do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Germany, Portugal, State aid, control of State aid, research and development, substitute fuel

6.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 86/15

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

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2004/C 86/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Date of adoption of the decision: 10.12.2003

Member State: Portugal (all regions)

Aid No: N 247/03

Title: Tax reserve for investment

Objective: Regional aid and aid for research and technological
development.

Extraction and industrial sectors and hotels, restaurants, travel
agencies and other firms in the tourism sector. Agriculture,
fisheries, transport and financial sectors are excluded

Legal basis: Decreto-Lei

Budget: EUR 318 million

Aid intensity or amount: Regional aid ceilings apply for
initial
investments. 50 % for industrial research projects and
25 % for pre-competitive development projects. SME bonus is
applicable

Duration: Until the end of 2006

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

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

Date of adoption of the decision: 18.2.2004

Member State: Germany

Aid No: N 685/02

Title: Excise duty exemption for biofuels

Objective: Environmental aid

Legal basis: Mineralölsteuergesetz

Duration: 1 January 2004 to 31 December 2009

Other information: Germany committed itself
annually
accordingly if overcompensation occurs

the production cost

and modify the

to monitor
scheme

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

Other information: Annual report

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids
WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04 by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony.
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, Saxony, costing, petition, road building

C 84 E/454

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0529)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1064/04

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Inconsistencies relating to the reconstruction of the road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony

I would like to draw the Commission’s attention to problems relating to the reconstruction of the Land-
administered road S 282 A in the Free State of Saxony. These problems have been the subject of a petition
to the European Parliament (364/2000), which was registered on 25 May 2000 and last discussed by the
Committee on Petitions on 20 February 2003. The Committee is still awaiting the information requested
from the relevant authorities in Germany.

Over the four years since the petition was submitted and during which the road S 282 A was completed,
an increasing number of conflicting pieces of information have come to light.

Firstly, contradictory statements have been made with regard to the cost.

In a letter of 23 May 2003 to Mr Nino Gemelli (Chairman of the Committee on Petitions), the German
ambassador Dr Schönfelder (Permanent Representation of Germany to the EU) confirmed that
the
extension of the road S 282 A would cost EUR 50 million, referring to information from German
authorities.

In a letter of 19 May 2003 to Mr Iltgen, President of Saxony’s state parliament, the total cost of
constructing the road was estimated by Saxony’s State Minister of Economic Affairs and Labour at
EUR 4,63 million. Just a few weeks later (on 4 July 2003), in reply to the same question, the Minister
informed Mr Iltgen that the cost would be only EUR 4,3 million.

In addition, it is suspected that the reconstruction of the road S 282 A was intentionally declared to be an
‘extension’ although this was not the case, as only one year after the road was completed it was
to the ‘regional’ category
downgraded from the original
(classification III).

‘supraregional’ category (classification II)

Can the Commission state whether and to what extent it is aware of these conflicting facts and, if it is not
aware of them, whether it intends to carry out on-the-spot investigations?

Answer given by Mr Franz Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(20 April 2004)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 651/2004 of 6 April 2004 prohibiting fishing for common sole by vessels flying the flag of Belgium
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Belgium, fishing area, fishing rights, sea fish, ship's flag

L 104/42

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

8.4.2004

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 651/2004

of 6 April 2004

prohibiting fishing for common sole by vessels flying the flag of Belgium

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European
Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2847/93 of 12
October 1993 establishing a control system applicable to the
common fisheries policy (1), and in particular Article 21(3)
thereof,

Whereas:

(1)

(2)

(3)

Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December
2003 fixing for 2004 the fishing opportunities and asso-
ciated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of
fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for
Community vessels, in waters where limitations in catch
are required (2), lays down quotas for common sole for
2003.

In order
to ensure compliance with the provisions
relating to the quantity limits on catches of stocks
subject to quotas, the Commission must fix the date by
which catches made by vessels flying the flag of a
Member State are deemed to have exhausted the quota
allocated.

According to the information received by the Commis-
sion, catches of common sole in the waters of ICES divi-
sion VII h, j, k, by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or

registered in Belgium have exhausted the quota allocated
for 2004. Belgium has prohibited fishing for this stock
from 20 March 2004. This date should be adopted in
this Regulation also,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Catches of common sole in the waters of ICES division VII h, j,
k, by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium
are hereby deemed to have exhausted the quota allocated to
Belgium for 2004.

