(2004/C58E/065) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1151/03
byRichardCorbett(PSE)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:Pricingofmedicinessoldindevelopingcountries
InOctober2002theCommissionsubmittedaproposaltoCouncilbasedonArticle133oftheTreaty
relatingtothetieredpricingofmedicinessoldindevelopingcountries.Theproposalisnowsubjecttomassive, negative and highly inappropriate industry lobbying based on the pharmaceutical industry’scontinuingdesiretobeabletochargehighpricesinpoorcountries,thereforedenyingaccesstomedicinesformillions.Theunderlyingphilosophyoftheproposalisessentiallydevelopmentalandnotonlytraderelated.However,theCommission’schoiceoflegalbasehasresultedinindustrylobbyingbeingconducted
inclosedmeetingsandentirelyoutofpublicview,withMemberStateofficialsandtheCommissionbeing
almostbesiegedbypharmaceuticalindustrylobbyists.
ShouldCouncilseektoamendtheproposalsignificantly,willtheCommissionconsiderre-submittingthe
proposalbasedonjoinedlegalbasesofArticles133and179,therebyallowingtheproposaltobeadoptedbycodecision,whichwouldsurelyhavebeenamoreappropriatelegalbaseinthefirstplace?
AnswergivenbyMrLamyonbehalfoftheCommission
(30April2003)
TheCommissionconcurstothestatementoftheHonourableMemberthattheproposalforaRegulation
to avoid the trade diversion of certain key medicines, submitted to Council on 30October 2002(
1),
continues to be the subject of massive industry lobbying, addressed to both Member States and theCommission.
TheCommissionisconfidentthatMemberStates’governments,liketheCommissionitself,maketheir
decisionsnotonlyonthebasisofinputfromlobbyists,butarecapabletofindthenecessaryequilibriumbetween all interests and policy objectives concerned. Moreover, in addition to industry input, the
Commissionhas,ofcourse,equallytakenintoaccounttheviewsexpressedbyotherinterestedparties.
ConsideringthatthediscussionsintheCouncilarestillongoing,theCommissionconsidersthequestion
submittedbytheHonourableMembertobepremature.
(1) OJC45E,25.2.2003.
(2004/C58E/066) WRITTENQUESTIONE-1179/03
byMaurizioTurco(NI)andMarcoCappato(NI)totheCommission
(1April2003)
Subject:Operating systems, software and programming and development environments used for the
operationofthesystemsusedbyEuropol
CantheCommissionanswerthefollowing:
1. Whataretheoperatingsystems,softwareandprogramminganddevelopmentenvironmentsusedfor
theoperationofthesystemsusedbyEuropol?
2. WhatlegalrulesonintellectualpropertyapplytotheseITprogrammes?
3. DoestheEuropeanUnionhavetherighttocheckthesourcecodesofallsoftwareinfrastructures,and
havesuchchecksactuallybeencarriedouttoascertainthatthesystemsarenotdefective,donotgenerateerrors(withparticularreferencetomistakenidentity)anddonothavesecurityfailingswhichcouldjeopardiseEuropol’sobjectives?6.3.2004EN C58E/49 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
AnswergivenbyMrVitorinoonbehalfoftheCommission
(21May2003)
According to Article 29 of the Europol Convention, the day-to-day management of Europol is the
responsibilityoftheEuropolDirector.Thisincludesthemonitoringoftheadequateprocessingofdataby
Europol.
PursuanttoArticle24oftheConventiontheresponsibilityformonitoringtheadequacyofdataprocessing
lieswiththeJointSupervisoryBody(JSB).ThetaskoftheJSBisinparticulartoensurethattherightsofindividualsarenotviolatedbythestorage,processingandutilisationofthedataheldbyEuropol.IftheJSBnotesanyviolationsoftheprovisionsoftheEuropolConvention,itshallmakeanycomplaintsitdeemsnecessarytotheDirectorofEuropol.TheDirectorshallkeeptheManagementBoard,inwhichalltheMemberStatesandtheCommissionarerepresented,informedoftheentireprocedure.Intheeventofanydifficulty,theJSBshallreferthemattertotheManagementBoard.
TheCommissionhasnoresponsibilityforthedevelopmentoradministrationofEuropoloperatingsystems
orothersoftwareusedatEuropolanddoesnothaveanyaccesstotheirInformationTechnology(IT)systems.TheCommission,whichattendstheManagementBoardofEuropolinanobservercapacity,isnotawareofanyreportedcomplaintsoftheJSBonthisissue.
InformationoncontractualobligationsonintellectualpropertyapplyingtotheEuropolsystemsshouldbe
requestedbytheHonourableMemberstoEuropol.
(2004/C58E/067) WRITTENQUESTIONP-1204/03
byNielsBusk(ELDR)totheCommission
(25March2003)
Subject:GovernmentaidtoItalianfarmers
DoestheCommissiontaketheviewthatItalyhasimplementedthemilkquotasystemsatisfactorilyon
individualfarmsand,ifso,howdoestheCommissionexplainthefactthat93%ofItalianmilkproducers
havebeenabletoexceedthemilkquotas?
HastheCommissionauthorisedtheItalianGovernmenttopayEUR411milliontocoverItalianmilk
producers’ massive overshoot of their production quotas, and can the Commission confirm that theexemptionsfrompayingadditionalleviesgrantedtoItalianmilkproducersamounttoEUR411millionindirectgovernmentaidtomilkproductioninItaly?
AnswergivenbyMrFischleronbehalfoftheCommission
(26May2003)
TheCommissioncanindicatethataboutathirdofItalianproducershaveexceededtheirmilkquotaover
oneormoreoftheperiods1995-1996to2000-2001.
AmajordifficultythathasarisenandcontinuestoariseintheItalianmanagementofmilkquotaisthefact
thatthelevybillsarealmostsystematicallylitigatedintheItaliancourts.ThisisnotablyduetothedelayaccumulatedbytheItalianauthoritiesinimplementingtheregime.
TheCommissioncaninformtheHonourableMemberthattheItalianGovernmentisseekingauthorisation
notfromtheCommissionbutfromtheCouncilofMinisters,underarticle88(2)thirdsubparagraphoftheECTreaty,forstateaidmeasuresinfavourofproducerswithoutstandinglevypayments.TheCommission
willfollowdevelopmentsandreservestherighttotakeanyactionthatappearsappropriate.C58E/50 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion