do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3138 — Hamburgische Landesbank/Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: banking, economic concentration, merger control, restrictive-practice authorisation

7.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/9

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3138 — Hamburgische Landesbank/Landesbank Schleswig-Holstein)

(2003/C 108/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 25 April 2003 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 German 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 ‘CDE’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 303M3138. 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 29-4 24 55, Fax: (+352) 29 29-4 27 63.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3109 — Candover/Cinven/Gala)

(2003/C 108/06)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 14 March 2003, 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 303M3109. 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 29-4 24 55; fax (+352) 29 29-4 27 63.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

7.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

6 May 2003

(2003/C 108/01)

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

1,1344

133,92

7,4258

0,7044

9,0968

1,5144

83,66

7,883

1,9464

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

0,58779

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

31,303

NZD

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

Exchange
rate

0,644

0,4278

4,2742

37 523

232,6633

41,162

1 736 000

1,7801

1,5956

8,8393

1,9977

1,9781

245,11

KRW

South Korean won

1 365,82

3,4532

ZAR

South African rand

8,3549

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cruel and degrading treatment, death penalty, import policy, military equipment, suspension of customs duties, torture, trade regulations

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/373

(2004/C 78 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture

The Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products
which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (1) does not impose any restrictions on the use, production, marketing and sales within the
internal market of the equipment and products concerned.

Given that capital punishment is banned under EU Treaties, why did the Commission not include
proposals to outlaw the production of equipment that can be used for such purposes in the EU in this
proposed regulation?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

(2004/C 78 E/0394)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Control of trade in products that may be used to inflict torture

Annex II of the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products
which could be used for capital punishment or torture (1) allows Member States to control trade in listed
products that may be used to inflict
inhuman or degrading treatment or
torture or other cruel,
punishment. How much such equipment or products are produced in EU Member States, where and by
whom?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

(2004/C 78 E/0395)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Production of equipment and products for capital punishment or torture

Annex I of the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products
which could be used for capital punishment or torture (1) introduces an export ban for equipment and
products that can only be used to inflict capital punishment or torture or other cruel,
inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. How much such equipment or products are produced in EU Member
States, where and by whom?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1540/03, E-1541/03, E-1542/03 and E-1543/03
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Commission has made a proposal for the Community to impose restrictions on trade in certain
equipment which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, degrading or inhuman
treatment or punishment (1). This initiative responds to calls for action by the Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1611/03 by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission. Marketing of cereals.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: France, cereals, exchange of information, marketing, monopoly, professional association, storage, tax system, traceability, trade restriction

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/233

Nevertheless, in October 2002 Schuh-Union closed the cutting and stitching section of its Ponte de Lima
factory, which immediately made 172 workers redundant.

It should be noted that 97 % of the staff are women aged between 40 and 50, who will naturally find it
difficult to find other jobs, especially in a town where there are few job opportunities.

Can the Commission therefore say:

(cid:1) whether Schuh-Union has received any Community funding;

(cid:1) if so, how much it received, when, and what conditions were imposed on the company?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

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

(2003/C 242 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1611/03

by Jean-Louis Bernié (EDD) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Marketing of cereals

Apart from in France, the marketing of cereals in the European Union is not regulated; farmers can sell
their produce freely and can ensure that it is perfectly traceable, in contrast to the produce of giant silos.

In France, the marketing function is a monopoly held by the storage agencies licensed by the National
Cereals Trades Board (ONIC), and it is compulsory for all cereal trade to be channelled through them. The
approved collectors deduct
for the
operation of ONIC, which gives them financial support.

the parafiscal charges which are needed, amongst other things,

This situation means that producers and users of French cereals are penalised both financially and in
respect of their ability to trade freely. For example, a French cereals producer is not allowed to sell his
produce directly to a breeder.

The rules imposed by ONIC therefore appear to constitute a barrier to Community trade and freedom of
trade.

What does the Commission think of this typically French situation?

