WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/03 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Implementation by Greece of Directive 89/48/EEC.
Date: 2003-02-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Greece, application of EU law, infringement procedure (EU), national implementing measure, recognition of diplomas

C 222 E/214

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

18.9.2003

(2003/C 222 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0539/03

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Council

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Green light for alcohol advertising

Sweden has a long-standing restrictive alcohol policy, which has had a positive effect on public health and
led to lower average alcohol consumption compared with the rest of Europe. Swedish alcohol policy is
now under threat, however. In a judgment in the Gourmet case, the Swedish Market Court has ruled that
the Swedish ban on advertisements for alcohol in newspapers and magazines is contrary to EU rules on
freedom of movement for goods and services. It is claimed that the implication of the judgment is that the
Swedish Parliament will have to amend the law on alcohol, which will inevitably lead to a rise in alcohol
consumption in Sweden as that is the purpose of the advertising.

The ban on advertisements for alcohol in newspapers and magazines affects all alcoholic drinks (spirits,
beer and wine) equally. It is therefore doubtful whether the ban affects the free movement of goods and
services. The justification does not carry much weight compared with the adverse effects on public health
resulting from an increase in alcohol consumption. Unfortunately, the judgment of the Market Court
points in the opposite direction.

Is it the Council’s view that Sweden will be compelled to allow advertisements for alcohol in newspapers
and magazines despite the fact that they will have a negative impact on public health?

Reply

(13 May 2003)

The Council
regarding the possible consequences of a ruling by a Swedish national court.

is not in a position to pronounce itself on the issue raised by the Honourable Member

(2003/C 222 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0544/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation by Greece of Directive 89/48/EEC

(26 February 2003)

Presidential Decree 165/2000 transposing Directive 89/48/EEC (1) under Greek law, has been amended by
Presidential Decree 385/2002, which also transposes Directive 2001/19 EEC (2).
the
Commission forwarded a reasoned opinion (SG (2002) 220544 (cid:1) 1.7.2002) as part of infringement
proceedings (2001/4046) for failure by Greece to transpose properly under national law Directive 89/48/
including recognition of diplomas
EEC and failure to implement properly certain provisions thereof,
awarded by the relevant institutions of other Member States on completion of studies on the basis of
franchise agreements concerning the right to use the names of the institutions concerned.

In July 2002,

Does the new Presidential Decree 385/2002 remedy the shortcomings regarding the transposition of
Directive 89/48/EEC? If not, what steps will be taken by the Commission in response to failure to
implement the directive properly?

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 206, 31.7.2001, p. 1.

18.9.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 222 E/215

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(25 April 2003)

The Honourable Member’s question prompts the following comments:

(cid:1) Presidential Decree 385/2002, amending Presidential Decree 165/2000 was sent to the Commission.
The examination of this Presidential Decree concluded that it brought Presidential Decree 165/2000
into line with Directive 89/48/EEC on certain points relating to the incorrect transposition of Directive
89/48/EEC (1). These compliance measures relate in particular to the applicability of Presidential
Decree 165/2000 to persons who have already practised in Greece the profession for which they
request recognition and certain provisions relating to compensatory measures. The corresponding
objections raised in the reasoned opinion notified to Greece on 1 July 2002 should thus be dropped.

transposition of Directive 89/48/EEC and all

(cid:1) However, insofar as Presidential Decree 385/2002 still leaves a number of objections concerning the
incorrect
the objections relating to the improper
application of this Directive, the Commission intends to continue with the proceedings which are
under way, taking into account the changes made following the adoption of Presidential Decree 385/
2002. The Commission decided to bring this case before the Court of Justice at its meeting of
17 December 2002.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration (cid:1) OJ L 19,
24.1.1989.

(2003/C 222 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0548/03

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 February 2003)

Subject: Suspension of work on biological sewage treatment plant in Mitilini (Greece)

According to Greek press reports,
the Greek Government suspended work on a EUR 100 million
(GRD 3,5 billion) biological sewage treatment project in Mitilini on 20 January 2003 following a decision
by Mr Paxtas, Deputy Finance Minister, despite the fact that a few months previously (on 6 March 2002)
Mr Paxtas himself had described the project as ‘first rate’ and had publicly undertaken to ensure proper
funding.

Lesbos, an island situated on the confines of Greek territory (the second largest in Greece) has enormous
tourist potential, given its infrastructures (its airport caters for international charter flights) and its rich
cultural heritage. It is the site of major museums, monuments and buildings (for example the Teriade
museum, neo-classical houses, numerous frescoes by the great popular painter Theofilos etc.), in addition
to which it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. Despite this, the island does not yet have a biological
sewage treatment plant, which is bound to affect further tourist development and, following the above
Government decision, the project no longer appears feasible.

Does the Commission know the reasons for this sudden change of heart by the Greek Government, given
that nothing appears to have changed in the intervening ten months aside from the election of a new
municipal authority? Does the Commission regard as acceptable decisions to commence or cancel
necessary infrastructural projects, particularly in outlying tourist areas of the EU, in accordance with the
political ambitions and designs of the Member State governments concerned?