WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/00 by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission. Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories.
Date: 2000-03-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, application of EU law, medical diagnosis, right of establishment

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/189

The EU(cid:146)s framework programmes do not extend to developing countries. In other words, it is not possible,
for example, for partners from North Africa to participate in environmental science and technology
projects. Nothing prevents them from carrying out research, but there is no scope for funding, as
developing countries cannot join consortia in search of funding.

Why is this so (cid:129) surely, opportunities for Russia, for example, to participate have been increased?

Has the matter been considered with reference to the fact that, for instance, desertification problems in
North Africa or the problems of the Mediterranean are located on the EU(cid:146)s own doorstep?

In the form taken by funding, will the EU give greater responsibility to local researchers, to ensure that
action continues after the financing has ceased and that projects are not implemented without any input
from local researchers?

Answer given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(14 April 2000)

The Commission fully endorses the Honourable Member(cid:146)s view regarding the role of research in the
development of developing countries and the fact that research should be demand-led and target the
problems of development in those countries.

The thematic programmes of the 5th framework programme do indeed allow for the participation of
developing countries, albeit without the possibility of Community funding (the situation is the same for
Russia), but this is progress over the 4th framework programme which was only open in part to them.

However, they do have two possibilities specially reserved for them under the horizontal programme
INCO: the INCO-DEV action which aims specifically at promoting scientific and technical cooperation
between the Community and all developing countries; and the INCO-MED action which concerns only the
Mediterranean countries involved in the areas specific to this region. The problem of water, including the
problems of desertification, is one of the central themes of INCO-MED.

These two programmes, with their ongoing dialogue with the representatives of these regions, link them
not only to the area of cooperation but also to selection of proposals, especially as regards their relevance
to the development of the region.

Furthermore, the methods of implementing INCO-DEV and INCO-MED not only authorise but actually
encourage initiatives from developing countries. In any case the participation of scientists from these
countries on an equitable basis is one of the conditions for eligibility of the proposals received under these
programmes.

One of the objectives is to help to increase the research capacities of these countries, through joint
research between them and the Community to help them take increasing charge of their role in their
development process.

(2000/C 374 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/00

by Antonio Di Pietro (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Belgian legislation on clinical biology laboratories

(29 March 2000)

In Belgium, Royal Decree No 143 of 30 December 1982 stipulates that individuals who are not qualified
to carry out medical tests may not occupy any kind of supervisory position in clinical biology laboratories.

C 374 E/190

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

On 17 December 1999, a complaint was referred to the Commission (COMP/37.7.754) contesting this
law, which clearly has a bearing on freedom of establishment (Article 43 of the EC Treaty).

In 1987, following an appeal by the Commission, the Court of Justice ruled that the law was compatible
with freedom of establishment as it was not deemed to be discriminatory. No attempt was made, however,
to check that the law complied with the proportionality principle. (Judgment of 12 February 1987, Case
221/85, Commission v Belgium, ECR 1987, p. 719).

Nevertheless, as of 1995 (Judgment of 30 November 1995, Case C-55/94, Gebhard, ECR 1995, p. I-4186),
the Court deems that any national measure (cid:129) even where applicable to EU residents without distinction,
as is the Belgian law in question (cid:129) that is (cid:145)liable to hinder or make less attractive(cid:146) the exercise of, or access
to, a profession by a national of another Member State, may be incompatible with Article 43 of the
EC Treaty unless justified by compelling reasons of general interest and duly proportional.

In this context, how does the Commission intend to apply this new case law, which acknowledges the
validity of the argument espoused by the institution up to eight years ago? Will the Commission now
ascertain the proportionality of the provisions in question (cid:129) which the Court refused to do in 1987 (cid:129) in
view of the fact that the rules on operating clinical biology laboratories in the various EU Member States
are still so divergent?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

As pointed out by the Honourable Member, there have been changes in the Court of Justice case law on
the freedom of establishment.

Furthermore, there are a number of new elements in the appeal mentioned which were not present in the
appeal which led to the Court judgment of 12 February 1987. The Commission is therefore carrying out a
detailed examination of the Belgian legislation on medical analysis laboratories.

(2000/C 374 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0946/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Restitution of stolen or illegally exported cultural artefacts

(29 March 2000)

A new convention on the restitution of stolen cultural artefacts is being promoted in the United Nations
calling for negotiations to be held in such cases between the parties concerned.

1.

2.

Has the Commission expressed its support for the convention in question?

Has it proposed that the Member States sign this convention?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

As far as the Commission is aware, there are no proposals emanating from the United Nations for the
adoption of a new convention on the return of stolen cultural artefacts, this issue having already been the
subject of the 1995 Unidroit Convention on the international return of stolen or illegally exported cultural
objects. The Commission took part in the work on drafting this Convention as an observer.

The Commission shares the general aim of combating illicit trade in cultural objects, which was the driving
force behind the Unidroit Convention, but given the Community(cid:146)s responsibilities in this field as
Community law stands at present, it has not yet registered its support for the Convention by proposing
that the Member States sign it.