do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3686/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Massa.
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.
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

9.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 297/1

I

(Information)

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

8 December 2003

(2003/C 297/01)

Currency

US dollar

Japanese yen

Danish krone

Pound sterling

Swedish krona

Swiss franc

Iceland króna

Exchange
rate

1,2218

131,40

7,4416

0,7043

8,9327

1,5479

89,90

LVL

MTL

PLN

ROL

SIT

SKK

TRL

Currency

Latvian lats

Maltese lira

Polish zloty

Romanian leu

Slovenian tolar

Slovak koruna

Turkish lira

Norwegian krone

8,0795

AUD

Australian dollar

1 euro =

USD

JPY

DKK

GBP

SEK

CHF

ISK

NOK

BGN

CYP

CZK

EEK

HUF

LTL

Bulgarian lev

Cyprus pound

Czech koruna

Estonian kroon

Hungarian forint

Lithuanian litas

1,9515

0,5837

32,213

CAD

HKD

NZD

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

267,84

KRW

South Korean won

1 449,24

3,4531

ZAR

South African rand

7,7674

Exchange
rate

0,6612

0,4303

4,6494

40 510

236,605

41,045

1 753 751

1,6495

1,59

9,4872

1,886

2,0906

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2149/2003 of 9 December 2003 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, pip fruit, stone fruit

10.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 323/5

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2149/2003

of 9 December 2003

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and
vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria,
the standard
import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the
Annex to this Regulation,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of
21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the
last
import arrangements
amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (2), and in particu-
lar Article 4(1) thereof,

fruit and vegetables (1), as

for

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Whereas:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the
outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade nego-
tiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the
standard values for imports from third countries,
in
respect of the products and periods stipulated in the
Annex thereto.

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regu-
lation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 December 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2003.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66.
(2) OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17.

L 323/6

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2003

to the Commission Regulation of 9 December 2003 establishing the standard import values for determining
the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

ANNEX

CN code

0702 00 00

0707 00 05

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

0805 20 10

0805 20 30, 0805 20 50, 0805 20 70,
0805 20 90

0805 50 10

0808 10 20, 0808 10 50, 0808 10 90

0808 20 50

Third country code (1)

Standard import value

(EUR/100 kg)

052
204
212
624
999

052
999

052
204
999

052
204
388
999

052
204
999

052
464
999

052
388
400
600
999

060
064
388
400
404
720
800
999

052
060
064
400
720
999

74,4
64,1
108,5
111,0
89,5

151,8
151,8

115,6
130,0
122,8

39,3
40,4
46,6
42,1

62,0
65,0
63,5

69,0
132,9
101,0

65,9
82,9
37,4
70,6
64,2

40,1
51,2
115,4
78,2
85,4
88,6
135,4
84,9

90,0
52,2
58,8
92,7
44,9
67,7

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2020/2001 (OJ L 273, 16.10.2001, p. 6). Code ‘999’ stands for

‘of other origin’.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3690/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Daphne programme by the municipality of Florence.
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, Tuscany, 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.
Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.3290 — General Electric/Sophia) (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: economic concentration, exchange of information, financial transaction, group of companies, merger control, property market

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-3679/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pesaro.
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/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.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2150/2003 of 9 December 2003 on the issue of licences for the import of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) in the period from 9 November 2003 to 10 April 2004
Date: 2003-12-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, fruit product, import licence, preserved product

10.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 323/7

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2150/2003

of 9 December 2003

on the issue of licences for the import of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely
mandarins, etc.) in the period from 9 November 2003 to 10 April 2004

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 3285/94 of 22
December 1994 on common rules for imports and repealing
Regulation (EC) No 518/94 (1),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 of 7
March 1994 on common rules for imports from certain third
countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) No 1765/82, (EEC)
No 1766/82 and (EEC) 3420/83 (2),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003
of 7 November 2003 imposing provisional safeguard measures
against imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits
(namely mandarins, etc.) (3), and in particular Article 8(1)
thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

The quantities for which licence applications have been
lodged by traditional importers and by new importers
pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003

exceed the quantities available for products originating
in the People's Republic of China (PRC) and in all third
countries other than the People's Republic of China.

(2)

It is now necessary to fix, for each category of importer
and product origin, the proportion of the quantity for
which application is made which may be imported
under licence,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Applications for import licences lodged under Article 5(1) of
Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003, shall be met at the percentage
rates of the quantities applied for as set out in the Annex
hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 11 December 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 9 December 2003.

For the Commission

Pascal LAMY

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 349, 31.12.1994, p. 53; Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 2474/2000 (OJ L 286, 11.11.2000, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 67, 10.3.1994, p. 89; Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 427/2003 (OJ L 65, 8.3.2003, p. 1).

(3) OJ L 290, 8.11.2003, p. 3.

L 323/8

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

10.12.2003

ANNEX

Origin of the products

Percentage allocations

People's Republic of China

Other third countries

— traditional importers

(Article 2(c) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003)

— new importers

(Article 2(e) of Regulation (EC) No 1964/2003)

25,810 %

5,150 %

N/A

N/A
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pistoia.
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

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/85

(2004/C 84 E/0096)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3687/03

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 Pistoia

In its answer to question E-1113/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Pistoia 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/0097)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3688/03

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 Perugia

In its answer to question E-1110/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city
had applied twice, in 1997 and 1999, but that it had not received funding in either case.

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/0098)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3689/03

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 Siena

In its answer to question E-1115/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted
projects and secured funding under the Ecos-Ouverture programme, the Commission stated that the city
had applied with two projects in 1999, but that neither of them had received 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.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3681/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Ecos-Ouverture II programme by the municipality of Pisa.
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

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.