Does it have any suggestions for resolving it?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 June 2003)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: State aid, control of State aid, pollution control measures, shipbuilding, teacher training, water pollution

7.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2003/C 108/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision: 11.12.2002

Date of adoption of the decision: 19.3.2003

Member State: Germany (Bavaria)

Aid No: N 246/02

Member State: Germany

Aid No: N 744/02

Title: Programme for the promotion of the further education
of vocational trainers' lecturers

Title: Temporary Defensive Measures for shipbuilding

Objective: Training of vocational trainers' lecturers

Objective: Operating aid in the shipbuilding sector

Legal basis: Grundsätze zur Förderung der Fortbildung von
Dozenten für Ausbilderschulungen

Budget: EUR 308 000

Aid intensity or amount: Maximum 70 % for SME and
maximum 50 % for large companies

Duration: Until 31.12.2006

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confi-
dential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

Legal basis: Richtlinien des Bundesministeriums für Wirtschaft
und Arbeit zu befristeten Schutzmaßnahmen für den Schiffbau
vom 24. Oktober 2002

Budget: EUR 72 million

Aid intensity or amount: Maximum 6 % of contract value

Duration: 24 October 2002 to 31 March 2004

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confi-
dential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

Date of adoption of the decision: 17.12.2002

Member State: France

Aid No: N 496/02

Date of adoption of the decision: 19.3.2003

Title: Aid to eliminate waste as a source of water pollution

Objective: Combating water pollution

Member State: Italy

Aid No: N 751/02

Legal basis: Loi du 16 décembre 1964 relative au régime et à
la répartition des eaux et à la lutte contre leur pollution

Title: Extension of the three-year delivery limit for a cruise
vessel

Budget: EUR 16 million a year

Objective: Shipbuilding

Aid intensity or amount: Either 50 % of eligible costs over
five years or linear decrease from 100 % to 0 % of eligible costs
over five years

Duration: 2003-10

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confi-
dential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids

Legal basis: Legge 16 marzo 2001, n. 88, Nuove disposizioni
in materia di investimenti nelle imprese marittime

Aid intensity or amount: 9 % of the contract value of the
vessel

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confi-
dential information has been removed, can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3172 — Ferrovial/Amey) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: construction equipment, economic concentration, exchange of information, management, merger control, public works, service

C 108/10

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.5.2003

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3172 — Ferrovial/Amey)

(2003/C 108/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 25 April 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 undertaking Grupo Ferrovial, SA (‘Ferrovial’ Spain), through its wholly owned subsidiary
Ferrovial Servicios, SA, acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of that Regulation, control of the
whole of the undertaking Amey plc (‘Amey’ United Kingdom) by way of public bid announced on 16 April
2003.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Ferrovial: construction group with diversified activities including facility management and other

support services,

— Amey: support services comprising facility management, fleet services.

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.3172 — Ferrovial/Amey, 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-1557/03 by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council. Soccer and racism.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Slovakia, accession to the European Union, fine, racism, sporting event, sports body, violence

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/109

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(12 June 2003)

During the current parliamentary term the Commission has not launched any proceedings under Article 85
of the EC Treaty, with regard to Italian companies, nor are there any pending proceedings. Article 85 has
been to a large extent out of use since the adoption of Council Regulation No 17 of 6 February 1962, First
Regulation implementing Articles 81 and 82 of the Treaty. With regard to investigations under Regulation
17, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its annual reports on the application of the
competition rules in the European Union for 1999, 2000 and 2001. These reports are accessible via
internet under http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/annual_reports/.

With regard to infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty, the Commission would refer
the Honourable Member to the annual reports to Parliament on monitoring the application of Community
law relating to 1999 (1), 2000 (2) and 2001 (3).

(1) OJ C 30, 30.1.2001.
(2) OJ C 263, 19.9.2001.
(3) OJ C 214, 10.9.2002.

(2004/C 51 E/122)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1557/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Soccer and racism

Can the Council please give its response to the rise in racism and the organised racist behaviour of soccer
supporters of particular soccer clubs within EU countries and to the fines recently levied by UEFA on
particular soccer clubs?

Does the Council have a view on the disturbing evidence of organised racism at soccer matches in
particular accession countries, again identified by UEFA (for example in Slovakia)?

Reply

(29 September 2003)

The Council strongly condemns any racist incident, whether it takes place in the framework of a soccer
match or not. The Council equally condemns racist incidents in the acceeding countries. The Council
cannot comment regarding the fines levied by UEFA.

