WRITTEN QUESTION E-4040/03 by Glyn Ford (PSE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE),Claude Moraes (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission. MEDEA Programme and Article 13 of the Treaty.
Date: 2004-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Mediterranean third countries, anti-discriminatory measure, audiovisual communications policy, project management, regional cooperation

C 78 E/900

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

including measures to
diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications in pharmacy,
facilitate the effective exercise of the right of establishment relating to certain activities in the field of
pharmac (1). However, these directives do no deal with the question of the extent to which pharmacists are
entitled to sell optical products or to exercise activities in this field.

Given the lack of harmonisation with regard to these professional activities, the Member States retain in
principle the authority to define the practice of the activities in question. However, they must exercise their
authority in this field while respecting the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty, especially
respect for the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

As Community law stands at the moment, and on the basis of the information which is currently available,
the Commission nevertheless considers that there is no provision in Community law which prevents
Greece from forbidding opticians to practice optometry or from allowing pharmacists to sell certain
Justice
optical products. This viewpoint
concerning similar situation (2).

is furthermore confirmed by the case law of the Court of

There are no harmonised rules at an EU level determining optical products that may be sold exclusively by
opticians. The Court of Justice has consistently held that in the absence of any such rules, national
authorities may introduce certain selling arrangements as long as those provisions apply to all relevant
traders operating within the national territory and as long as they affect in the same manner, in law and in
fact, the marketing of domestic products and of those from other Member States. Provided that those
conditions are fulfilled, such rules fall outside the scope of Article 28 of the EC Treaty on the free
movement of goods.

The Commission does not consider that it has the authority to answer the last question asked by the
honourable Member. This question is a matter solely for the Greek authorities.

(1) OJ L 253, 24.6.1985.
(2) See ‘Mac Quen’ judgement of 1 February 2001, case C-108/96, Reports 2001, p. I-837, and ‘Gräbner’ judgement of

11 July 2002, case C-294/00, Reports 2002, p. I-6515.

(2004/C 78 E/0951)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4040/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE), Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE),
Claude Moraes (PSE) and Anna Terrón i Cusí (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: MEDEA Programme and Article 13 of the Treaty

(12 January 2004)

Will the Commission outline its plans for incorporating the concerns of Article 13 of the Treaty in the
MEDEA Programme? Is the Commission aware how far behind it is here compared to other areas of its
work?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The MEDEA programme referred to in the question was launched by the Andalusian autonomous
government (Junta de Andalucia) as part of the Euromed Audiovisual I Regional Programme. Its purpose is
to devise Euro-Mediterranean audiovisual projects. MEDEA was selected by the Commission in 2000 and
its three-year funding has been extended up to September 2004 without any change to the Community
contribution.

The eligibility criteria set out in the call for proposals in the MEDEA project (point 4) are in keeping with
the principles enshrined in Article 13 of
the EC Treaty on the measures necessary ‘to combat
discrimination based on the grounds of sex, race or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or
sexual orientation’.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/901

Point 4 of the call for proposals open to the 27 partners states that ‘… special attention will be paid to
projects that promote common values, as a statement of the identity of the area, creating an awareness of
their contribution to international material and ethical progress, such as the fight against racism and
xenophobia,
intolerance, mistrust, stereotypes and prejudices; and promote activities to protect young
people and human dignity.’

(2004/C 78 E/0952)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4041/03

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

(12 January 2004)

Subject: The implementation of worker safety directives and protection of healthcare workers and their

patients

It is estimated that 1 million needlestick injuries occur in Europe each year. Between 60 and 80 % of these
go unreported.

Studies show that a combination of training, safer working practices and the use of medical devices
incorporating needlestick protection technology can prevent a large number of these potentially fatal
injuries.

Every day Europe’s healthcare workers are exposed to potentially fatal blood-borne pathogens, including
hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV, resulting from needlestick and other medical ‘sharps’ injuries.

Does the Commission agree that action needs to be taken in the form of the provision of specific EU
guidelines to ensure consistent implementation of effective measures to prevent needlestick and other
medical ‘sharps’ injuries across Europe?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2004)

The Commission considers the protection of the health and safety of healthcare workers to be extremely
important.

Directive 2000/54/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 September 2000 on the
protection of workers from risks related to exposure to biological agents at work (1) contains provisions
designed to prevent
these workers from the risk of becoming infected, and lays down minimum
requirements in this area.

The Directive sets out employers’ obligations in terms of risk prevention. For example, in the case of any
activity likely to involve a risk of exposure to biological agents, the nature, degree and duration of workers’
exposure must be determined in order to make it possible to assess any risk to the workers’ health or
safety and to lay down the measures to be taken. It is up to Member States to implement the provisions of
the Directive.

The objective of Council Directive 89/655/EEC of 30 November 1989 concerning the minimum safety and
health requirements for the use of work equipment by workers at work (2) is to guarantee a better standard
of safety for workers in the use of work equipment, such as medical equipment used in hospitals. The
employer must select the work equipment to be used on the basis of the specific working conditions and
the risks for workers, in order to eliminate or minimise these risks. Where it is not possible to use work
equipment which does not pose a risk to workers’ health and safety, the employer must minimise this risk.
Workers must also be provided with adequate instructions and training on the use of work equipment.