WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/02 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. The Italian Government and the Second World War.
Date: 2002-03-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, Second World War, government, public statement

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/225

(2002/C 172 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0749/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Subject: Progress on the evaluation of Fenthion

In answer to Written Question E-3552/00 (1), the Commission stated that one of the basic principles of
Council Directive 91/414/EEC (2) of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on
the market was the drawing-up of a list of accepted active substances in Annex 1, although Article 8(2)
‘provides for a derogation during a period of 12 years (until 25 July 2003) for Member States to continue
to authorise plant protection products containing active substances not included in Annex 1 of the
Directive …’.

The Commission went on to state that Fenthion was one of the active substances being evaluated under
the Commission Regulation (EEC) No 3600/92 (3) of 11 December 1992, and that it was expected that the
Commission would be able to adopt a decision on Fenthion in early 2001. The Commission also indicated
that it would inform the Parliament and Council by July 2001, as provided under the terms of the
Directive, of the progress which had been made with the re-evaluation programme.

On 28 November 2001, in answer to Written Question E-2883/01 (4), the Commission confirmed that the
use of Fenthion was permitted under Community law pending the completion of the evaluation process,
that the evaluation process had almost been finalised, and that the Commission would, after consultation
with the Scientific Committee on Plants, propose as soon as possible a decision on Fenthion.

Could the Commission indicate whether the evaluation has now been completed, and a final decision made
on the safety, or otherwise, of Fenthion?

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 76.
(2) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 366, 15.12.1992, p. 10.
(4) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 187.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2002)

The evaluation of fenthion has now indeed been completed, with the exception of one study which was
submitted only very recently to the rapporteur Member State. The evaluation of this study will be available
in April 2002, but should not delay the decision making process. The Commission will submit the result
of its evaluation to the Scientific Committee on Plants in April 2002. It is expected that the Committee
will deliver its opinion within two months. The Commission intends to decide on fenthion as soon as
possible after receipt of the opinion of the Scientific Committee.

(2002/C 172 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0813/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(25 March 2002)

Subject: The Italian Government and the Second World War

In the article in the Italian newspaper ‘Corriere della Sera’, dated 4 February 2002, a minister in the Italian
Government, Mirko Tremaglia, stated ‘it would have been better if we’d won the war’.

Given the suffering endured by many during the Second World War, what is the Commission’s opinion of
this statement?

Does the Commission intend to raise this issue with the Italian Government?

C 172 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 April 2002)

It is Commission policy not to comment on public statements by politicians in the Member States.

(2002/C 172 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0892/02

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 March 2002)

Subject: Cross-border contracting of general practitioners

Is the Commission aware of the report entitled ‘Unhappy patients want a German doctor’, which appeared
in the 6 February 2002 edition of the De Limburger newspaper, and of the article entitled ‘Patient must be
able to shop around in the EU’, which was published by the Dutch MP Frans Weekers in the
6 February 2002 edition of the Trouw newspaper?

Is the Commission aware that, under Dutch health insurance legislation, health insurance funds may
contract only Dutch doctors, and does it consider such a nationality requirement to be an infringement of
EU law?

Does the Commission think that the cross-border contracting of general practitioners could make the
shortage of such doctors in border areas more acute and is it prepared to introduce further legislation in
this field? If so, in what form and within what period of time?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of the fact that the delivery of health services within the European Union has
the judgments delivered on
received considerable media coverage in recent months on account of
12 July 2001 by the Court of Justice in the Smits and Peerbooms (C-157/99) and Vanbraeckel (C-368/98)
cases.
(C-158/96) and Decker
(C-120/95) cases, the Court ruled on the question of the reimbursement of medical expenses incurred in a
Member State other than the Member State of registration.

In these judgments and in those delivered on 28 April

in the Kohll

In these judgments, the Court confirmed that European law does not detract from the Member States’
responsibility for organising their systems of social security and that, in the absence of harmonisation at
Community level,
first, the conditions
it is for the legislation of each Member State to determine,
concerning the right or duty to be insured with a social security scheme, and, second, the conditions for
entitlement to benefits.

In order to protect migrant workers from the negative effects which the application of the different
national laws in the field of social security might have, Regulation 1408/71 coordinates the national social
security schemes. In the field of health care, it provides for different scenarios in which the costs for health
care obtained in another Member State can be reimbursed. This regulation does not, however, contain any
provision regarding the contracting of practitioners established outside the Member State concerned.

The Court pointed out in the above-mentioned judgments that, other than in the scenarios mentioned by
this regulation, the Member States must observe Community law in exercising their responsibility to
organise their social security systems and, in particular, the principle of the freedom to provide services set
out in Article 49 of the Treaty. The Court did in fact point out that medical activities are indeed services
under the terms of this provision.