do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Perugia municipality.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, action programme, education policy, local government, vocational training

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/319

(2004/C 78 E/0323)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3770/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Perugia municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1068/03 (1)) asking whether the Perugia municipality had
submitted projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on
8 May 2003 that Perugia had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were
submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

(2004/C 78 E/0324)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3771/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Pistoia municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1071/03 (1)) asking whether the Pistoia municipality had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003
that Pistoia had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were
submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.

(2004/C 78 E/0325)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3772/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on the use of funds from the Leonardo programme for the Prato municipality

In response to my previous question (E-1072/03 (1)) asking whether the Prato municipality had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the Leonardo programme, the Commission stated on 8 May 2003
that Prato had not applied for such funding.

Will the Commission state, again in respect of centrally managed funds, whether any projects were
submitted subsequently and, if so, what decision has been taken on them?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 151.
Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the "Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 on the common organisation of the market in hops" (COM(2003) 562 final — 2003/0216 (CNS))
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: ESC opinion, common organisation of markets, hops

C 80/46

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

30.3.2004

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council
Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 on the common organisation of the market
in hops’

(COM(2003) 562 final — 2003/0216 (CNS))

(2004/C 80/13)

On 7 October 2003 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee under
the third paragraph of Article 37(2) of the EC Treaty, on the above-mentioned proposal.

On 28 October 2003, the Committee Bureau instructed the Section for Agriculture, Rural Development
and the Environment to prepare the Committee’s opinion on this matter.

In view of the urgency of the matter, at its 404th plenary session on 10 and 11 December 2003 (meeting
of 11 December) the European Economic and Social Committee appointed Mr Kienle as rapporteur-
general and unanimously adopted its opinion.

1.

Introduction

guidelines for the common organisation of the market in hops
as of 2005 in a report with proposals for regulations.

Hops are now grown in eight of the EU Member States;
1.1.
traditionally this is a crop which is strongly geared to
exports and the world market. A total of approximately
22 700 hectares are under hops cultivation, producing around
35 000 tonnes.

1.2.
The total world production of hops amounts to
92 000 tonnes, nearly 40 % of which is produced by the EU.
Other major producers are the USA, China and the Czech
Republic.

2. Gist of the Commission proposal

2.1.
The Commission is proposing an extension to the
arrangements for the 2004 harvest both for the common
organisation of the hops market and the special measures
relating to temporary set-aside and permanent grubbing-up. It
has announced at the same time that it will present the future

Brussels, 11 December 2003.

3. General comments

3.1.
The European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)
welcomes the Commission’s proposal of 25 September 2003
on the extension of the hops market organisation, including
the special measures for the 2004 harvest.

4.

Further comments

4.1.
The Commission presented the report and guidelines
for the future hops market organisation on 30 September
2003. The report’s assessment of the current common organis-
ation of the hops market is positive. The EESC feels that this
reinforces the points made in its previous opinion on this
subject, and is expecting that a reform — in line with the
agricultural reform of 26 June 2003 (Luxembourg decisions)
— will essentially be based on a partial decoupling, while
maintaining the provision of aid and taking particular account
of producer groups’ views.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Roger BRIESCH
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3803/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, action programme, cultural policy, local government, project evaluation

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/323

(2004/C 78 E/0334)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3801/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Prato

In its answer to question E-0988/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Prato had submitted
projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003,
that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been
the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

(2004/C 78 E/0335)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3802/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Siena

In its answer to question E-0989/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Siena had submitted
projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003,
that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been
the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

(2004/C 78 E/0336)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3803/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Terni

In its answer to question E-0990/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Terni had submitted
projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003,
that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been
the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.

(2004/C 78 E/0337)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3804/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on use of funding from the Culture 2000 programme by the municipality of Perugia

In its answer to question E-0984/03 (1), which asked whether the municipality of Perugia had submitted
projects or secured funding under the Culture 2000 programme, the Commission stated, on 30 July 2003,
that the municipality had not submitted any projects by 2002. Can the Commission say if this has been
the case subsequently and up to the present?

