do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

11.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

10 March 2003

(2003/C 56/01)

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

1,1042

128,71

7,4261

0,6905

9,2517

1,4686

84,79

7,934

1,9507

0,5814

31,773

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

0,6315

0,4251

4,3633

36084

231,8825

41,815

1777000

1,7948

1,6161

8,6114

1,9642

1,9155

245,4

KRW

South Korean won

1367,77

3,4535

ZAR

South African rand

8,7537

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation adapting the provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of its implementing powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation procedure (unanimity) (COM(2001) 789 - C5-0092/2002 - 2001/0316(CNS))
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: Committee on Constitutional Affairs, European Parliament
Subjects: European Commission, comitology, committee (EU), power of implementation, powers of the institutions (EU)

C 61 E/96

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.3.2004

Tuesday 11 March 2003

P5_TA(2003)0074

Provisions relating to the committees assisting the Commission (unani-
mity) *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation adapting the
its imple-
provisions relating to committees which assist the Commission in the exercise of
menting powers laid down in Council instruments adopted in accordance with the consultation
procedure (unanimity) (COM(2001) 789 — C5‑0092/2002 — 2001/0316(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

— having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2001) 789) (1),

— having regard to Articles 93, 94, 157, 269, 279 and 308 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which it

was consulted by the Council (C5‑0092/2002),

— having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

— having regard to the report of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs and the opinions of the
Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal
Market (A5‑0032/2003),

1.

Approves the Commission proposal;

Calls on the Council to notify Parliament should it intend to depart from the text approved by

2.
Parliament;

Asks to be consulted again should the Council

3.
Commission proposal;

intend to make substantial changes to the

4.

Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002, p. 448.

P5_TA(2003)0075

Pre-accession measures for agriculture and rural development *

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council regulation amending
Regulation (EC) No 1268/1999 on Community support for pre-accession measures for agriculture
and rural development in the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in the pre-
accession period (COM(2002) 519 — C5‑0497/2002 — 2002/0227(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/03 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Building of controlled tips.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing arrangements, Portugal, waste, waste management

C 78 E/704

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0751)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Building of ‘controlled tips’

There are plans to build a series of ‘controlled tips’ for ordinary refuse at various sites in Portugal, in some
cases with aid from Community funds.

What projects have already been submitted for Community funding, and what stage have these projects
reached?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

So far no request for Community Fund financing for controlled tips has been presented by Portugal.

On the question of financing for such projects from the Structural Funds, the Commission reminds the
Honourable Member that under the subsidiarity principle projects are selected at national level by the
managing authority for each operational programme once its strategic priorities have been approved by
the Commission. Only projects costing more than EUR 50 million have to be notified to the Commission
(Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1)).

Thus the Commission does not have prior knowledge of all projects financed from the Structural Funds
and invites him to approach the Portuguese authorities for information.

(1) Council Regulation 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

(2004/C 78 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/03

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006

How was the EUR 20 million allocated under the National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006 for Maríne
Tourism Infrastructure allocated? Is the Commission satisfied that this entire budget was distributed as
originally intended?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Irish National Development Plan is implemented through several Operational Programmes which
contain a range of measures, some of which are confinanced by the Community and others funded from
purely national resources.

The Maríne Tourism measure is a nationally funded measure featuring in the two Regional Operational
Programmes i.e. The Border Midland and Western and the Southern and Eastern Programmes.

As this measure is not cofinanced from Union Structural Funds, the distribution of the funding is not a
matter on which the Commission is in a position to comment.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige: Solidarity Fund review.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Galicia, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), oil pollution, tanker

C 242 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

From the outset of the break up of the tanker Prestige on 19 November 2002, the Commission has been
actively engaged in the provision of assistance and in the adoption of measures to alleviate the damage
caused by its sinking.

The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission Communication ‘Report to the European Council
on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige disaster’ (1) adopted on 5 March 2003. This report gives a
comprehensive account of the Commission’s co-ordinated response to the Prestige accident.

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.

(2003/C 242 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0729/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Prestige: Solidarity Fund review

A Spanish newspaper (La Voz de Galicia’ of 19 January 2003, p. 7) has claimed that ‘in response to
requests from the Spanish Government, Prodi undertook to consider reviewing the use of the Solidarity
Fund in the case of the Prestige disaster, due to the problems detected in applying it efficiently on a scale
commensurate with that of the disaster’.

Can the Commission President confirm that the review of the Fund is being considered as a result of
problems detected in applying it to the oil spill from the Prestige?

If so, what does this ‘review’ of the use of the ‘Solidarity Fund’ consist of? What might the problems
detected be? Is the Commission going to submit a proposal amending the relevant Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

In its Communication ‘Report to the European Council on action to deal with the effects of the Prestige
disaster’ (1), the Commission states that it remains to be ascertained whether the Prestige disaster is eligible
for aid under the European Union Solidarity Fund (EUSF) (2).

The Communication to the European Council concludes that aid of the volume required for the Prestige
would necessitate an amendment to the legal basis of the fund, which the Commission is willing to
propose to the Council. The amendment would adjust the mechanism in line with the Commission’s initial
proposal submitted in September 2002. It might include adjusting the Solidarity Fund to cover disasters of
a technological or environmental nature,
lowering the threshold for action (currently EUR 3 billion or
0,6 % of the gross national product (GNP) of the Member State concerned) and extending the eligible
actions defined in Article 3 of the Regulation to include preventative action intended to minimise the
damaging effects of an ongoing or imminent disaster.

(1) COM(2003) 105 final.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 2012/2002 of 11 November 2002 establishing the European UnionSolidarity Fund (cid:1)

OJ L 311, 14.11.2002.
Corrigendum to the notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in Thailand (OJ C 17 of 24.1.2003)
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Thailand, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping legislation, import, originating product, piping

C 56/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

11.3.2003

Corrigendum to the notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to
imports of certain tube and pipe fittings originating in Thailand

(Official Journal of the European Communities C 17 of 24 January 2003)

(2003/C 56/06)

On page 2, in paragraph 2 ‘Product’, the text should be replaced by the following:

‘The products under review are certain tube or pipe fittings (other than cast fittings, flanges and threaded fittings),
of iron or steel (not including stainless steel), with a greatest external diameter not exceeding 609,6 mm, of a kind
used for butt-welding or other purposes, originating in Thailand (“the product concerned”), currently classifiable
within CN codes ex 7307 93 11, ex 7307 93 19, ex 7307 99 30 and ex 7307 99 90. These CN codes are given
only for information.’
List of Member States' authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with ionising radiation (According to Article 4(6) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation) (This text cancels and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 174 of 20 July 2002, p. 3)
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: approximation of laws, foodstuff, ionising radiation, irradiation, perishable goods

11.3.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 56/5

List of Member States' authorisations of food and food ingredients which may be treated with
ionising radiation

(According to Article 4(6) of Directive 1999/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the approxi-
mation of the laws of the Member States concerning foods and food ingredients treated with ionising radiation)

(This text cancels and replaces the text published in Official Journal C 174 of 20 July 2002, p. 3)

(2003/C 56/03)

Product

Authorised at the given maximum overall average
absorbed radiation dose [kGy]

Deep frozen aromatic herbs

Potatoes

Yams

Onions

Garlic

Shallots

Vegetables, including pulses

Pulses

Fruit (including fungi, tomato, rhubarb)

Strawberries

Dried vegetables and fruits

Cereals

Flakes and germs of cereals for milk products

Flakes from cereals

Rice flour

Gum arabic

Chicken meat

Poultry

Poultry (domestic fowls, geese, ducks, guinea fowls, pigeons, quails, and
turkeys)

Mechanically recovered poultrymeat

Offal of poultry

Frozen frog legs

Dehydrated blood, plasma, coagulates

Fish and shellfish (including eels, crustaceans and molluscs)

