WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/01 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Patents on genetic tests.
Date: 2001-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Patent Office, United States, cancer, genetics, jurisdiction, patents licence, testing

C 81 E/200

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

(2002/C 81 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2674/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 September 2001)

Subject: Fraud against the EU

63 people have been arrested in Calabria (Italy) for engaging in fraud against the EU. They include
businessmen, military personnel from the (cid:145)Guardia di Finanza(cid:146) and members of the Mafia. In addition to
this, there have been press reports that (cid:145)43 employees and officials(cid:146) of the Calabria Region have been
arrested. The amount involved is believed to be ITL 6 billion (amount already in the hands of the
perpetrators).

What inspection measures were taken by the Italian Ministry of Finance, the Calabria Region, OLAF, the
European Union in general and the Department for Community Policies? What provisions have been
adopted by the Department for Community Policies and the Department for the Regions? Was negligence
involved? Is it possible for 43 people (cid:129) all employed by the Region (cid:129) to be involved in fraud without the
relevant aldermen, regional officers or supervisory bodies noticing the slightest thing? Who will now
provide the Italian government, the EU and the Calabria Region with financial compensation? Have the
European Union, the Region or the Ministry of Finance adopted adequate provisions to protect the public
interest? Does the regional alderman with responsibility in this field intend to tender his resignation?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

The Commission and the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF)
Commission(cid:146)s attention) are aware of the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

(which brought

the matter

to the

To judge from the press reports referred to by the Honourable Member, this case concerns the guarantee
section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) and more specifically aid for
citrus fruit.

The Commission has contacted the national authorities with a view to obtaining more detailed information
and deciding what course of action to take.

(2002/C 81 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2676/01

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2001)

Subject: Patents on genetic tests

The European Patent Office recently granted the American company Myriad Genetics a monopoly on
patents on genetic tests to screen for predisposition to breast and ovarian cancer. The Institut Curie, a well-
known French research centre which has the backing of the French Government, has decided to take legal
action in the matter, arguing that the existing patents system is ill-suited to deal with public health issues.
What position does the Commission intend to adopt on this matter and what action does it intend to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(14 November 2001)

The Commission considers that there are no compelling reasons for it to lodge opposition, since the
disputed patent does not seem to violate basic ethical standards but concerns rather the scope of
protection which can be granted to an invention relating to a DNA sequence.

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/201

It should be noted that this patent seems to be of scientific interest. It should enable improved screening
for female breast cancer. However, as a result of the appeals lodged against this patent by third parties, it is
for the Opposition Division and Boards of Appeal to decide on the patentability of the patent awarded and
on the scope of protection to be granted.

The Commission will study in detail the question of the scope of protection for inventions relating to
genetic sequences and will send its observations to the Council and to the Parliament in the reports
provided for under Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on
the legal protection of biotechnological inventions (1).

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998.

(2002/C 81 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2680/01

by Hans-Gert Poettering (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2001)

Subject: Implementation of the Habitats Directive

Since Parliament(cid:146)s resolution of 16 March 2000, a number of Member States have complied with their
obligations to designate Natura 2000 areas.

1. Which Member States have now complied with their obligations under the directive?

As regards Germany in particular, has Germany complied with its obligation to designate areas, and

2.
when was the Commission informed of them?

3. What areas were designated in Lower Saxony?

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

To date, none of the Member States has met all its obligations under Council Directive 92/43/EEC of

1.
21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (1).

2.
Over the last few months, the Member States, and especially Germany, have made significant
progress in proposing sites pursuant to Article 4 of the Habitats Directive. Germany put forward its
proposals in a series of separate notifications during that period. Over the next few months the proposals
will be assessed at biogeographical seminars organised by the Commission, inter alia to determine whether
enough proposals have been received to set up the (cid:145)Natura 2000(cid:146) network. Depending on the outcome of
this assessment, Germany and other Member States might have to be asked to submit further proposals.

For Lower Saxony, 172 sites covering a total of more than 5 000 km2 have been proposed as sites of
3.
Community interest. Given that the Commission has not yet adopted the Community list, it would ask the
Honourable Member to contact the German authorities for details of the proposed sites.

(1) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.