WRITTEN QUESTION E-3831/02 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Implementation of Directive 97/36/EC.
Date: 2003-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, advertising, application of EU law, broadcasting, national implementing measure, television

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/195

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The current Community legislation on labelling, i.e. the information on the immediate or outer packaging,
and on package leaflets for medicinal products for human use is contained in Title V 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).

According to Article 59(1)(c) of Directive 2001/83/EC, the package leaflet shall include among other things
a list of information which is necessary before taking the medicinal product. This includes information on
special warnings and on appropriate precautions for use, a specific example of which is the information
that the use of the product could have an effect on anti-doping tests. In particular, the package leaflet must
state whether use of the product could produce a positive analysis result in such a test. The obligation to
provide this information in the package leaflet extends both to nationally-approved medicinal products and
to medicinal products with a Community-wide authorisation. This means that sportsmen and their teams
already get all the necessary information.

Unlike for the package leaflet, there is no provision for special warnings or appropriate precautions for use
to be given on the outer packaging. Title V of Directive 2001/83/EC therefore does not permit the
inclusion of any specific symbol on potential effects of the product in anti-doping tests. This is appropriate
inasmuch as the information contained on the outer packaging has to be reduced to a minimum,
consisting only of the main information of general importance, in order to focus the user’s attention fully
on it. More detailed information is reserved for the package leaflet.

As a result, the Commission considers that the provisions laid down in Directive 2001/83/EC are adequate
for providing consumers with relevant information on the risks of a positive result in anti-doping tests.
The Commission has no plans at present to amend the provisions in force.

(1) OJ L 311, 28.11.2001.

(2003/C 155 E/216)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3831/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of Directive 97/36/EC

(9 January 2003)

Complaints have been made that most Greek TV channels interrupt the transmission of feature films at
regular intervals. It should be borne in mind that Article 11(3) of Directive 97/36/EC (1), which amended
Directive 89/552/EEC (2) on the co-ordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or
television broadcasting activities,
administrative action in Member States concerning the pursuit of
provides that ‘the transmission of audiovisual works such as feature films and films made for television
(excluding series, serials, light entertainment programmes and documentaries), provided their scheduled
duration is more than 45 minutes, may be interrupted once for each period of 45 minutes.’

Will the Commission say whether the provision in question is being correctly implemented in Greece?

(1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997, p. 60.
(2) OJ L 298, 17.10.1989, p. 23.

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

The Commission monitors compliance with the principles
laid down in the ‘Television without
frontiers’ (1) directive, and in particular compliance with the rules concerning televised advertising. In this
context, the Commission has been notified of problems relating to the application of Article 11(3) of the
directive to which the Honourable Member refers. The Commission in fact made mention of this in its

C 155 E/196

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

19th annual report on monitoring the application of Community law, pointing out that it is in the process
of examining whether the alleged excesses could constitute infringements on the part of the Member State
in question. On this point, Greece assured the Commission that it would set up the necessary resources to
monitor application of the provision in question. Nevertheless, the procedure remains pending, since the
Commission is awaiting further information before taking a decision.

(1) Directive 97/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 June 1997 amending Council Directive
89/552/EEC on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in
Member States concerning the pursuit of television broadcasting activities (cid:1) OJ L 202, 30.7.1997.

(2003/C 155 E/217)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3837/02

by Camilo Nogueira Román (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2003)

Subject: Breach of the principle of free competition by the Spanish state-owned company Tragsa

The Spanish state-owned company Transformaciones Agrarias Sociedad Anónima (Tragsa) is, in direct and
systematic fashion, awarded most of the contracts handed down by the Spanish central government and
regional governments for the execution of development schemes, drawing-up of projects, provision of
services and other activities in the area of forestry, the environment and agriculture. This amounts to a
clear breach of the Community’s principles of publicisation, equal treatment, competition and transparency
the public
in public contracts. This privileged position which Tragsa enjoys, with the support of
is anti-competitive vis-à-vis the company’s private-sector counterparts, which are thus
authorities,
discriminated against,
free
competition.

laid down in the Treaties, of

the Community principle,

in breach of

According to Spanish media reports, the Commission has sent a letter of formal notice to the Spanish
government concerning contracts entered into with third parties by Tragsa, on the grounds of non-
compliance with the rules on publicisation and transparency laid down by the Community legislation on
public contracts. This arises from a complaint lodged by the National Association of Forestry Enterprises
(Asemfo), which, although it represents more than 85 % of the forestry development and services sector in
Spain, is not awarded a proportion of public contracts comparable to that awarded to Tragsa.

Can the Commission provide information on the matter, in particular on the letter sent to the Spanish
government concerning the legal situation of Tragsa and its activities in the field of public contracts?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

Tragsa is a state-owned Spanish company which provides services in the areas of rural development and
environmental protection, including works, projects and technical assistance. It is obliged to carry out the
work entrusted to it by central government and by the autonomous communities and dependent public
bodies.

In following up a complaint received from the National Association of Forestry Enterprises (Asociación
Nacional de Empresas Forestales (cid:1) Asemfo), the Commission did indeed find that the system for the award
of contracts placed by Tragsa as contracting authority was incompatible with the Community Directives in
several respects.

Under Spanish legislation, Tragsa is not deemed to be a body governed by public law. As a result, it does
not regard itself as being bound by the Community Directives as regards contracts which it enters into
with third parties in cases where the application thresholds are exceeded, or as having to meet the
obligations deriving from the principle of transparency and publicisation under the EC Treaty in other
cases.