WRITTEN QUESTION P-3174/00 by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Socrates/Erasmus mobility grants.
Date: 2000-10-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU programme, aid system, competence of the Member States, economic discrimination, socioeconomic conditions, student mobility

C 113 E/250

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

(2001/C 113 E/273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3169/00

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 October 2000)

Subject: Labelling on blister strips containing medicines

There is a requirement that all medicines marketed in the UK, whether imported or not, comply with the
UK labelling legislation, which means that certain particulars must be in the English language. However,
instructions on the blister strip, for example days of the week, are not covered by this legislation.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s views on making it compulsory that all instructions relevant to taking a course
of medicine are clearly set out in the language of the country in which they are dispensed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2000)

Council Directive 92/27/EEC of 31 March 1992, on the labelling of medicinal products for human use and
on package leaflets (1), provides for the obligation to label the medicinal product in the official language or
languages of the Member State where the product is placed on the market (Article 4.2). This provision
covers both the outer packaging and the immediate packaging of medicinal products. The same obligation
applies to the information contained on the package leaflet (Article 8).

The instructions on the blister strip should therefore be covered by this Directive and by the British
labelling legislation, transposing this Directive and providing for the instructions to be in the English
language.

These provisions are justified by the need to provide the patients with clear and understandable
information.

(1) OJ L 113, 30.4.1992.

(2001/C 113 E/274)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3174/00

by Carlos Coelho (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Socrates/Erasmus mobility grants

The Erasmus programme is intended to encourage student mobility, by enabling students to carry out part
of their studies in another Member State, and thus develop the European dimension of education. By
encouraging transnational mobility between universities, Erasmus contributes to greater transparency and
the recognition of academic qualifications and diplomas within the Community.

I have been contacted by a Portuguese student who is in his fifth year of civil engineering at the Instituto
Superior TØcnico, and applied for the Socrates II/Erasmus programme. He was accepted for the second
semester of the current session at the Technical University of Denmark in Lyngby. He obtained a Socrates
mobility grant of € 1 230, which is supposed to cover his travel expenses as well. Given that his stays in
Denmark will never last less than five months, and that the cost of the flight amounts to almost a third of
the total grant, the student cannot move to Denmark unless further financial support is forthcoming.

Does the Commission agree that these mobility programmes are basically designed for the children of the
better-off?

Or does the Commission think it might be possible to consider other,
forms of support,
e.g. reduced ticket prices for travel, accommodation subsidies, etc., which would be supplementary to the
Erasmus grant?

indirect

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/251

Furthermore, what measures does the Commission intend to adopt to strengthen the helpline network at
both European and national levels, so as to provide more help for students in difficulties and minimise
obstacles to their mobility?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(26 October 2000)

Erasmus student mobility grants are intended to contribute to the extra costs involved in study abroad,
such as travel costs and a potential difference in the living costs as compared to the home country. The
Erasmus grant is not a full grant and is thus not intended to cover all the costs that an Erasmus student
will have during the period of study abroad.

The Commission disagrees with the claim that Erasmus student mobility is basically designed for the
children of the better-off. The Commission adopted on 18 January 2000 a report on a survey into the
socio-economic background of the Erasmus students (1) which clearly shows that the economic background
of the Erasmus students by no means differs from the economic background of the student population as a
whole. The external final evaluation of Socrates I reconfirms these findings.

Erasmus student mobility is a decentralised action and the Member States themselves outline their policy of
grant allocation within the broad guidelines given by the Commission. The Commission has always
encouraged the Member States to take the socio-economic background of students into account when
deciding on the grant amounts. Some Member States apply this criterion, others do not. The Member
States have also been strongly encouraged to complement the Community funding for Erasmus students,
be it on a national, regional or institutional level. Again, the practices adopted by different Member States
vary.

Providing support and help to mobile students is the responsibility of the universities involved in Erasmus
student mobility in cooperation with their national agencies.

(1) COM(2000) 4 final.

(2001/C 113 E/275)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3236/00

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: Tobacco advertising

Following the ruling of the European Court of Justice on 5 October 2000 on the Tobacco Advertising
Directive, will the European Commission prepare a new directive to regulate the internal market in
tobacco advertising which prohibits certain forms of advertising and sponsorship of tobacco products,
taking into account
tobacco advertising has,
particularly on young people?

the Court(cid:146)s ruling as well as the harmful effect

that

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2000)

The Commission continues to examine new measures to counteract the harmful effects of tobacco
smoking, particularly for children and young people, as part of the overall approach set out in its
communication on this matter (1).

Against this background, the Commission is currently completing its analysis of the judgement of the
Court of Justice in the tobacco advertising case (2) with a view to identifying the scope of a new proposal
which could be taken forward without delay.

(1) COM 96 (609) final.
(2)

Judgement of the Court of 5.10.2000 in Case C-376/98.