WRITTEN QUESTION E-2920/03 by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Alternative and complimentary medicine.
Date: 2003-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, EU programme, alternative medicine, health legislation, health policy, homeopathic product, recognition of diplomas, recognition of vocational training qualifications, right of establishment, vocational training

C 65 E/246

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

The Commission has just begun infringement proceedings against those Member States which failed to
communicate their transposal measures.

Directive 2000/34/EC includes offshore work among those activities for which Article 17, paragraph 2.1,
of Directive 93/104/EC allows Member States to derogate from Articles 3 (daily rest), 4 (breaks), 5 (weekly
rest), 8 (duration of night work) and 16 (reference periods), provided that the workers concerned are
afforded equivalent periods of compensatory rest or that, in exceptional cases in which it is not possible,
for objective reasons, to grant such equivalent periods of compensatory rest, the workers concerned are
afforded appropriate protection.

Directive 2000/34/EC also adds a new Article 17a which provides that, with regard to offshore work,
Member States may, for objective or technical reasons or reasons concerning the organisation of work,
extend the reference period for calculating maximum weekly working time (48 hours) to twelve months in
respect of workers who mainly perform offshore work.

To sum up, all Articles of Directive 93/104/EC on working time therefore apply to offshore work, with the
possible adjustments summarised above.

In principle, the report on the transposal of Directive 2000/34/EC will not be adopted until after May
2004, so that the future Member States are also covered.

(1) Directive 2000/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 2000 amending Council Directive
93/104/EC concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded
from that Directive, OJ L 195, 1.8.2000.

(2) Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time,

OJ L 307, 13.12.1993.

(2004/C 65 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2920/03

by Miquel Mayol i Raynal (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Alternative and complimentary medicine

(2 October 2003)

For some time, we have been witnessing a proliferation of associations and professional practitioners in the
field of non-conventional medicine, calling for clarification and harmonisation of the regulatory framework
for their activities and services within the EU.

Given that ‘charlatans’, i.e. people passing themselves off as complimentary medical professionals, although
they lack proper training, are proliferating, what action does the Commission plan to guarantee the health
safety of those using these services?

Given the great disparity between national
legislations, does the Commission intend to harmonise
legislation at Community level? How does the Commission guarantee the single market in this sector, as
well as the right of freedom to provide services and freedom of establishment?

What is the budgetary allocation, at European level, for alternative medicine?

Which of the requests set out in European Parliament Resolution A4-0075/97 (1) has the Commission
actually implemented to date?

(1) OJ C 182, 16.6.1997, p. 67.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(17 November 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised a number of topics. The first question refers to qualification and
training requirements of those practising alternative and complementary medicine in the Union.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/247

Under the EC Treaty, qualification and training requirements remain the primary responsibility of the
Member States. Some minimum co-ordinated training requirements have been adopted at Community level
for some of the main health professions, but most professions, among which many professions in the
health sector, are not subject to any such requirements. The provisions adopted at Union level have the
main objective of ensuring conditions for the recognition of qualifications within the regulated professions.
The adoption of new legislation in this area requires a very large measure of support among the
professions and Member States. The Commission is not aware of any strong and widespread support for
new measures with respect to alternative and complementary medicine.

As far as professional recognition is concerned Council Directive 89/48/EE 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 (1) and Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a
second general system for the recognition of professional education and training (2) apply to any national
of a Member State wishing to pursue a regulated profession in a host Member State. In this context, the
European Court of Justice has confirmed in its decision of 3 October 1990 (C-61/89 Bouchoucha) that
Article 43 of the EC Treaty does not preclude a Member State from restricting an activity ancillary to
medicine exclusively to persons holding the qualification of doctor of medicine.

In addition, in order to guarantee health protection, the Court of Justice ruled in its decision of 11 July
2002 (C-294/00 Deutsche Paracelsus Schulen für Naturheilverfahren GmbH) that it must be borne in mind
that the protection of public health is one of the reasons cited in Article 46(1) EC Treaty capable of
justifying restrictions on the freedom to provide establishment and services.

The second topic is that of the Community legislation on alternative medicines. In its Resolution of
29 May 1997, the Parliament called for work to be undertaken to look at the safety and efficacy of
alternative medicinal products. In this connection the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on
traditional herbal medicinal products on January 2002 (3). The Parliament first reading vote took place in
November 2002. Following the modified proposal (4) adopted by the Commission on 9 April 2003 and the
Council political agreement reached in September 2003, the adoption of a final text could take place
before the end of 2003.

With regard to expenditure on alternative medicines, the public health programme does not cover this
issue. With regard to Community research funding, Priority 1 ‘Life sciences, genomics and biotechnology
for health’ and the section on policy oriented research of the Sixth Framework Programme for research,
technological development and demonstration activities covering the period 2002-2006, do not provide
for such research. However,
the
co-ordination of national activities does mention under health, the area of alternative or non-conventional
medicine.

the 6th Framework Programme on support

the section of

for

(1) OJ L 19, 24.1.1989.
(2) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.
(3) OJ C 126 E, 28.5.2002.
(4) COM(2003) 161 final.

(2004/C 65 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2923/03

by Marianne Thyssen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: The patent system and SMUs

During the debate in the European Parliament on the proposal for a directive on the patentability of
computer-implemented inventions, many observations were made which showed that, as a general rule,
the application of patent legislation was not an easy task for SMUs. Even innovative SMUs still require
patent protection.