WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/99 by Inger Schörling (Verts/ALE) to the Council. EU rules and Sweden's restrictive drugs policy.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, application of EU law, import policy, narcotic

C 280 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

In order to prevent counterfeited goods from entering into and being sold on the Community market, the
Community has adopted rules and regulations that aim to protect intellectual property rights (IPR)
effectively within the Community. In particular, Council Regulation 3295/94 as amended by Regulation
(EC) No 241/1999 of 25 January 1999 laying down measures to prohibit the release for free circulation,
export, re-export or entry for a suspensive procedure of counterfeit and pirated goods (1), allows
Community customs(cid:146) authorities to suspend the release of goods suspected of being counterfeit, or pirated,
while the rightholder launches infringement proceedings before the national authorities. The Commission
is presently working closely with Member States in the framework of the Customs 2002 Programme to
help customs and the economic operators to exchange information better and to improve the service
offered by customs to rightholders through an increased emphasis on training for customs officials
involved with intellectual property rights.

The Commission also adopted in October 1998 a green paper on combating counterfeiting and piracy in
the single market (2), which is the start of a wide consultation process to strengthen the fight against piracy
in the Community.

As the Honourable Member has correctly pointed out, a key element of an overall strategy to combat
counterfeiting must be to eliminate the problem at the source, i.e. in the country where such goods are
made. An important step towards an improved protection of IPR throughout the world will have been
taken on 1 January 2000, when developing countries (except the least developed) will have had to
implement fully the World trade organisation provisions on IPR protection (the well-known trade-related
aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPs)-agreement). In implementing the WTO rules on intellectual
property these countries are obliged to provide for criminal procedures and penalties in all cases of wilful
trademark counterfeiting on a commercial scale.

With regard to the position expressed by the Honourable Member with respect to the economic conditions
prevailing in developing countries, the Commission would observe that low labour costs are one of the key
factors of their comparative advantage and a prerequisite to enable them to integrate more fully into the
global economy and pursue economic development. It is the view of the Commission that as their level of
subsistence increases they themselves have an interest in improving the conditions of work including
safety, health and other aspects.

(1) OJ L 27, 2.2.1999.
(2) COM(98) 569 final.

(2000/C 280 E/047)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2463/99

by Inger Sch(cid:246)rling (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: EU rules and Sweden(cid:146)s restrictive drugs policy

In Sweden the rules heavily restrict the import of substances classified as narcotics, even when they are
prescribed by doctors for medicinal purposes. For example, Medicines Regulation 1997/11 allows an
individual to import amphetamines for no more than five days(cid:146) personal use.

A Swedish doctor has now reported Sweden(cid:146)s actions and regulations to the Commission, maintaining that
the rules applied in Sweden infringe EU rules on the free movement of goods and services between the
Member States, and wishing the Commission to take action against Sweden and declare our rules to be
illegal and in contravention of EC law.

If the Commission found that Swedish legislation did infringe EU law, would a Swedish citizen then be
able to have drugs prescribed by a doctor in another Member State whose drugs policy is more liberal, and
then import them into Sweden, with the Swedish Customs authorities powerless to act?

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/49

Reply

(13 March 2000)

On 22 December 1994 the Schengen Executive Committee approved a form for a certificate to carry
narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances for the purpose of medical treatment (1).

The certificate, based on Article 75 of the Schengen Convention, allows residents of any of the countries
applying the Schengen acquis to travel to other countries applying the Schengen acquis, lawfully carrying
on their person a medically prescribed quantity of narcotic drugs and/or psychotropic substances for
30 days(cid:146) treatment.

These are very special situations involving a limited number of people whose state of health is such that
they have to take medicine on a regular basis. Such medicine is prescribed by a doctor in their country of
residence, who uses for that purpose the special certificate provided for in Article 75 of the Convention.
The authorities in each country applying the Schengen Convention can check up on the certificate by
contacting the central office in the country in which it was issued.

Once the Schengen acquis, now incorporated into Community law, becomes applicable in Sweden, these
arrangements will apply there.

(1)

SCH/Com-ex (94) 28 rev. and SCH/Stup (94) 21.

(2000/C 280 E/048)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2466/99

by Daniela Raschhofer (NI) to the Council

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Travel to European Parliament part-sessions in Strasbourg

Parliament holds part-sessions in Strasbourg once a month. To that end, a huge number of officials and
other staff are required to travel from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg. A large proportion of those
travelling on (cid:145)mission(cid:146) in this way go by car.

(cid:129) How many staff overall travel every month from Brussels or Luxembourg to Strasbourg?

(cid:129) How many of the staff in question go by car?

(cid:129) How high are the total costs (including the cost of overnight stays, meals, etc.) resulting from the

(cid:145)removal(cid:146) to Strasbourg?

(cid:129) Are there records concerning, or is it known, whether or how often Council staff are involved in road

accidents during such journeys?

(cid:129) Is it known whether there have already been cases of death or serious injury resulting from road

accidents during such journeys?

(cid:129) Are there records of costs arising from accidents?

(cid:129) Do the accident statistics for the days of travel to and from Strasbourg deviate from those for other

days?

Reply

(16 March 2000)

The replies to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s questions concerning the journeys made by Council officials to
Strasbourg in connection with European Parliament part-sessions are set out below.

Each month when a part-session is held, an average of 21 officials travel to Strasbourg from Brussels. Of
these, about 10 go by car. The average total amount incurred in mission expenses is EUR 13 285 per part-
session month.