average, during the reference period specified in paragraph 2, of reference rates of exchange of
currencies published by the European Central Bank.

2. The reference period shall be:

— the month of January for rates of conversion applicable from 1 April following,
— the month of April for rates of conversion applicable from 1 July following,
— the month of July for rates of conversion applicable from 1 October following,
— the month of October for rates of conversion applicable from 1 January following.

The rates for the conversion of currencies shall be published in the second Official Journal of the European
Communities (‘C’ series) of the months of February, May, August and November.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3035 — Berkshire Hathaway/Converium/Gaum) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: aerospace industry, economic concentration, exchange of information, holding company, indemnity insurance, merger control, personal accident insurance, property insurance, provision of services, reinsurance

C 27/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2003

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3035 — Berkshire Hathaway/Converium/Gaum)

(2003/C 27/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 29 January 2003 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 Northern States Agency Inc., (Northern States, United States of America),
belonging to the Berkshire Hathaway group (Berkshire, United States of America) and Converium AG
(Converium, Switzerland) acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation, joint control of
the undertaking Global Aerospace Underwriting Managers Limited (Gaum, United Kingdom) by way of
purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Northern States/Berkshire: holding company mainly active in the provision of property and casualty

insurance,

— Converium: provision of reinsurance,

— Gaum: provision of underwriting and management services to aerospace insurance operations.

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.3035 — Berkshire Hathaway/Converium/Gaum, 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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

5.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

4 February 2003

(2003/C 27/01)

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

1,0822

129,95

7,4357

0,6571

9,2427

1,4673

83,31

7,487

1,9556

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

0,57961

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

31,613

NZD

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

Exchange
rate

0,6256

0,4203

4,1438

35847

231,1415

41,754

1776000

1,8361

1,6415

8,4407

1,9736

1,8823

244,11

KRW

South Korean won

1274,29

3,4523

ZAR

South African rand

9,1027

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 222/2003 of 5 February 2003 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agri-monetary policy, citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 31/1

I

(Acts whose publication is obligatory)

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 222/2003

of 5 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 6 February 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 5 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 31/2

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.2.2003

to the Commission Regulation of 5 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
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
528
720
999

110,2
51,5
123,3
109,3
98,6

122,9
122,9

45,8
45,8

144,1
166,7
155,4

47,3
48,3
39,4
49,4
84,4
53,8

69,8
69,8

63,8
57,1
73,2
132,1
79,0
78,3
80,6

61,4
69,4
62,3
64,4

96,2
99,4
87,9
94,5

88,8
116,3
83,9
42,5
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’.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-0346/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Non-rational set-aside.
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU agricultural market, common agricultural policy, competence of the Member States, environmental policy, farm price support, grassland, nomadism, set-aside

C 161 E/212

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(2003/C 161 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0346/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 February 2003)

Subject: Non-rational set-aside

1. What objectives is the Commission seeking to ensure by proposing that set-aside should be non-
rotational?

2.
How does the Commission propose that such land can be used if at all, and is it aware of the
considerable problems that unused land may cause by inviting informal and unauthorised travellers’
encampments?

3.

How would it avoid this consequence?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Set-aside has

1.
received much attention by environmentalists as an instrument with a great
environmental potential. The latter will, however, emerge only if habitats on set-aside land have sufficient
time to develop and if some land management
in line with site-specific requirements is applied.
Environmentalists have asked for some time for a fixed proportion of non-rotational set-aside.

The environmental requirements can be matched without compromising the supply management effect of
set aside. This can be achieved by making set-aside non-rotational, applying land management
corresponding to ecological needs, and restricting the set-aside requirement to arable land in order not to
undermine the environmental value of managed pastures.

Since under certain circumstances rotational set-aside could deliver better environmental outcomes,
rotational set-aside will be an option, applicable where justified on environmental grounds.

2.
and 3. In the Commission’s proposal establishing common rules for direct support schemes under
the Common Agricultural Policy (1), Article 57 states that the land set aside shall be maintained in good
agricultural condition but shall not be used for agricultural purposes and shall not produce any crop for
commercial purposes.

With regard to the rules regarding public access to such set-aside land, since no specific Community
legislation has been laid down in this domain, it is considered by the Commission to be a matter of
national competence.

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.

(2003/C 161 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0348/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(6 February 2003)

Subject: Formation of a joint stock holding company for the City of Rome: possible conflict between public

and corporate interests

The recent proposal for a Rome City Council decision concerning the possibility of forming a holding
company that would take over all the holdings in the 83 companies which that council currently controls
gives rise to many doubts regarding the activities carried on by such companies and their legitimacy in
respect of Community laws on public service contracts.
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its 98th meeting on 16 July 2001 concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2333 — De Beers/LVMH (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-02-05
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: competition law, dominant position, economic concentration, luxury products industry, merger control, precious stones, retail selling, sale

C 27/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

5.2.2003

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on Concentrations given at its 98th meeting on 16 July 2001
concerning a preliminary draft decision relating to Case COMP/M.2333 — De Beers/LVMH

(2003/C 27/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified operation constitutes a concen-
tration within the meaning of Article 3(1)b) of the Merger Regulation. The Advisory Committee agrees
with the Commission that the notified operation has a Community dimension as defined in Article
1(2) of the Merger Regulation.

2. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the relevant product markets in this case

are

(a) the upstream market for the supply of rough diamonds

(b) the retail of diamond jewellery.

A minority disagrees on point 2(b).

3. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that, for the purposes of this case, it can be left
open whether the production and sale of polished diamonds constitutes a separate relevant product
market.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with Commission that

(a) the market for the supply of rough diamonds is world wide

(b) the definition of the geographic scope of the market for the production and sale of polished

diamonds can be left open

(c) the retail market for diamond jewellery is at the most EEA-wide

(d) if a narrower product market for the retail of branded diamond jewellery would exist, it would be

worldwide.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that pre-merger De Beers has a dominant

position in the market for the supply of rough diamonds.

6. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the joint venture can be expected to

achieve a leading position in the retail of higher-end branded diamond jewellery.

7. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the joint venture is set up to promote the

proprietary supply channel in the framework of the Forevermark stratregy.

8. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the concentration will not
significantly strengthen the dominant postion of De Beers in the market for the supply of rough
diamonds. A minority abstains. A minority disagrees.

9. The majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the notified concentration
therefore can be declared compatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement. A minority
abstains. A minority disagrees.

10. The Committee asks the Commission to take into account

the other points raised during the

discussion of this case.

11. The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its opinion in the Official Journal of the

European Union.