WRITTEN QUESTION E-3479/03 by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Transposition of Directive 2002/46/EC seeking to harmonise Member State legislation on food supplements.
Date: 2003-11-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, approximation of laws, food supplement, foodstuffs legislation, free movement of goods, national implementing measure

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/561

The Commission has obtained a number of statistical data on the prison population in the Member States
and in the Accession Countries in the context of the preparation of two Green Papers, one on possible
measures to be taken at Union level for safeguarding the rights of individuals in pre-trial detention and
alternatives to such detention and a second on the approximation, recognition and enforcement of
criminal sanctions in the Union.

At the request of the Italian Presidency, the Commission sent a questionnaire to the Member States,
wherein they were asked to provide statistical data on their total prison population: They were invited to
provide figures on people in pre-trial detention and convicted prisoners. Additionally, they were asked to
supply (cid:1) in each case (cid:1) statistics for nationals and non-nationals and amongst the non-nationals, between
those of other Member States, those of the Accession Countries and those of third countries. Questions
regarding the number of female prisoners etc. did not enter into the scope of that questionnaire (as it does
not have any relevance for the two above-mentioned Green Papers) and it is not the intention of the
Commission to obtain information on this particular issue.

(2004/C 78 E/0596)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3479/03

by Christine De Veyrac (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 2002/46/EC seeking to harmonise Member State legislation on food

supplements

In July 2002, the European institutions adopted a directive seeking to harmonise Member State legislation
on food supplements (2002/46/EC (1)).

This directive has made the food supplements sector ‘readable’ again, clarifying the boundary between food
and medicine, and making food supplements both safer and more trustworthy. Furthermore, the Directive
is doing specific rules for defining products, their contents, dosages and usage for vitamins and minerals,
and imposes the same rules on the consumer information throughout Europe. However, it leaves it up to
the Member State to regulate the issue of the use of plants in food supplements.

This text was to be transposed into national law on 31 July 2003, which is not yet the case in all Member
States.

Can the Commission provide:

(cid:1) the list of those Member States which have in fact transposed the directive before the deadline, and

the list of those which did not;

(cid:1) a list of those Member States which transposed the Directive to the letter, and the list of those which

chose to go further, by incorporating aspects not harmonised by the Directive?

Furthermore, does the Commission believe that the principle of the freedom of movement provided for in
the Treaty of Accession can be applied to those aspects not harmonised by the Directive, and not dealt
with in the transposition process?

Does the Commission intend to take fresh initiatives on those aspects not harmonised by Directive 2002/
46/EC so as to encourage greater harmonisation of European legislation on food supplements?

(1) OJ L 183, 12.7.2002, p. 51.

C 78 E/562

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2004)

The current situation regarding Member States’ transposal of Directive 2002/46/EC of the European
Parliament and of the Council of 10 June 2002 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to food supplements is as follows:

(cid:1) five Member States transposed Directive 2002/46/EC within the time allowed: Belgium, Denmark, the

Netherlands, Portugal and Sweden;

(cid:1) on 6 October 2003 the Commission sent a letter of formal notice to the other ten Member States for

not having given notification of their national measures for transposing the Directive;

(cid:1) since then, Spain, Ireland and the United Kingdom have notified us of their national measures;

(cid:1) seven Member States are currently behind schedule in transposing the Directive: Germany, Greece,
France, Italy, Luxembourg, Austria and Finland (the delay in transposal concerns only the autonomous
province of the Åland Islands);

(cid:1) in light of the above, it is not possible to provide a meaningful description of the different ways in

which the various countries have transposed the Directive;

(cid:1) with regard to the areas or products for which this Directive does not provide harmonisation
measures, movement of these goods in the single market remains subject to the general provisions of
Community law and in particular to those relating to the free movement of goods (Articles 28 and 30
of the EC Treaty). These provisions will of course apply in the accession countries as of the date of
accession;

(cid:1) based on the implementing powers conferred on it by Article 5(4) of the Directive, the Commission
will set the maximum amounts of vitamins and minerals in food supplements. This exercise is to take
into account the work currently being done by the European Food Safety Authority on maximum safe
levels of vitamins and minerals, which should be completed in the course of 2005;

(cid:1) under Article 4(8) of the Directive, the Commission must submit to the European Parliament and the
Council, not later than 12 July 2007, a report on the advisability of establishing specific rules
concerning categories of nutrients or of substances with a nutritional or physiological effect, other
than vitamins and minerals. The Commission has not yet begun this work.

(2004/C 78 E/0597)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3482/03

by Richard Corbett (PSE) to the Commission

(24 November 2003)

Subject: Legal privilege of documents between companies and their law firms

Does the Commission regard correspondence between companies and their law firms as ‘legally privileged’
in anti-cartel cases?

If so, what is to prevent companies arranging their cartels via their lawyers in order to avoid detection?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(8 January 2004)

The Commission fully recognises that correspondence between companies and their law firms can be
‘legally privileged’. This recognition is in accordance with the jurisprudence of the European Court of
Justice and the Court of First Instance. The jurisprudence sets out the conditions for such privilege. Thus,
according to the case law, the confidentiality of written communications between lawyer and client is
protected provided that, on the one hand, such communications are made for the purposes and in the
interests of the client’s rights of defence and on the other hand, they emanate from independent lawyers,
that is to say, lawyers who are not bound to the client by a relationship of employment.