Frozen peeled or decapitated shrimps

Shrimps

Egg white

Casein, caseinates

BE

0,15

0,15

0,15

0,15

FR

10

0,075

0,075

0,075

1

2

3

5

5

5

3

1

10

4

3

5

5

5

5

10

5

3

6

IT

NL

UK

0,15

0,15

0,15

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

0,2

1

2

1

7

3

1

1

1

3

7

5

3

3
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige: EU action at WTO level.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU environmental policy, International Maritime Organisation, coastal protection, environmental cooperation, international standard, maritime safety, maritime transport, oil pollution, prevention of pollution

C 58 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

(2004/C 58 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0720/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject:

‘Prestige’: EU action at WTO level

On 19 December 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to
alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster. Paragraph 5 reads:

Recognises the fact that the EU has only limited power to control ships in transit through its waters;
therefore calls on the Council to act quickly to grant the Commission the mandate to negotiate on
behalf of all 15 Member States within the International Maritime Organisation, with particular regard
to the establishment of more stringent rules on Port State Control in third countries, the development
of a Flag State audit procedure aimed at combating flags of convenience, as defined by the Paris
Memorandum of Understanding, and the proper implementation of compulsory shipping routes and
pilotage and the restriction of shipping in designated Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas in order to
protect sensitive coastlines; given the slow process of decision-making at IMO level, calls on the
Commission simultaneously to initiate bilateral negotiations with key third countries with a view to
improving the safety of ships in transit through EU waters.

How does the Commission view this request from Parliament?

What steps has it taken or does it intend to take in response?

(2004/C 58 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0722/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject:

‘Prestige’: setting up a European coastguards service

(11 March 2003)

On 19 December 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to
alleviate the effects of
the ‘Prestige’ disaster. Paragraph 20 calls for ‘the setting up of a European
Coastguards Service which can work in close cooperation with maritime traffic controllers’.

What measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in response?

(2004/C 58 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0723/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject:

‘Prestige’: identification of particularly sensitive sea areas

(11 March 2003)

On 19 December 2002 the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to
alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster. Paragraph 21 reads:

Considers that a protection, prevention and monitoring plan for maritime transport routes in the EU
regions which are most vulnerable to accidents involving oil and chemicals should be drafted, and
these areas should be identified as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas by the International Maritime
Organisation.

What measures has the Commission taken or does it intend to take in response?
2003/498/CFSP: Political and Security Committee Decision FYROM/3/2003 of 11 March 2003 amending the Political and Security Committee Decision FYROM/2/2003 of 10 March 2003 on the acceptance of third States contributions to the European Union military operation in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: Political and Security Committee
Subjects: Baltic States, Canada, Central and Eastern Europe, European Union, North Macedonia, Northern Europe, Türkiye, military cooperation

9.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 170/17

POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE DECISION FYROM/3/2003

of 11 March 2003

amending the Political and Security Committee Decision FYROM/2/2003 of 10 March 2003 on the
acceptance of third States contributions to the European Union military operation in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

(2003/498/CFSP)

THE POLITICAL AND SECURITY COMMITTEE,

Czech Republic

Having regard to the Political and Security Committee Decision
FYROM/2/2003 of 10 March 2003 on the acceptance of third
States' contributions to the EU military operation in the Former
Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

By letter of 11 March 2003 the Hungarian Military
Representative to NATO Military Committee and WEU
offered a contribution to the EU Military Operation in
FYROM.

and Security
the
On 11 March 2003,
Committee, acting upon the recommendation of the EU
Operation Commander and the EU Military Committee,
decided to accept the contribution,

Political

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 1 of the Political and Security Committee Decision
FYROM/2/2003 shall be replaced by the following:

‘Article 1

Third States' contributions

Estonia

Hungary

Iceland

Latvia

Lithuania

Norway

Poland

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Turkey.’

Article 2

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its signature.

Following the Force Generation and Manning Conferences,
contributions from the following third States are accepted
for the EU operation in FYROM:

Done at Brussels, 11 March 2003.