Fishing for common sole in the waters of ICES division VII h, j,
k, by vessels flying the flag of Belgium or registered in Belgium
is hereby prohibited, as are the retention on board, tranship-
ment and landing of this stock caught by the above vessels
after the date of application of this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its
publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

It shall apply from 20 March 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 April 2004.

For the Commission

Jörgen HOLMQUIST

Director-General for Fisheries

(1) OJ L 261, 20.10.1993, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 1954/2003 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2003, p. 1).

(2) OJ L 344, 31.12.2003, p. 1.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1141/04 by Göran Färm (PSE) to the Commission. European patent rights in the USA.
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU relations, TRIPS, United States, independence of the judiciary, legal action, patent law, protectionism

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/573

Accordingly, no payments have been made under this programme. The Latvian authorities are currently
engaged in the preparatory work necessary to set up selection criteria as the basis for the identification of
projects in a transparent and competitive manner for support under the programme.

The SPD may be consulted on (http://www.esfondi.lv).

(1) The SPD may be consulted on (http://www.esfondi.lv).

(2004/C 88 E/0585)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1141/04

by Göran Färm (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: European patent rights in the USA

Some years ago I drew the Commission’s attention to the systematic protectionism practised in the
American legal system, which unfortunately still persists. Several cases brought by European researchers
and inventors before US courts in defence of their patent rights have been obstructed, more or less openly,
by those courts. This may be a breach of the TRIPS agreement, to which the USA is a signatory and which
guarantees foreign patent holders the right to bring proceedings before the signatories’ courts. The case
which the Swedish inventor, Dr Håkan Lans, is still forced to pursue in the US courts after several years is
a clear example of the US protectionism referred to above. Is the Commission prepared to take up Dr Lan’s
case with the US Administration as a warning and a clear indication that the EU will not tolerate such
discrimination?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(27 April 2004)

The Commission makes extensive efforts to closely monitor the conduct of its trading partners to ensure
their compliance with the stipulations of the TRIPS Agreement.

Regarding the unfortunate circumstances faced by the Swedish inventor Dr Håkan Lans, the Commission
has undertaken a thorough evaluation of the issues involved in the case in conjunction with Dr Lans
himself. Unfortunately, the conclusion that has been reached is that there are no viable legal avenues that
could be pursued in the area of trade policy in this instance.

Obviously, the Commission will thoroughly investigate any other cases brought to its attention which
would call into question the way that the United States’ legal system treats European researchers’ and
inventors’ patent rights pursuant to the TRIPS Agreement.

(2004/C 88 E/0586)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1145/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Establishment of a Community inspection body

(15 April 2004)

In view of the fact that the Commission is insisting upon establishing a Community inspection body to
come into operation in 2006, and since the legislation relating to the Community financial support to be
Euro exchange rates
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: euro, exchange rate

C 86/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.4.2004

COMMISSION

Euro exchange rates (1)

5 April 2004

(2004/C 86/05)

Currency

US dollar

Japanese yen

Danish krone

Pound sterling

Swedish krona

Swiss franc

Iceland króna

Exchange
rate

1,2058

126,34

7,4468

0,6636

9,193

1,5673

87,56

LVL

MTL

PLN

ROL

SIT

SKK

TRL

Currency

Latvian lats

Maltese lira

Polish zloty

Romanian leu

Slovenian tolar

Slovak koruna

Turkish lira

Norwegian krone

8,3735

AUD

Australian dollar

Bulgarian lev

Cyprus pound

Czech koruna

Estonian kroon

Hungarian forint

Lithuanian litas

1,9463

0,5862

32,687

CAD

HKD

NZD

Canadian dollar

Hong Kong dollar

New Zealand dollar

15,6466

SGD

Singapore dollar

248,10

KRW

South Korean won

1 378,23

3,4528

ZAR

South African rand

7,7469

Exchange
rate

0,6497

0,4251

4,7007

40 730

238,5

40,22

1 586 279

1,5995

1,5842

9,3925

1,8513

2,0217

1 euro =

USD

JPY

DKK

GBP

SEK

CHF

ISK

NOK

BGN

CYP

CZK

EEK

HUF

LTL

___________
(1) Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.
WRITTEN QUESTION P-1124/04 by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Tax concessions for stud farms.
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, State aid, animal breeding, control of State aid, tax exemption

C 88 E/572

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The Commission would also draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that decisions of the
Switzerland-based Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) may be challenged before the ordinary courts
under certain conditions and on certain (limited) grounds.

