WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/03 by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Prices of reimbursable medicines.
Date: 2003-09-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competence of the Member States, health costs, health insurance, medicinal product, pharmaceutical industry, price disparity, price regulations, redemption, right to health, social security

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/191

Directive 64/432/EEC of 26 June 1964 (1) and the welfare conditions for animals during transport are laid
down in Council Directive 91/628/EEC of 19 November 1991 (2). Both Directives have been amended by
the Council and the Parliament in order to take into account the evolution of the single market.

Compliance with the animal health and welfare requirements set down in these Directives must be
ascertained and certified by an official veterinarian at the place of origin. The intended movement is
subsequently recorded in the computerised network ANIMO to ensure traceability of the animals and to
allow the official veterinarian at destination to carry out non-discriminatory checks, if considered necessary
and/or required by legislation.

In its resolution of 12 December 2002 the Parliament emphasised the need to reinforce controls on the
movement of and trade in live animals as essential prerequisites to prevent the transmission of major
epidemic diseases, such as foot-and-mouth disease or classical swine fever, and to guarantee compliance
with animal welfare requirements during transport.

In the aftermath of the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease crisis, the Commission has adopted provisions to
reinforce the controls on trade in animals and has submitted proposals to the Council to further strengthen
the controls on movements of animals in the Member States. It is therefore not foreseen to propose any
fundamental change to the current system of veterinary certification for trade in live animals, although the
Commission is continuously working on improvements
to take into account evolving technical
developments.

(1) OJ P 121, 29.7.1964.
(2) OJ L 340, 11.12.1991.

(2004/C 58 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2668/03

by Brice Hortefeux (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Prices of reimbursable medicines

As present, prices of reimbursable medicines vary greatly from one Member State to another.

Given the current budgetary austerity and massive sickness insurance deficits, new methods of regulating
spending on pharmaceutical products are clearly required to reduce the growing impact of these price
differences.

Since health is not a communitarised policy area, total harmonisation is clearly impossible, but the
Commission could usefully launch a review of the main points at issue and thus help increase the
transparency of the price situation in the different Member States.

Has the Commission already taken any steps in this direction? If so, what are they, and what is the planned
timetable?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 October 2003)

The prices and reimbursements of medicines are matters which generally remain the responsibility of the
Member States. However, in view of the consequences arising from differences in the prices charged in the
Member States, especially with regard to access to medicines, they are matters which are of concern to the
Commission. The fact is that differences in the way of regulating prices in each Member State can result in
significant variations in the time it takes for medicines actually to become available to patients. In addition,
the parallel trade in medicines, linked to the price differential between Member States, together with the
quota measures taken by the industry to combat this feature, could possibly interrupt supplies in countries
with the lowest prices.

C 58 E/192

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

In its communication entitled ‘A stronger European-based pharmaceutical industry for the benefit of the
patient (cid:1) a call for action’ (1) of 1 July 2003, the Commission tackled the question of medicine prices in
several chapters.

In its communication the Commission suggested a number of ways to introduce measures to make the
market more vigorous and competitive with a view to encouraging market integration. On the one hand,
the Member States were asked to examine their existing pricing and reimbursement systems to ensure that
they operated fully in accordance with Directive 89/105/CEE (Transparency Directive) (2), to look into the
possibility of reducing the time lag between the authorisation of medicines and their actual availability on
the market and to see whether they could develop closer coordination of studies carried out in connection
with procedures for regulating pricing and reimbursement. On the other hand, the Commission gave an
undertaking in its communication that it would launch a reflection on finding alternative ways to control
national expenditure on health care, primarily by allowing manufacturers to set the prices of new products,
while at the same time negotiating with the Member States suitable safeguard mechanisms in line with
Community rules on competition and with the principle of the free movement of goods.

With regard to the first point, an initiative has been launched by the Transparency Committee (committee
on the transparency of measures regulating the pricing of medicinal products, set up by Directive 89/105/
EEC).

As for the second point, the Commission is currently working on a timetable and an action plan to
conclude the reflection on controlling national expenditure on health care and on a possible European
price for certain medicines.

(1) COM(2003) 383 final.
(2) Council Directive 89/105/EEC of 21 December 1988 relating to the transparency of measures regulating the prices
of medicinal products for human use and their inclusion in the scope of national health insurance systems, OJ L 40,
11.2.1989.

(2004/C 58 E/207)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2671/03

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 September 2003)

Subject: Action Plan for European Professional Football

The European Commission recently approved the UEFA’s revised media policy. According to the rules,
media rights may no longer be sold collectively and in packages, as was the case throughout Europe until
last year. The aim of the revised policy is to prevent the development of monopolies and to create market
forces. However, that does not seem to have happened in most countries. As a result of the sale of TV
rights in England, for example, BSkyB has acquired all the available broadcasting rights. In the Netherlands,
it has now become clear that the average income for football clubs will be considerably lower than it was.
The upshot of this is that, this season, even more professional football clubs in Europe will be struggling to
cope with deficits and will be able to survive only with aid from local authorities. And that encroaches on
another European policy area: competition. This is just one example of conflicting Community policy areas
adversely affecting professional football.

Pursuant to the case-law of the European Court of Justice, professional football clubs are held to be
commercial undertakings to which (cid:1) like undertakings in every other industry (cid:1) European rules are
applicable. In practice, the application of those rules seems to be having an adverse effect on the football
sector as a result of the many uncertainties and grey areas involved. The result is that the people running
professional football do not know whether they are coming or going, and that, too, contributes to the
further decline of European football, with all its negative social and economic consequences.

It
is time for the Commission to stop shilly-shallying and abandon its hand-to-mouth policy on
professional football. It must act decisively so as to clear up the many uncertainties with which the sector
is currently having to cope so that the clubs, players, spectators, national associations and local authorities
may have some idea of what is going on and not, as is currently the case, because of the lack of clarity in
the rules, be constantly worrying about whether or not they are complying with those rules.