do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions.
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Commissioner, Eurostat, fraud against the EU, political responsibility

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/543

The question of trust between peoples arose many times between 1976 and 1996, and on each occasion,
it was shown to be increasing gradually in the Union. The Commission is planning to look into this matter
again.

(1) See page 263.

(2004/C 78 E/0564)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3416/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

With reference to recent developments in the Eurostat scandal,
pursuing a policy of ‘zero tolerance’ towards those responsible still valid?

is the Commission’s commitment to

(2004/C 78 E/0565)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3417/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Although it is feasible that a general reform process may take several years, is it possible that some cases
of irregularity and even fraud may have continued beyond 1999 and even until 2002? Is the Commission
responsible or not for the way in which it tackled the issue after 1999?

(2004/C 78 E/0566)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3418/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify what it understands to be the political responsibility of the Commissioners
with regard to the recommendations of the Committee of Independent Experts and the code of conduct for
contracts signed in 1999?

(2004/C 78 E/0567)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3419/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Does the Commission agree with the Committee of
the full political
responsibility assumed by the Commissioners should be understood as the obligation to be answerable to
the Commission as a body, and then to Parliament, for their actions and those of the Director-General and
other officials in their department?

Independent Experts

that
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3228 — Nestlé/Colgate-Palmolive/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: cosmetic product, economic concentration, exchange of information, foodstuff, mass-consumption product, merger control

18.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/19

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3228 — Nestlé/Colgate-Palmolive/JV)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2003/C 277/14)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 November 2003 the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration
1.
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 Nestlé SA (Switzerland) and Colgate-Palmolive Company (USA)
acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation joint control of three newly created joint
ventures by way of transfer of assets and activities and cash contributions.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Nestlé SA: enterprise in the nutrition and food business,

— Colgate-Palmolive: active in the consumer products business,

— JVs: development, production, marketing, distribution and sale of portable oral care products in the UK,

Canada and Ireland.

3.
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within
the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant
to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (3), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under
the procedure set out in the notice.

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.3228 — Nestlé/Colgate-Palmolive/JV, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Merger Registry,
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.
(3) OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3287 — AGCO/Valtra) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: agricultural machinery, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control

18.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/17

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3287 — AGCO/Valtra)

(2003/C 277/12)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
On 11 November 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 AGCO Corporation (‘AGCO’, USA) acquire, within the meaning
of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation, control of the whole of Valtra Inc. (‘Valtra’, Finland), belonging to Kone
Corporation (‘Kone’, Finland), by way of purchase of assets.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— AGCO: worldwide manufacture and distribution of agricultural equipment, such as tractors and

combine harvesters,

— Valtra: worldwide manufacture and distribution of tractors; Sisu Diesel, a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Valtra, is a manufacturer of diesel engines for tractors and construction machines.

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.3287 — AGCO/Valtra, to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Merger Registry,
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-3423/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions.
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU

C 78 E/544

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0568)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3420/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Can the Commission clarify the meaning of
regarding
Commissioner Solbes, who it said was guilty of passivity in the Eurostat case? Can it say whether this is
to be considered as a lack of political control? How many times, since 1999, has Commissioner Solbes had
contact with the Directorate-General for Eurostat?

it made on 25 September

the statement

(2004/C 78 E/0569)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3421/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Does the Commission still trust the relevant Commissioner to monitor the reform process within Eurostat
and to accept his responsibilities?

(2004/C 78 E/0570)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3422/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Did Commissioner Solbes offer to resign at any time following the Eurostat scandal? If so, why did the
Commission consider his resignation inappropriate or inopportune?

(2004/C 78 E/0571)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3423/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Does the Commission intend to change the relationship between the Commissioners and their Directors-
General to ensure that in future the latter are high-level officials but are subject to the political authority of
their respective Commissioners, as is the case in ministries in the Member States? If so, when is this
decision due to be adopted?

(2004/C 78 E/0572)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3424/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

How often has the Commission discussed Eurostat since September 1999? On what dates did these
discussions take place?
Information relating to the entry into force of the Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, acting in the framework of the European Union, of the one part, and the Republic of Slovenia, of the other part, to take account of the outcome of negotiations between the Parties on new mutual agricultural concessions
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: Council of the European Union
Subjects: Slovenia, agricultural trade, association agreement (EU)

L 299/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2003

Information relating to the entry into force of the Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the
Europe Agreement establishing an association between the European Communities and their
Member States, acting in the framework of the European Union, of the one part, and the Republic
of Slovenia, of the other part, to take account of the outcome of negotiations between the Parties
on new mutual agricultural concessions

The Protocol adjusting the trade aspects of the Europe Agreement with the Republic of Slovenia, to take
account of the outcome of negotiations between the Parties on new mutual agricultural concessions, which
the Council decided to conclude on 26 May 2003 (1), entered into force on 1 November 2003, since notifi-
cation of the accomplishment of the procedures specified in Article 4 of that Protocol was completed on
30 October 2003.

(1) OJ L 152, 20.6.2003, p. 22.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions.
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU

C 78 E/546

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0577)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

One of the main criticisms made by the Committee of Wise Men in 1999 and repeated in Parliament’s
resolution on the postponement of discharge to the Commission in respect of implementation of the
general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1998 (A5-0087/2000, adopted on 13 April
2000 (1)) and recently stressed by the supervisory bodies dealing with the Eurostat case, referred to the lack
of appropriate checks. Was somebody appointed specifically to carry out checks? Is there anyone inside
Eurostat who may be considered responsible for the lack of comments made?

(1) OJ C 40, 7.2.2001, p. 381.

(2004/C 78 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

After the fall of the Santer Commission in 1999 it was decided that relations with external firms should be
governed by transparent provisions laid down in standard contracts. Why was this principle not followed
by Eurostat? How can the new executive agencies avoid finding themselves in the same position?

(2004/C 78 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Since the Commission’s agencies in Luxembourg were arms of the political authority, are there grounds to
suppose that some Commissioners facilitated the continuation of unorthodox practices or supervised them
inadequately? How does the Commission intend to solve this kind of problem?

(2004/C 78 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

The reasons adduced to explain the situation Eurostat finds itself in include the fact that there are not
enough staff to tackle the increased responsibilities. Can the Commission justify the requests for more staff
submitted by Eurostat and the provisions approved by the budgetary authority?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions.
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU office or agency, European Commission, Eurostat, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU

C 78 E/546

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0577)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3429/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

One of the main criticisms made by the Committee of Wise Men in 1999 and repeated in Parliament’s
resolution on the postponement of discharge to the Commission in respect of implementation of the
general budget of the European Union for the financial year 1998 (A5-0087/2000, adopted on 13 April
2000 (1)) and recently stressed by the supervisory bodies dealing with the Eurostat case, referred to the lack
of appropriate checks. Was somebody appointed specifically to carry out checks? Is there anyone inside
Eurostat who may be considered responsible for the lack of comments made?

(1) OJ C 40, 7.2.2001, p. 381.

(2004/C 78 E/0578)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3430/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

After the fall of the Santer Commission in 1999 it was decided that relations with external firms should be
governed by transparent provisions laid down in standard contracts. Why was this principle not followed
by Eurostat? How can the new executive agencies avoid finding themselves in the same position?

(2004/C 78 E/0579)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3431/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

Since the Commission’s agencies in Luxembourg were arms of the political authority, are there grounds to
suppose that some Commissioners facilitated the continuation of unorthodox practices or supervised them
inadequately? How does the Commission intend to solve this kind of problem?

(2004/C 78 E/0580)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3432/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

The reasons adduced to explain the situation Eurostat finds itself in include the fact that there are not
enough staff to tackle the increased responsibilities. Can the Commission justify the requests for more staff
submitted by Eurostat and the provisions approved by the budgetary authority?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3425/03 by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission. Eurostat scandal — unanswered questions.
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, Eurostat, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/545

(2004/C 78 E/0573)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3425/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

What is the explanation for the fact that the Commission did not make any connection between the
various signs regarding the Eurostat scandal, which dated back to 2000? As regards the Secretary-General’s
superior, who received confidential
information from OLAF on the launch of investigations, can the
Commission accept that neither itself nor the Commissioners responsible for personnel were informed of
the matter? Was this perhaps justified by internal administrative procedures?

