WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/03 by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Optometry in Greece.
Date: 2004-01-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, competence of the Member States, freedom to provide services, medical device, medical examination, optics, paramedical profession, right of establishment

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/899

For Internal policies, about 50 % of the under-implementation of payments actually relate to third party
appropriations. For reasons of budgetary principles, these contributions have to be entered into the budget
together with the related commitments, even in cases where the payments will actually be made only in
subsequent years, when the programmes or projects are implemented. These appropriations are carried
over automatically to enable this. Without third party appropriations, the unused payments amounted to
some EUR 700 million, and mainly concerned ‘Research and development’ due to delays in legal
commitments and contractors’ cost statements. Overall, it has to be emphasised that the implementation of
payments increased in 2002 by a very substantial amount of almost EUR 1,3 billion, compared to 2001.

For External actions, the reason for the under-utilisation of payment appropriations was a combination of
programmes committed late in the year (implying related payments in the subsequent year) and an
increase in the payments’ budget by the Parliament over the Commission’s proposed PDB. The main
affected programmes were for ‘Cooperation with the Balkan countries’, ‘Assistance to partner countries in
eastern Europe and central Asia’, ‘Other Cooperation measures’, ‘Humanitarian aid’ and ‘Cooperation with
developing Latin American countries’. Overall, the implementation of payments for External actions
increased in 2002 by EUR 200 million, compared to 2001. The RAL has also been stabilised for external
actions, compared to the annual increases in the past.

Generally, payments are demand driven. As the main rule, the Commission can only make a payment after
the specific conditions for a payment have been met by the beneficiary, e.g., after a contract has been
signed, a project has progressed or been finalised and/or the beneficiary has submitted the final accounts
for the financial aid. By and large, these events are not under the Commission’s control. A prudent
financial management requires that
the Commission scrupulously controls such pre-conditions for
payments. As the budget for 2002 is mainly already established on the beginning of 2001, the forecasts
on when certain payments will actually take place is therefore based on quite a large degree of
uncertainties regarding external circumstances, implying a risk of over-budgeting, as was the case in 2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0950)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4039/03

by Christos Folias (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 January 2004)

Subject: Optometry in Greece

The Greek Parliament recently voted to amend and complete legislation on the National Health Service and
to regulate other matters falling within the remit of the Ministry of Health and Welfare concerning the
activities of establishments selling optical products. Among other measures this legislation prohibits
opticians from practising optometry and allows pharmacists to sell presbyopic lenses and solutions for
contact lenses.

Is this provision banning opticians from practising optometry and permitting pharmacists to do so in line
with EU legislation?

Does the EU have rules determining which optical products may be sold exclusively by opticians?

Will the Commission say which authorities at Greek prefectural level are responsible for imposing the
sanctions provided by the law on opticians operating illegally?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

There are no specific Community rules governing the activity of either opticians or optometrists. As for
pharmacists, their activity has been the subject of two directives: Council Directives 85/432/EEC and 85/
433/EEC concerning, respectively,
the coordination of provisions laid down by law, regulation or
administrative action in respect of certain activities in the field of pharmacy, and the mutual recognition of

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’.