WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/00 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission. Legal possibilities for Parliament to downgrade or halt political contact with a Member State.
Date: 2000-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, European Parliament, European Union membership

C 303 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

(cid:129) a young athlete may be the final link in a chain of abuse and unlawful, even criminal, practices which

often go undetected and unpunished;

(cid:129) in view of the fact that most sportsmen do not know enough about the specific properties of

medicaments; and

(cid:129) that the Union must be at the forefront of the fight against doping.

Can the Commission say whether, in compliance with EEC directives and European drug legislation, it
intends to oblige the pharmaceutical industries to include a symbol on the packaging of newly introduced
drugs and clear warnings in the enclosed leaflets telling both doctors and sportsmen which drugs contain
banned substances?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(8 March 2000)

As stated in the (cid:145)Community support plan to combat doping in sport (1)(cid:146) the Commission feels that
stepping up the supply of information on medicines is a highly important factor in the fight against the
use of drugs in sport.

Article 12 of Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992 on the labelling of medicinal products for
human use (2) provides the Commission with scope for formulating certain special warnings for certain
categories of medicinal product. Moreover, Article 2 of that same directive provides that the outer
packaging (of medicines) may include symbols or pictograms designed to clarify certain items of
information concerning a medicine, and which is useful for health education, to the exclusion of any
element of a promotional nature.

As part of this, in order to provide further information on medicines containing active substances classified
as drugs, the Commission put this matter on the agenda of the next meeting of the pharmaceuticals
committee, which will be held on 22-23March 2000. The Member States and the European Agency for the
Evaluation of Medicinal Products are represented on this. The Commission has drawn up a questionnaire
enabling an inventory to be made of what has already been introduced at national level in certain Member
States. The aim is to put forward harmonised entries on both the labelling and package leaflets for
the summary of product
medicines that are intended to inform patients, and on the wording of
characteristics intended to provide information for professional healthcare providers.

(1) COM(1999) 643 final (cid:129) Communication from the Commission to the Council, Parliament, the Economic and

Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions of 1 December 1999.

(2) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2000/C 303 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0437/00

by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: Legal possibilities for Parliament to downgrade or halt political contact with a Member State

Bearing in mind my Amendment No 1 to resolution B5-0101/2000 on the current situation in Austria,
can the Commission inform me what possibilities exist, consistent with Parliament(cid:146)s obligations under the
Treaty on European Union, for Parliament to downgrade or halt altogether contacts at political level with a
European Union Member State?

Could the Commission address this question separately and specifically in relation to the following: access
and entry into any of Parliament(cid:146)s premises; diplomatic and protocol contacts between the President and
the other Members acting in a representative capacity on behalf of Parliament; participation in the
conciliation procedure; representation by a Member State(cid:146)s political representatives during that state(cid:146)s
Presidency of the European Union; participation by political representatives of a Member State not holding

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/193

the possibility of
the Presidency in European parliamentary hearings, committees and delegations;
parliamentary delegations or missions to a Member State declining to meet political representatives of its
government; the closure of Parliament(cid:146)s offices in a Member State; the possibility of downgrading or
halting contacts in any other areas of activity undertaken by Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2000)

The Honourable Member will recall that the Portuguese Presidency agreed with the Heads of State and
Government of 14 Member States and informed the Austrian Chancellor on 31 January 2000 that a
certain number of political measures would be taken in respect of an Austrian government integrating
members of the FP(cid:214).

The Honourable Member will also recall that on 1 February 2000 the Commission issued a statement
according to which it will continue to fulfil its duty as guardian of the provisions and values set down in
the Treaties, which provide that the Union is founded on the principles of liberty, democracy, respect of
human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law, as set out notably in Articles 6 and 7 of the
Treaty on European Union. The Commission also pointed out
the European
institutions is not affected at this stage and thus maintains its working relations with the Austrian
authorities while following the situation carefully.

the working of

that

In that context, the Commission considers, whilst noting that the Parliament is associated with the
procedure laid down by Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, that it is the reponsibility of the
Parliament itself to fix its own political line of conduct. It should be recalled in that context that the proper
functioning of institutional procedures shall be preserved.

(2000/C 303 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0438/00

by Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 February 2000)

Subject: The effects of a British fur farming ban on the internal market

The United Kingdom is planning to outlaw fur farming in England and Wales. According to the proposal,
the keeping of animals solely for their fur would be banned from 2003 onwards. The House of Commons
introduced a Fur Farming Prohibition Bill on 25 February 1999. The bill passed its second reading on
5 March 1999. The bill was introduced in the House of Commons on 22 November 1999. Now the
proposal for new legislation is being considered by the Commission.

According to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, Elliot Morley, the Government believes it is
wrong for animals to be slaughtered for their fur. He states that it is not consistent with a proper value
and respect for animal life. The reasoning behind the abolition of the British fur industry is based on
(cid:145)moral grounds(cid:146) as (cid:145)there is no moral justification for fur farming in UK(cid:146), as Elliot Morley says. According
to this view it is not normally questionable to kill a cow for its leather but the killing of a mink for its pelt
is condemned on moral grounds.

Has the Commission considered the impact of this planned fur ban (cid:129) not only on the British fur farming
industry (cid:129) but also on the internal market of the European Union? Would the ban be compatible with the
trade rules or might the ban, in the Commission(cid:146)s view, hinder directly or indirectly, actually or potentially,
intra-Community trade?

What measures will the Commission take if this ban is realised? Has the Commission considered the fact
that banning fur farming in Europe would just result in the industry moving outside Europe and outside
the control of the authorities of the European Union and its Member States?