EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 65/246

(2004/C 65 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2920/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Alternative and complimentary medicine

For some time, we have been witnessing a proliferation of associations and professional practitioners in the field of non-conventional medicine, calling for clarification and harmonisation of the regulatory framework for their activities and services within the EU.

Given that ‘charlatans’, i.e. people passing themselves off as complimentary medical professionals, although they lack proper training, are proliferating, what action does the Commission plan to guarantee the health safety of those using these services?

Given the great disparity between national legislations, does the Commission intend to harmonise legislation at Community level? How does the Commission guarantee the single market in this sector, as well as the right of freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment?

What is the budgetary allocation, at European level, for alternative medicine?

Which of the requests set out in European Parliament Resolution A4-0075/97 (1) has the Commission actually implemented to date?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised a number of topics. The first question refers to qualification and training requirements of those practising alternative and complementary medicine in the Union.

Under the EC Treaty, qualification and training requirements remain the primary responsibility of the Member States. Some minimum co-ordinated training requirements have been adopted at Community level for some of the main health professions, but most professions, among which many professions in the health sector, are not subject to any such requirements. The provisions adopted at Union level have the main objective of ensuring conditions for the recognition of qualifications within the regulated professions. The adoption of new legislation in this area requires a very large measure of support among the professions and Member States. The Commission is not aware of any strong and widespread support for new measures with respect to alternative and complementary medicine.

As far as professional recognition is concerned Council Directive 89/48/EE of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years' duration (2) and Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training (3) apply to any national of a Member State wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a host Member State. In this context, the European Court of Justice has confirmed in its decision of 3 October 1990 (C-61/89 Bouchoucha) that Article 43 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member State from restricting an activity ancillary to medicine exclusively to persons holding the qualification of doctor of medicine.

In addition, in order to guarantee health protection, the Court of Justice ruled in its decision of 11 July 2002 (C-294/00 Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH) that it must be borne in mind that the protection of public health is one of the reasons cited in Article 46(1) EC Treaty capable of justifying restrictions on the freedom to provide establishment and services.

The second topic is that of the Community legislation on alternative medicines. In its Resolution of 29 May 1997, the Parliament called for work to be undertaken to look at the safety and efficacy of alternative medicinal products. In this connection the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on traditional herbal medicinal products on January 2002 (4). The Parliament first reading vote took place in November 2002. Following the modified proposal (5) adopted by the Commission on 9 April 2003 and the Council political agreement reached in September 2003, the adoption of a final text could take place before the end of 2003.

With regard to expenditure on alternative medicines, the public health programme does not cover this issue. With regard to Community research funding, Priority 1 ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology for health’ and the section on policy oriented research of the Sixth Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration activities covering the period 2002-2006, do not provide for such research. However, the section of the 6th Framework Programme on support for the co-ordination of national activities does mention under health, the area of alternative or non-conventional medicine.

(1) OJ C 182, 16.6.1997, p. 67.

(2) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.

(3) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(4) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.

(5) COM(2003) 161 final.