WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Policy to prevent the spread of the MRSA bacteria.
Date: 2003-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, antibiotic, competence of the Member States, disease prevention, disease vector, drug surveillance, infectious disease, public health, report

7.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268 E/75

proposals on the provisions of the future Constitution. Draft Article 6 proposed by the Praesidium
proscribes all discrimination on grounds of nationality.
the
Commission, to ensure overall consistency when incorporating the various existing provisions on non-
discrimination, such as Articles 12 and 13 of the EC Treaty and Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental
Rights.

in the opinion of

It would be wise,

The proscription of all discrimination, including that based on language or membership of a national
minority, is a general principle of Community law, which the Commission must, in any event, observe in
its initiatives in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on European Union. This general principle has
been clearly highlighted by Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The Commission agrees entirely with the Honourable Member about the need to give due place in its
initiatives to preventing and combating discrimination based on language or membership of a national
minority, and all the other cases listed in Article 21 of the Charter.

The Commission would point out that all
Commission are automatically checked for compatibility with the Charter at
evidenced by the inclusion of a specific recital in any proposal directly relating to fundamental rights (1).

legislative proposals and regulations to be adopted by the
the drafting stage, as

(1)

‘Application of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’, Commission memorandum of 13 March
2001, SEC(2001) 380/3.

(2003/C 268 E/078)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0168/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Policy to prevent the spread of the MRSA bacteria

(29 January 2003)

At present there is no common European policy to combat the spread of the MRSA bacteria and policy
differs from one Member State to another. For instance, the Netherlands has a very restrictive policy in
comparison with most other European countries. With success, as the Netherlands is one of the countries
with the lowest incidence of MRSA. The policy differences between countries mean that access to hospitals
in the Netherlands is more difficult for patients from abroad, because of the fear of the spread of the
bacteria.

Can the Commission indicate what differences there are between the Member States’ policies to

1.
prevent the spread of the MRSA bacteria?

Does it consider a common European policy desirable in this matter, not least from the point of view

2.
of access to hospitals for patients from other Member States?

Does it intend to take measures under the new action programme for public health to promote such

3.
a Community policy?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2003)

The latest report

from the European Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance Scheme (EARSS) (1),
1.
a Commission funded project, shows that southern European countries, plus Ireland and the United
Kingdom report Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) proportions of over 30 %, whereas
northern European countries have proportions of MRSA in bacteraemia patients below 1 %.

C 268 E/76

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

In December 2000 a survey was undertaken by Eurosurveillance (bulletin subsidised by the Commission)
on current surveillance policies on antibiotic resistance in the Community (2). This survey, by means of
questionnaires completed by public health authorities in the 15 Member States, revealed that most
countries issued national guidelines specifically devoted to prevention of hospital-acquired infections (like
MRSA), but the survey does not provide details on the content of policies to prevent the spread of MRSA.

However, the Council Recommendation on the prudent use of antimicrobial agents in human medicine (3),
is designed to ensure that specific strategies to contain antimicrobial resistance are implemented at national
level. The Recommendation requires Member States to report to the Commission on its implementation at
the latest by November 2003. These reports will provide details of national policies.

2.
The same Council Recommendation charges the Commission with the task of supporting Member
States’ efforts to contain antimicrobial resistance through the Community Network on the epidemiological
surveillance and control of communicable diseases. The Council Recommendation and the ‘Community
strategy against Antimicrobial Resistance (4)’ provide the basis for further Community action that the
Commission is taking forward with the Member States.

The Commission would like to remind the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty stresses that Member
States retain responsibility for the organisation and delivery of health services and medical care.

Under the new public health programme antimicrobial resistance,

is of high
3.
priority. In the 2003 workplan priority is given to projects which will develop principles and guidelines
for best practise on prudent antimicrobial use. Another priority in the workplan is to support information
exchange and co-ordination of education and intervention programmes aimed at the community and
hospitals.

including MRSA,

(1) EARSS management team, advisory board and national representatives. EARSS Annual Report 2001. Bilthoven, the

Netherlands, July 2002. Pages 95. ISBN-number: 90-6960-098-6. Available at www.earss.rivm.nl.

(2) Therre H. National policies for preventing antimicrobial resistance (cid:1) the situation in 17 European countries in late

2000. Eurosurveillance 2001; 6: 5-14.

(3) OJ L 34, 5.2.2002.
(4) Commission of the European Communities. Communication from the commission on a community strategy against

antimicrobial resistance. COM(2001) 333 final.

(2003/C 268 E/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0178/03

by Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 January 2003)

Subject: Adder conservation area on the island of Milos: the protection of public health and violation of

environmental legislation

Local bodies and professional associations on the island of Milos have condemned a plan to create an
adder conservation area on Milos in violation of Community legislation; this plan is based on a special
environmental study entitled the ‘Milos adder habitat programme’. They are also protesting at the fact that
this poisonous snake which is not an endangered species in Greece would constitute a public health risk.
They are particularly concerned that the provisions of Directive 92/43/EEC (1) on the conservation of
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, and notably Article 6, paragraph 3, have not been respected.
This Article states that ‘the competent national authorities shall agree to the plan or project only after
having ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site concerned and … after having
obtained the opinion of the general public.’ Moreover, on the basis of the study in question it has been
proposed that a presidential decree be issued providing that the snake conservation area should cover 60 %
of the surface of the island. Given the public health threat that would result from this scheme and the fact
that other species of snake which are non-indigenous would also be introduced on Milos without controls,
this represents a violation of the content of Directive 92/43/EEC and the Natura 2000 network and
distortion of their objectives.