Bulgaria

Canada

For the Political and Security Committee

The Chairperson

T. PARASKEVOPOULOS
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0730/03 by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission. Prestige: Measures for Natura 2000 network areas.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU financial instrument, Galicia, ecological balance, maritime safety, oil pollution, pollution control measures, protected area, support policy

C 70 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Therefore, the question of a trade policy initiative in the field of cat and dog furs (a ban on import of cat
and dog furs) should not be imposed in isolation from the more general
issue of a domestic policy
concerning the production and marketing of cat and dog furs on the internal market.

(2004/C 70 E/033)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0730/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

Subject:

‘Prestige’: Measures for Natura 2000 network areas

(11 March 2003)

In 19 December 2002, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on safety at sea and measures to
alleviate the effects of the ‘Prestige’ disaster, paragraph 22 calls on the Commission, in conjunction with the
Spanish authorities, to draw up special plans for the regeneration of the Natura 2000 areas affected.

On 21 November 2002, Parliament had already adopted a resolution on this issue; paragraph 14 reads:

Calls on the Commission to adopt specific measures in order to guarantee a proper ecological balance
in the SCI areas of the Natura 2000 network affected by this catastrophe.

How does the Commission view these requests from Parliament?

What measures has it taken or does it intend to take in response?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2003)

According to its Resolution of 19 December 2002, the Parliament asked the Commission to provide
specific measures in order to guarantee the ecological balance of the Natura 2000 site.

The role of the Commission in relation to the Natura 2000 network is clearly established in the Habitats
Directive, (Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of
In this case the Commission is not responsible for the maintenance and
wild fauna and flora) (1).
the Natura 2000 sites. This is a Member States
restoration at a favourable conservation status of
responsibility. However, the Commission is aware of the exceptional circumstances of this situation.

Within the framework of Commission responsibilities the Commission has carried out the bio-geographical
seminar for the Atlantic region in order to adopt the Atlantic list of sites of Community importance in
order to guarantee Member States the application of provisions under Article 6(2), (3) and (4) of the
Habitats Directive.

The Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to its replies to written questions
E-3661/02 (2) and P-0001/03 (3) where the possibilities of using financial instruments available at the EU
level are described.

Finally, the Commission could consider (cid:1) upon request (cid:1) any specific measure regarding restoration
activities in the framework of the Habitats Committee.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(2) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 67.
(3) OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 166.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/03 by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission. National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006.
Date: 2003-03-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, development plan, financing method, maritime area, operational programme, tourist infrastructure

C 78 E/704

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0751)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0736/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: Building of ‘controlled tips’

There are plans to build a series of ‘controlled tips’ for ordinary refuse at various sites in Portugal, in some
cases with aid from Community funds.

What projects have already been submitted for Community funding, and what stage have these projects
reached?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(28 April 2003)

So far no request for Community Fund financing for controlled tips has been presented by Portugal.

On the question of financing for such projects from the Structural Funds, the Commission reminds the
Honourable Member that under the subsidiarity principle projects are selected at national level by the
managing authority for each operational programme once its strategic priorities have been approved by
the Commission. Only projects costing more than EUR 50 million have to be notified to the Commission
(Article 25 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 (1)).

Thus the Commission does not have prior knowledge of all projects financed from the Structural Funds
and invites him to approach the Portuguese authorities for information.

(1) Council Regulation 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down general provisions on the Structural Funds.

(2004/C 78 E/0752)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0751/03

by Mary Banotti (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2003)

Subject: National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006

How was the EUR 20 million allocated under the National Irish Development Plan 2000-2006 for Maríne
Tourism Infrastructure allocated? Is the Commission satisfied that this entire budget was distributed as
originally intended?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2003)

The Irish National Development Plan is implemented through several Operational Programmes which
contain a range of measures, some of which are confinanced by the Community and others funded from
purely national resources.

The Maríne Tourism measure is a nationally funded measure featuring in the two Regional Operational
Programmes i.e. The Border Midland and Western and the Southern and Eastern Programmes.

As this measure is not cofinanced from Union Structural Funds, the distribution of the funding is not a
matter on which the Commission is in a position to comment.