(2004/C 78 E/0574)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3426/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

To what extent was the Commission informed of the accusations made by Mrs Dorte Schmidt-Brown? Did
it receive information about the problems of Eurocost on 13 November 2000 and did it ask Mr Franchet
to reply? Did it inform Commissioner Solbes of the problems or was he asked to take any action? Did it
follow the case or inform any other Member of the Commission? What measures did the Commission take
in response to the letter of 12 July 2002 from Freddy Blak, Member of the European Parliament?

(2004/C 78 E/0575)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3427/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

To what extent was the Commission informed about the contents of the second van Buitenen report,
submitted at the end of August 2001, in particular the problems encountered in Eurostat? What was its
response?

(2004/C 78 E/0576)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3428/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(18 November 2003)

Subject: Eurostat scandal (cid:1) unanswered questions

On 8 July OLAF forwarded its file to the judiciary in Luxembourg. Did President Prodi or his staff contact
Commissioner Solbes or his office to discuss the measures required?
Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.3335 — Götz/Schwenk/Strabag/BFU (JV)) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: building industry, building materials, economic concentration, exchange of information, merger control

C 277/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2003

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.3335 — Götz/Schwenk/Strabag/BFU (JV))

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2003/C 277/13)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 10 November 2003, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant
1.
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 Götz Holding KG (‘Götz’, Germany), Schwenk Zement KG
(‘Schwenk’, Germany), and Ilbau Deutschland GmbH (‘Ilbau’, Germany — belonging to the Austrian Bau
Holding Strabag AG), acquire, within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Regulation, control of the whole
of BFU Betonförderunion GmbH & Co. KG (‘BFU’, Germany) by way of acquisition of shares and
contribution of assets.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

— Götz: concrete pumping;

— Schwenk: cement, concrete, concrete technology, concrete chemistry, and other building materials;

— Strabag: all areas of construction industry;

— BFU: concrete pumping.

3.
On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified concentration could fall within
the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. Pursuant
to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under
Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89 (3), it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under
the procedure set out in the notice.

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.3335 — Götz/Schwenk/Strabag/BFU (JV), to:

European Commission,
Directorate-General for Competition,
Merger Registry,
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.
(3) OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.
Public service obligations on scheduled air services within France (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-11-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: France, air transport, airline, inland transport, provision of services, service, transport capacity

C 277/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

18.11.2003

Public service obligations on scheduled air services within France

(2003/C 277/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1.
France has decided to alter the public service obligations on scheduled air services between Lannion
and Paris (Orly), published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 298 of 30 November 2002,
pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for
Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

The public service obligations in respect of scheduled air services between Lannion and Paris (Orly)

2.
are as follows:

Minimum frequency

The minimum level of service provided throughout the year must be three return trips per day, from
Monday to Friday, and one return trip on Sunday evening, excluding public holidays and the last week of
December.

Services must be operated without a stopover between Lannion and Paris (Orly).

Type of aircraft used and capacity provided

Services must be operated with a pressurised aircraft having a seating capacity of at least 70 which is
suited to conditions at the airport. There must be toilets on board.

Timetables

Timetables must be such as to enable passengers on business trips during the working week to make the
round trip within the day and to spend at least eight hours at their destination, whether Paris or Lannion.

Flight bookings

Flights must be marketed using at least one computerised reservation system.

Continuity of service

Except in cases of force majeure, the number of flights cancelled for reasons directly attributable to the
carrier must not exceed 3 % of the number of flights scheduled in any year. The carrier must give six
months' notice before discontinuing these services.

Community carriers are hereby informed that the operation of air services without regard to the above-
mentioned public service obligations may result in administrative and/or criminal penalties.

Slots are currently reserved at Paris (Orly) airport for the scheduled Paris (Orly)–Lannion service
3.
pursuant to Article 9 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 95/93 of 18 January 1993 on common rules for the
allocation of slots at Community airports. Air carriers interested in this route can obtain information about
these slots from the Paris airports coordinator.