WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/01 by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Definition of the terms adult and minor.
Date: 2001-10-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, age of majority

18.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 93 E/201

(2002/C 93 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2821/01

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 October 2001)

Subject: Definition of the terms ‘adult’ and ‘minor’

There are different interpretations and definitions in the Member States of the age at which a person is
considered to be an adult or a minor. For example, in some countries in the Union, such as Greece, police
identity cards can be issued to a person under the age of 18, whereas that same person can vote only after
attaining the age of 18 but may, nevertheless, be considered fit for work at the age of 15. The same
definition of age is evidently also recognised by the Commission. Its publication entitled ‘The unity of
Europe, solidarity of the peoples, diversity of the regions 0 Second Report on economic and social
(with a preface by Commissioner Barnier) states (page 16) that the Union’s labour force
cohesion’
comprises individuals aged 15-64, and provides details of the rate of unemployment.

Will the Commission say when an individual is considered to be an adult or a minor in all the other
Member States?

Can the definition be harmonised throughout the EU in order to eliminate the confusion which is caused?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2001)

The issue raised does not fall within the Community’s remit:
authorities only.

it is a matter for the relevant national

(2002/C 93 E/239)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2829/01

by Béatrice Patrie (PSE) to the Commission

(11 October 2001)

Subject: Access to new medicinal products

Mr Hervé Novelli tabled Written Question E-1812/01 (1) to the Commission on 8 June 2001 on the need
to give European patients speedier access to new medicines on the market. He pointed out that Directive
89/105/EEC (2), the so-called ‘transparency’ directive, had not borne fruit in terms of reducing either the
time needed to put these products on sale or the time needed to decide on prices and reimbursement,
which very often exceeded the 180 days laid down in the directive. He suggested that the European
Commission should be proactive in raising Member States’ awareness of the disparities between one EU
country and another, and proposed a reform in procedure that would give patients immediate access to
new medicines at provisional prices and reimbursement rates.

the
Mr Liikanen replied for the European Commission on 3 September 2001 to the effect
Commission was aware of the concern expressed at the discrepancies in price-fixing and levels of
reimbursement in Member States and the associated time-lags, but that, apart from management of the
‘transparency’ directive, the Commission’s powers were limited. He also stated that the Commission would
legislation conformed to the directive but there were
be prepared to intervene even where national
administrative practices that did not comply with the 180-day deadline laid down by Directive
89/105/EEC.

that

Consequently, in confronting the very real difficulties and disadvantages experienced by European patients
as a result of disparities between Member States and the length of administrative procedures that operate
in some of them as barriers to the rapid marketing of new medicinal products, what practical action will
the European Commission take?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 109.
(2) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989, p. 8.