WRITTEN QUESTION E-2427/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Promoting sales of medication against nail fungus by means of advertising to the general public with the aim of bringing pressure to bear on general practitioners to prescribe it unnecessarily.
Date: 2002-08-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, advertising, competence of the Member States, marketing, medicinal product, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical legislation, public health, skin disease

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/237

(2003/C 28 E/267)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2427/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Promoting sales of medication against nail fungus by means of advertising to the general public

with the aim of bringing pressure to bear on general practitioners to prescribe it unnecessarily

Is the Commission aware that the pharmaceuticals company Novartis is seeking to increase sales of
1.
its product Lamisil in the Netherlands by means of TV advertising which causes viewers concern about the
appearance of white and yellow patches in their nails, and in which, without mentioning any brand name,
viewers are encouraged to ask their doctor to prescribe medication against fungal infections of the nails
which can only be supplied by the company concerned?

2.
Is the Commission aware that, as a result of this advertising campaign, unusually large numbers of
people are contacting their doctors, even in cases where there is no obvious reason to undergo a strict
course of
lasting three months which may have such side effects as anxiety neurosis,
gastrointestinal complaints, loss of the sense of smell and/or taste and inflammation of the liver?

treatment

3.
Is it acceptable that a pharmaceuticals company should within a short period of time gain 10 000
extra customers for its own product by means of indirect advertising while generating unnecessary work
for general practitioners and unnecessary expense for health insurance funds and endangering the health of
their potential customers?

Is this international corporation also carrying out similar campaigns in other EU Member States?

4.
How have the problems to which they give rise been tackled there?

5. Would it be possible to take measures at EU level to combat the type of action by pharmaceuticals
companies referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2? If not, what means of preventing it are lacking?

6. Will the Commission take measures to prevent such customer-seeking campaigns in future?

7.

If not, is it purely a matter for national legislatures to prohibit them? Why?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2002)

The overall policy objective is not to maximise the consumption of medical products, but to ensure a
rational use. This means that advertising of medicinal products to the public could negatively affect public
health, where it is excessive and ill-considered.

For these reasons, the Community legislation lays down strict provisions on the advertising of medicinal
products for human use in Title VIII of Directive 2001/83/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1). They
stipulate, for example, that all advertising shall encourage the rational use of the medicine. For certain
categories of medicinal products, any kind of advertising to the general public is prohibited, in particular
for medicines that are available on prescription only. In addition, Member States are entitled to prohibit
the advertising for other categories such as medicines, the costs of which are reimbursed.

The provisions have been in place for about ten years now and have proven to provide a sound basis for
the effective control of advertising activities by the pharmaceutical industry. It is important though to
ensure that the legislative restrictions are actually enforced in practice.

This task lies within the responsibility of national authorities.
Irrespective of whether the medicinal
product has obtained a marketing authorisation by a Member State or by the Commission, its advertising
has to be controlled and, where necessary, limited or even prohibited by the national authorities.

C 28 E/238

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

The Commission is fully aware of the potential conflict between public health objectives and commercial
interests of
the
industry. But as a consequence of
Commission usually is not informed about particular advertising campaigns in the Member States. This is
also true for the campaign by Novartis for Lamisil®.

the shared responsibilities,

the pharmaceutical

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2003/C 28 E/268)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2431/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Injection of growth hormone into dairy cattle

With the current EU moratorium due to expire on 16 December 2002, what steps is the Commission
taking in order to ensure the continued ban on the injection of growth hormone into dairy cattle to
promote bigger milk yields?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(24 September 2002)

It is assumed that the question of the Honourable Member refers to the prohibition of use of bovine
somatotrophin (BST) established by Council Decision 1999/879/EC of 17 December 1999 concerning the
placing on the market and administration of bovine somatotrophin (BST) and repealing Decision 90/218/
EEC (1). The prohibition of use in this Decision has no time limit.

(1) OJ L 331, 23.12.1999.

(2003/C 28 E/269)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2435/02

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 August 2002)

Subject: Varying age limits for appointment to and exercise of the profession of notary in the EU

1.
In view of the principle of equal rights, how does the Commission view the fact that varying national
provisions are in force in the EU Member States with regard to age limits for appointment to and exercise
of the profession of notary?

2.
Is it aware that, in the Netherlands and in Belgium, for example, there are no age limits for notaries,
while an age limit of 70 is to be introduced in Germany? What rules are in force in other EU Member
States?

Has consideration been given to how this unequal treatment should be combated in the internal

3.
market, or have decisions already been taken on the subject?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(1 October 2002)

The question seems to imply that the existence in the Member States of various rules regarding access to
the profession of notary might constitute a breach of the principle of equal treatment. It derives from
consistent case-law (1) that the principle of equal treatment enshrined in Article 12 of the EC Treaty is not
concerned with disparities in treatment or the distortions which may result from divergences existing
between the laws of the various Member States, so long as the latter affect all persons subject to them, in