WRITTEN QUESTION P-1143/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Future cost of pharmaceuticals.
Date: 2002-04-15
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: enlargement of the Union, free movement of goods, import, industrial property, medicinal product, patent, patent law, selling price

C 28 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The restructuring of the sector has had a social impact: over the last decade the steel sector has
4. and 5.
seen its direct workforce reduced by around 100 000 workers. Some are now employed in spin off
companies, others have found employment in different areas.

The Commission has sought to alleviate the social impact of these reductions, and those in the coal sector,
directly through PHARE funding to assist in retraining workers, the creation of business start up funds and
the like. Support for these actions amounts to some EUR 60 million.

In addition to this direct assistance to alleviate the social impact of restructuring, the Community, through
the Economic and Social cohesion envelope of the PHARE programme,
is providing around EUR 120
million annually to assist the most deserving regions in Poland as a pre-cursor to the structural funds. Such
funding supports not only job creation initiatives but also small scale environment projects at the local
level. At the national level the Instrument for Structural Policies for pre-accession (ISPA) programme is
allocated EUR 370 million a year for national environment and transport infrastructure projects in Poland.
Also the Special Accession Programme for Agricultural and Rural Development (Sapard) programme, with
a total allocation of EUR 170 million,
rural
infrastructure. In total the Community provides almost EUR 1 billion a year to Poland to assist in its
preparations for membership of the Union and to ensure that all parties are able to benefit fully from the
enlargement of the Union.

substantial assistance for modernisation of

includes

6.
The United States’ steel safeguard measures are unjustified and World Trade Organisation (WTO)
incompatible. Their destabilising impact on world steel markets presents a clear risk to the restructuring
process that Poland and other candidate countries are undertaking. However, any safeguard measure to
counter trade diversions from the United States market must strictly respect WTO rules.

(2003/C 28 E/084)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1143/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(15 April 2002)

Subject: Future cost of pharmaceuticals

In its answer to Question No P-0234/02 (1), the Commission states that parallel imports of pharmaceuticals
may have a detrimental effect on the research and development industry.

According to Ian Senior (NERA special adviser), the loss of revenue to the pharmaceuticals industry as a
result of parallel imports is approximately equivalent to the cost of developing a new drug. In its decision
to prohibit Glaxo Wellcome’s dual pricing system, the Commission stated that the losses of revenue ‘are
too insignificant to affect these investments to a considerable extent’ and, indirectly, that they can be offset
by reducing marketing costs. Parallel imports account for approximately 2 % of total pharmaceutical sales
in the Union. On average, parallel importers buy pharmaceuticals at some 30 % less than the domestic sale
price.

How is it possible that an approximate 0,6 % loss of revenue can have a detrimental effect on the research
and development industry?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/77

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2002)

The Commission confirms that, within the internal market, free movement of pharmaceutical products
may be beneficial for the consumers and national social security schemes since they provide consumers
with a broader choice of pharmaceutical products at a lower price through enhanced competition within
the internal market. Such considerations have been taken on board in the case law to which the
Honourable Member refers.

As regards the protection of industrial property rights for pharmaceutical products, the Union recalled (cid:1) in
the context of enlargement negotiations- the importance it attaches to the existence of an equal level of
protection of industrial property rights within the enlarged Union.

In its reply to written question P-0234/02 by the Honourable Member (1), the Commission indicated that
the Union (cid:1) in the context of enlargement negotiations (cid:1) has proposed a specific mechanism in order to
minimise potential problems resulting from the differences relating to the level of industrial property rights
protection. Taking into account the date of introduction of patent protection in the candidate countries, all
medicinal products which were marketed in the applicant countries before the change in the legislation
took place, will remain unprotected there while they are still under patent in the Union. Therefore, this
mechanism refers to the overall level of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection and will only apply to
products patented in a Member State at the time when a product patent could not be obtained in
candidate countries for that product.

The Union considered that this solution constitutes an objective and balanced mechanism which takes into
account the legitimate interest of the patent holders within the Union whilst it does not infringe or
undermine any existing rights of operators in the candidate countries.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002.

(2003/C 28 E/085)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1177/02

by Mogens Camre (UEN) to the Commission

(25 April 2002)

Subject: Muslim imams’ incitement to violence

European citizens’ security, European human rights and peace in the Member States are under threat from
certain fundamentalist Muslim imams who are openly calling in the Member States for ‘holy war’ and
publicly supporting the use of Islamic law, Sharia.

In declaration upon declaration, the EU proclaims its intention to create an area of peace, security and
justice. It may seem contrary to such designs for the EU to allow fundamentalist political forces, under the
guise of alleged religious faith, to call on Muslims in Europe to go to ‘holy war’ and to voice their support
for Islamic law, the atrocities of Sharia.

On 5 April 2002, during Friday prayers at a Copenhagen mosque, Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, whose
followers number between 10 000 and 15 000, called on his fellow believers to support their compatriots
at home who, he claimed, wanted ‘jihad’ and were willing to pay the price to liberate the Al Aqsa mosque
in Jerusalem. The newspaper Politiken reports him as saying ‘you must not believe that those killed in
combat are dead. They are alive with Allah and Allah bestows gifts upon them. We should think about
being active rather than passive.’ He added that Muslims should not rely on the UN or its Security Council
but should put their trust in Allah over the Middle East conflict.

Only a week earlier, the same imam had voiced his support for the use of Sharia to carry out the death
sentence imposed on a Nigerian woman, Safiya Hussaini, for adultery.