(1) OJ C 242 E, 9.10.2003, p. 200.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil protection.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Tuscany, action programme, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, local government

C 84 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1093/03 (1) asking whether the city of Livorno had submitted projects
and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1095/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1096/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Massa had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil protection.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Tuscany, action programme, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, local government

C 84 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1093/03 (1) asking whether the city of Livorno had submitted projects
and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1095/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1096/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Massa had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 2165/2003 of 11 December 2003 fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 16th partial invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: award of contract, export refund, third country, white sugar

12.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 325/23

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2165/2003

of 11 December 2003

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar to certain third countries for the 16th partial
invitation to tender issued within the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for
in Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/2001 of 19
June 2001 on the common organisation of the markets in the
sugar sector (1), as amended by Commission Regulation (EC)
No 680/2002 (2), and in particular Article 27(5) thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 of 18 July
2003 on a standing invitation to tender to determine
levies and/or refunds on exports of white sugar (3), for
the 2003/2004 marketing year, requires partial
invita-
tions to tender to be issued for the export of this sugar
to certain third countries.

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1290/
2003 a maximum export refund shall be fixed, as the
case may be, account being taken in particular of the
state and foreseeable development of the Community
and world markets in sugar, for the partial invitation to
tender in question.

(3)

(4)

Following an examination of the tenders submitted in
invitation to tender, the
response to the 16th partial
provisions set out in Article 1 should be adopted.

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in
accordance with the opinion of
the Management
Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the 16th partial invitation to tender for white sugar issued
to Regulation (EC) No 1290/2003 the maximum
pursuant
amount of the export refund to certain third countries is fixed
at 51,850 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 12 December 2003.

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

Done at Brussels, 11 December 2003.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 178, 30.6.2001, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 104, 20.4.2002, p. 26.
(3) OJ L 181, 19.7.2003, p. 7.
Addendum to Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC — Commission Declaration
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: animal disease, domestic animal, health control, transport of animals

11.12.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 324/23

ADDENDUM TO REGULATION (EC) No 998/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
COUNCIL OF 26 MAY 2003 ON THE ANIMAL HEALTH REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE NON-
COMMERCIAL MOVEMENT OF PET ANIMALS AND AMENDING COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 92/65/EEC (1)

COMMISSION DECLARATION

The Commission considers that the wording of the first subparagraph of Article 24(2) and that of the first
subparagraph of Article 24(3) of this Regulation is not in conformity with Decision 1999/468/EC, as
Article 8 of that decision should only cover implementation measures aimed at public health objectives. As
a consequence, the Commission reserves the right to take appropriate action.

(1) OJ L 146, 13.6.2003, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil protection.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Marches, action programme, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, local government

C 84 E/98

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0129)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3782/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Livorno under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1093/03 (1) asking whether the city of Livorno had submitted projects
and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0130)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3783/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Macerata under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1095/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Macerata had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0131)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3784/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Massa under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1096/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Massa had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Tuscany, action programme, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, local government

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/99

(2004/C 84 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3785/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Perugia under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1097/03 (1) asking whether the city of Perugia had submitted projects and
obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1098/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1099/03 (1) asking whether the city of Pisa had submitted projects and
obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro under the action programme to promote civil protection.
Date: 2003-12-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, Marches, action programme, aid to disaster victims, civil defence, environmental risk prevention, local government

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/99

(2004/C 84 E/0132)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3785/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Perugia under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1097/03 (1) asking whether the city of Perugia had submitted projects and
obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3786/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the municipality of Pesaro under the action programme to promote civil

protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1098/03 (1) asking whether the municipality of Pesaro had submitted
projects and obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission
said on 22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.

(2004/C 84 E/0134)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3787/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(11 December 2003)

Subject: Update on funding for the city of Pisa under the action programme to promote civil protection

In reply to my earlier question E-1099/03 (1) asking whether the city of Pisa had submitted projects and
obtained funding under the action programme to promote civil protection, the Commission said on
22 April 2003 that the municipality had not submitted any application.

Can the Commission say whether, since that date, any projects have been submitted and what the outcome
was?

(1) OJ C 268 E, 7.11.2003, p. 144.