(1) Case C-222/86 Heylens [1987] ECR 4097.

(2004/C 88 E/0583)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1124/04

by Professor Sir Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Tax concessions for stud farms

(6 April 2004)

Will the Commission please state its view concerning the practice whereby Ireland grants tax exemption to
stud farms in respect of ‘nomination fees’ payable when a stallion impregnates a mare?

Is this practice not an illegitimate form of state aid to stud farms in Ireland?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission has received a formal complaint about the practice of Ireland granting tax exemption to
stud farms. As the Commission has concerns about the compatibility with State aid rules, this practice is
being examined under Article 88 of the EC Treaty (State aid No NN 32/04).

(2004/C 88 E/0584)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1126/04

by Véronique De Keyser (PSE) to the Commission

(6 April 2004)

Subject: Use of structural funds

It would appear that some of the structural funds earmarked for Latvia are to go towards restoring castles
and other property being reacquired by former aristocrats who are still in exile or who have recently
returned to the country. These funds are therefore being used for the restoration of private property
reacquired at reduced prices and not for the restoration of heritage sites open to the public. Some
repossessions even involve the expropriation of schools. I am stunned at such a use of structural funds and
would like to verify the accuracy of this information, which appeared in a television programme called
‘Des racines et des hommes’ (‘Roots and men’), broadcast by France 3 on 30 March 2004.

Is the use of structural funds in the Baltic States monitored in detail, and is there any information that
could be published with which to confirm or deny these claims?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Assistance from the European Union to Latvia under the Structural Funds will be delivered under the
Objective 1 Single Programming Document, negotiated with the Latvian authorities which has yet to be
formally approved in advance of accession on 1 May (1).
Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations delivered at its 105th meeting on 22 January 2002 on a preliminary draft decision on case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: Advisory Committee on Concentrations, Advisory Committee on Restrictive Practices and Dominant Positions
Subjects: advisory committee (EU), economic concentration, electrical industry, merger control, opinion

C 86/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

6.4.2004

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on concentrations delivered at its 105th meeting on
22 January 2002 on a preliminary draft decision on case COMP/M.2283 — Schneider/Legrand

(2004/C 86/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the conditions of Article 8(4) of the Merger

Regulation are satisfied.

2. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that the restoration of effective
competition requires that Schneider should not retain a significant stake in Legrand, and with the
definition of a ‘non-significant stake’ given in the draft decision. A minority does not agree for reasons
of proportionality, and a different minority abstains as regards the methodology used by the
Commission to determine the thresholds adopted.

3. A majority of the Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Schneider may not hive off
Wiremold, Ortronics and Arnould separately and that Legrand's assets should be sold en bloc. A
minority does not agree.

4. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that Schneider should be given a free choice as

to how it demerges from Legrand.

5. The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission as regards the time allowed for Schneider to
complete the demerger from Legrand, i.e. the conclusion of a sale agreement or the publication of a
public offering either by Schneider within nine months of the date of the decision adopted under
Article 8(4) or by the trustee within an additional period of three months.

6. The Advisory Committee asks the Commission to take account of all the points raised in the discussion.

7. The Advisory Committee asks for its opinion to be published.
Commission Regulation (EC) No 640/2004 of 6 April 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables
Date: 2004-04-06
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: citrus fruit, fruit vegetable, import price, perennial vegetable, pip fruit, stone fruit

L 102/12

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

7.4.2004

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 640/2004

of 6 April 2004

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,

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

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.

(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,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

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 7 April 2004.

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

Done at Brussels, 6 April 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

(1) OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regu-

lation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

7.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 102/13

to the Commission Regulation of 6 April 2004 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 10 00

0709 90 70

0805 10 10, 0805 10 30, 0805 10 50

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
204
999

220
999

052
204
999

052
204
212
220
388
400
600
624
999

052
999

060
388
400
404
508
512
524
528
720
804
999

388
512
524
528
999

97,0
48,2
120,5
124,3
97,5

148,8
132,9
140,9

131,3
131,3

131,7
80,8
106,3

39,9
42,5
60,8
44,5
44,2
47,2
48,2
57,2
48,1

40,0
40,0

50,7
79,0
94,2
100,9
76,2
73,2
76,9
71,0
71,1
135,0
82,8

70,2
68,5
80,3
76,6
73,9

(1) Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘999’ stands for

‘of other origin’.