(2004/C 51 E/123)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1566/03

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Fines imposed on six French federations in the beef and veal sector

In a decision of 2 April 2003 the Commission imposed a fine amounting to a total of EUR 16,7 million on
six French federations in the beef and veal sector for concluding an agreement on the suspension of French
beef and veal imports and setting minimum prices for certain categories of livestock.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/03 by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission. Control of trade in products that may be used to inflict torture.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: cruel and degrading treatment, death penalty, import policy, military equipment, suspension of customs duties, torture, trade regulations

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/373

(2004/C 78 E/0393)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1541/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Outlawing the production of equipment for capital punishment and torture

The Commission’s proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products
which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment (1) does not impose any restrictions on the use, production, marketing and sales within the
internal market of the equipment and products concerned.

Given that capital punishment is banned under EU Treaties, why did the Commission not include
proposals to outlaw the production of equipment that can be used for such purposes in the EU in this
proposed regulation?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

(2004/C 78 E/0394)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1542/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Control of trade in products that may be used to inflict torture

Annex II of the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products
which could be used for capital punishment or torture (1) allows Member States to control trade in listed
products that may be used to inflict
inhuman or degrading treatment or
torture or other cruel,
punishment. How much such equipment or products are produced in EU Member States, where and by
whom?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

(2004/C 78 E/0395)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1543/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Production of equipment and products for capital punishment or torture

Annex I of the proposal for a Council Regulation concerning trade in certain equipment and products
which could be used for capital punishment or torture (1) introduces an export ban for equipment and
products that can only be used to inflict capital punishment or torture or other cruel,
inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment. How much such equipment or products are produced in EU Member
States, where and by whom?

(1) COM(2002) 770.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1540/03, E-1541/03, E-1542/03 and E-1543/03
given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2003)

The Commission has made a proposal for the Community to impose restrictions on trade in certain
equipment which could be used for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, degrading or inhuman
treatment or punishment (1). This initiative responds to calls for action by the Parliament and the Council.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1606/03 by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Revision of Directive 91/157/EEC.
Date: 2003-05-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EC Directive, cadmium, dangerous substance, drafting of EU law, electricity storage device, environmental protection, health risk, metals, report, waste management

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/115

(2004/C 51 E/129)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1606/03

by Françoise Grossetête (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 May 2003)

Subject: Revision of Directive 91/157/EEC

The Commission’s programme of work for 2003 states that the revision of Directive 91/157/EEC (1) will be
the economic, social and environmental
to an extended impact study so as to highlight
subject
implications of the strategic options selected for that revision.

Belgium, designated as ‘rapporteur’ under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 (2), is currently finalising a
report on the risk evaluation specific to the cadmium used in the manufacture of batteries and
accumulators.

Will the Commission take the findings of that report to constitute a decisive element for the extended
impact study and, hence, for the political choices which will be made when the future proposal for a
directive on batteries and accumulators is being drawn up?

Will the extended impact study deal with the various metals used in the manufacture of batteries and
accumulators in the same way?

(1) OJ L 78, 26.3.1991, p. 38.
(2) OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

As follows from the answer to Written Question E-1442/03 by Mrs Jackson (1), the Commission intends to
take the results of the existing draft reports of the Targeted Risk Assessment on cadmium (oxide) used in
batteries, which is currently being prepared by Belgium,
into consideration for the preparation of the
Extended Impact Assessment. The political choices for the future proposal for a directive on batteries and
accumulators will be based on the final results of the Extended Impact Assessment.

The Extended Impact Assessment does not deal with various metals used in the manufacture of batteries in
the same way, but will pay particular attention to different policy options for batteries and accumulators
containing cadmium, in view of their risk of ending up in the municipal solid waste stream.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 183.

(2004/C 51 E/130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1614/03

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(13 May 2003)

Subject: Energy efficiency of electrical appliances

The Commission will be aware of the findings of the recent study by the International Energy Agency
which concluded that introduction of more energy-efficient domestic electrical appliances could enable
developed countries to cut their energy consumption by 30 % by 2010, and contribute significantly to
meeting targets for cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

What plans does the Commission have to introduce mandatory standards for energy performance in
electrical equipment, and to extend energy labelling schemes?