----

(2004/C 88 E/0383)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1933/03

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2003)

Subject:   Social development

The Commission proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (1) provides for the funding of healthcare in developing countries. During the legislative procedure, it became clear that the Commission intends to use the appropriations allocated to this programme to fund – inter alia – abortion on demand.

The Community's powers with regard to development policy, set out in Article 177(1) of the Treaty, uses the term ‘social development’, which is open to interpretation. Articles 136 to 145 of the Treaty expand the meaning of the term ‘development’ in social policy with regard to domestic policies. It is undisputed that the Community has no power to rule on or to finance abortion within the Community. It would, therefore, be inconsistent if the same legal term were to be interpreted differently. It therefore seems appropriate, with regard to the first sentence of Article 5 of the Treaty, to interpret Article 177(1) of the Treaty accordingly and not to authorise Community activities which are legally not possible within the Community.

Does the Commission take the view that the term ‘social development’ referred to in Article 177(1) of the Treaty provides a legal basis for activities facilitating abortion on demand?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(30 June 2003)

The recently adopted Regulation on aid for policies and actions on reproductive and sexual health and rights in developing countries (2) aims to fund innovative actions that will improve the reproductive and sexual health of men and women in developing countries. The assertion of the Honourable Member that this regulation will fund abortion on demand is misleading. It is clearly stated in Recital 16 of the Regulation that ‘No support is to be given under this Regulation to incentives to encourage sterilisation or abortion, or to the improper testing of contraception methods in developing countries. When cooperation measures are implemented, the decisions adopted at the ICPD (3), in particular point 8.25 of the ICPD Programme of Action, according to which, inter alia, abortion should in no case be promoted as a method of family planning, must be rigorously observed. Post-abortion counselling, education and family planning services should be offered promptly, which will also help to avoid repeat abortions.’

As already explained in the Commission's answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-3323/02 (4), Community competence in the field of development policy is provided for in title XX of the Treaty establishing the European Community. Accordingly, all actions of the Community in the field of development co-operation must fall under the objectives defined in Article 177 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission recalls that it follows from the judgement of the Court of Justice in Case C-268/1994 (Portugal/Commission, [1996] ECR I-6177) that a measure in the field of development co-operation may lay down provisions on specific matters without there being any need to have recourse to other legal bases, or indeed to participation of the Member States in the conclusion of the agreement, in so far as the essential purpose of the agreement is to pursue the objectives referred to in Article 177, and on condition that the clauses concerning specific matters do not impose obligations so extensive that they in fact constitute objectives distinct from those of development co-operation.

The Community, therefore, has full competence in the area of Sexual and Reproductive Health in developing countries. Community developmental assistance is always implemented within the legal framework of the country concerned.

----

(1)  COM(2002) 120 final – OJ C 151 E, 25.6.2002, p. 260 and COM(2003) 168 final.

(2)OJ L 224, 6.9.2003.

(3)  ICPD: International Conference on Population and Development.

(4)OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004.

----