do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3237 — San Paolo IMI/Santander Group/Allfunds JV) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: bank, economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance company, investment company, merger control

C 297/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.12.2003

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3279 — Generali/Zurich Financial Services)

(2003/C 297/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 November 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 French 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 ‘CFR’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 303M3279. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3237 — San Paolo IMI/Santander Group/Allfunds JV)

(2003/C 297/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 November 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 303M3237. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3279 — Generali/Zurich Financial Services) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, insurance company, life assurance, merger control

C 297/24

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

9.12.2003

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3279 — Generali/Zurich Financial Services)

(2003/C 297/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 13 November 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 French 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 ‘CFR’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 303M3279. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3237 — San Paolo IMI/Santander Group/Allfunds JV)

(2003/C 297/11)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 28 November 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 303M3237. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3317 — Ratos/Lehmann Brothers/Fastighetstornet) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, investment company, merger control, private investment, real property

9.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/23

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3317 — Ratos/Lehmann Brothers/Fastighetstornet)

(2003/C 297/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 December 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 303M3317. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.3290 — General Electric/Sophia)

(2003/C 297/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 1 December 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 French 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 ‘CFR’ version of the CELEX database, under document No 303M3290. CELEX

is the computerised documentation system of European Community law.

For more information concerning subscriptions please contact:

EUR-OP,
Information, Marketing and Public Relations,
2, rue Mercier,
L-2985 Luxembourg.
Tel. (352) 29 29 427 18, fax (352) 29 29 427 09.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Ancona.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Marches, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), local authority, project evaluation, regional and local authorities, regional cooperation

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/83

(2004/C 84 E/0090)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pisa

In its answer to question E-1112/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pisa had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0091)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3682/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Ancona

In its answer to question E-1104/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Ancona had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0092)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3683/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Carrara

In its answer to question E-1105/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Carrara had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Marches, child, decision-making, project evaluation, violence, woman

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/629

mobilising a broad range of operators and resources in the Community and the Member States.
In particular, the Innovation Action Plan will complement the 3 % Action Plan adopted in 2003, which
aims at increasing the average research investment level to 3 % of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2010.

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 60.
(2) COM(2003) 0027 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0663)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1006/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of
proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they
were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.

(2004/C 78 E/0664)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3691/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino

In its answer to question E-1011/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro-Urbino had
submitted projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a
number of proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in
July 2003.

Can the Commission say whether the projects submitted actually received funding and, if not, why they
were not considered suitable?

Have any other projects been submitted in the meantime?

(1) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 62.

(2004/C 78 E/0665)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3692/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-1015/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Daphne programme, the Commission stated that a number of
proposals had been submitted, but that the outcome of the assessment would be available in July 2003.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Livorno.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Tuscany, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), local authority, project evaluation, regional and local authorities, regional cooperation

C 84 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Livorno

In its answer to question E-1107/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Macerata

In its answer to question E-1108/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-1109/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Macerata.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Marches, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), local authority, project evaluation, regional and local authorities, regional cooperation

C 84 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0093)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3684/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Livorno

In its answer to question E-1107/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Livorno had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3685/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Macerata

In its answer to question E-1108/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0095)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa

In its answer to question E-1109/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Massa had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.
Corrigendum to diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture which are the object of mutual recognition by the Member States (OJ C 294 of 4.12.2003)
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: architecture, recognition of diplomas

9.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/27

Corrigendum to the Call for Proposals DG EAC 04/03 — European year of education through sport 2004

CORRIGENDA

(Official Journal of the European Union C 126 of 28 May 2003)

(2003/C 297/14)

On page 45, foonote 13:

for:

read:

‘If the beneficiary refuses to sign this declaration, detailed justification must be attached to the
application form. The Commission will take this into consideration when awarding grants.’,

‘For the cases quoted in (a) till (h) a declaration on oath made by the person concerned is required.’

Corrigendum to diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in architecture which are the
object of mutual recognition by the Member States

(Official Journal of the European Union C 294 of 4 December 2003)

(2003/C 297/15)

On page 5, in the table, the entry for ‘PORTUGAL’ shall read as follows:

Country

Title of diploma

Body awarding diploma

Certificate accompanying
diploma

PORTUGAL

Carta de curso de Licenciatura em Arqui-
tectura

Faculdade de arquitectura da Universidade técnica de
Lisboa

Faculdade de arquitectura da Universidade do Porto

Escola Superior Artística do Porto

Para os cursos iniciados a partir do ano
académico de 1991/1992

Universidade Lusíada do Porto — Faculdade de Arqui-
tectura e Artes
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Florence.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, Tuscany, eligibility criteria, fund (EU), local authority, project evaluation, regional and local authorities, regional cooperation

C 84 E/82

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0087)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3678/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Terni

In its answer to question E-1116/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city
had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0088)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3679/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pesaro

In its answer to question E-1111/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that no
funding had been granted by 1999.

Can the Commission say whether the municipality submitted any projects and obtained and used any
funding in the subsequent budget years?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.

(2004/C 84 E/0089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3680/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(9 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Florence

In its answer to question E-1106/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Florence had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city
had applied but had not been been selected for funding.

Can the Commission say why the projects were not considered suitable?

Has the Commission completed its examination of the final reports mentioned in its answers and, if so,
can it supply any information on the outcome?

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 139.