Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I want to try, in these three minutes, to set out, at least fragmentarily, my view of this problem. The protection of health and the curbing of tobacco use are certainly important political commitments. It is right that their significance should have been so extensively set out today, but every political level has its own specific responsibility. Now it is the case that there is no legislative function specifically applicable to this at European level. Rather, Article 95 must always be applied, as it has been here today, which means that it must first be considered whether the internal market is affected, be it by such things as distortions of competition, trade barriers and similar. Only when this has been found to be the case can – and must – the protection of health be taken into account in this context, and, if these conditions are fulfilled, there is no dispute about it. It is well known that it was because of breaches of these principles that the ECJ suspended the former directive that banned advertising. Venues are in competition with each other for large-scale events with a cross-border impact, so there should be rules on this, and, as that is where distortions occur, we agree with this part of the proposal. Rules on radio broadcasts across borders are also acceptable. The same goes for the Internet, although it is not clear to me how this can in practice be made to work where the material is input in third countries. Such a ban on newspapers and magazines would, however, not be permissible. As we have heard in the consultations, the proportion of copies sold across borders is small to the point of invisibility in relation to the total print run, and these copies sold across borders are, moreover, not in cross-border competition. This means that there is no conflict affecting the internal market, and that such a regulation would not be successful. The Committee on Legal Affairs' proposal therefore provides for this part of the Commission proposal not to be accepted. Reference is constantly made – the Commissioner has just done so – to the ECJ's comments on newspapers. To put it very briefly, my view is that the ECJ distinguishes between, on the one hand, advertising media that are strictly immobile – billboards would be a typical example of this – where the very nature of the thing excludes the possibility of cross-border competition, and then explains that, on the other hand, something else might apply to other media such as newspapers, and that this does not have to be excluded as a matter of principle. That is right, but one must add what the ECJ said at another point in its ruling, that distortions actually have to exist, that they have to be perceptible, that they may not merely be alleged to exist – and that is simply not the case with newspapers. To say this is not to take a formalistic approach towards jurisdiction and certainly not to indulge in any sort of legal nitpicking. I believe this question of law to be eminently political in nature, and would simply remind you of the importance that the Convention attaches to the question of the division of powers, and of the discussions about the possibility of members of national parliaments making their views on these questions known in a forum set up for them. We should be putting down a marker and, as legislators ourselves, respecting the powers of our counterparts in the national parliaments, rather than again leaving this matter to the ECJ. This will also enable us to dismantle prejudices against Brussels' centralism and dirigisme. I cannot end without warmly thanking Mr Medina Ortega for his efforts at reaching a compromise, and, in particular, expressing my congratulations on the legislative quality of his text.

Political group: PPE-DE