WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/04 by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy.
Date: 2004-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Italy, United States, biology, health control, medical institution, research body, scientific cooperation, terrorism

C 78 E/930

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2004)

In response to the Honourable Member’s written question, the Commission was not aware neither of the
Dutch Parliamentary exchange between Mr De Wit and Minister Donner nor of the specific situation
described by the Honourable Member and concerning certain companies which are apparently seeking to
enter the Dutch casino market. The Commission cannot therefore take a specific position on these issues at
this stage.

Nevertheless it would like to remind that the European Court of Justice has ruled on several occasions (and
more recently in the Gambelli judgment, see case C-243/01) that restrictions to gambling services in the
form of
licences or other authorisation procedures constitute restrictions to both the freedom of
establishment (Article 43 EC Treaty) and the free movement of services (Article 49 EC Treaty).

Having regard to the Honourable Member’s fifth and sixth questions, the Commission recognises that such
restrictions can be justified by general interest objectives, such as public order (notably the fight against
fraud) and consumer protection (in particular the dangers to minors and of compulsive gambling).
However, in line with the ECJ case-law, the Commission considers that such national restrictions must be
proportionate in meeting those general interest objectives, in other words, that they must not go beyond
what is necessary to attain them.

The Commission, therefore, believes that restrictions to establishment and to cross-border provision in this
field need to be assessed in the light of the specific risks associated with the relevant gambling activities.
For the moment, no specific secondary EU legislation exists in this field. However, in consideration of the
increasing cross-border mobility of consumers and of the increased provision of distance gambling
services, the Commission has announced that it will launch a study on this issue during the course of
2004. It has also included these services in its recent proposal for a Directive on services in the Internal
Market (1). This text mainly requires Member States to assess the existing restrictions in the framework of a
joint screening exercise with the Commission and stakeholders, to be carried out within one year after the
the proposed Directive. The proposed Directive also provides for a derogation to the
adoption of
the time that European
application of
harmonisation in this field might exist.

the principle of country of origin to such services until

The question of the need for such European harmonisation will be assessed in the light of the results of the
mutual evaluation foreseen in the Services Directive by Member States as well as of the Commission’s
above-mentioned study. The Commission believes that this constructive and collaborative approach will
ensure a European solution that allows for a high level of protection of both public order and consumer
protection in the area of gambling services.

(1) COM(2004) 2 final.

(2004/C 78 E/0984)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0095/04

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Public hospital INMI L. Spallanzani in Italy

(21 January 2004)

According to reports in the Italian press, the ultra-modern public hospital in Rome, INMI L. Spallanzani,
which specialises in infectious diseases,
is gradually being converted into a ‘national security’ medical
establishment. This means that it will be equipped (cid:1) if it has not been already (cid:1) with maximum security
laboratories for combating level 4 bacteria and viruses (Ebola, bacillus etc.).

As the hospital is located in one of the most densely populated areas of Rome, will the Commission say
whether the hospital has obtained the necessary certification to operate from international and European
organisations, particularly in regard to storing level 4 pathogenic bacteria and viruses? Does the
Commission know whether an agreement has been signed between Italy and the USA to combat
biological terrorism?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/931

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(23 February 2004)

Authorisation of hospitals and of their laboratories and any associated certification are matters for the
Member States.

There are no requirements for authorisation or notification at European level on this matter; however Bio-
Security Level 4 structures usually seek international certification.

A framework agreement concerning co-operation in research between Italy and the United States has been
signed and ratified by ordinance DL/22 in January 2004. This framework agreement includes three fields:
rare diseases, cancer and bio terrorism.

(2004/C 78 E/0985)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0106/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Use in shops of escalators which meet European safety standards but are apparently unsafe for

children

Is the Commission aware that there are escalators in existence in shops which comply with European
1.
safety standards for escalators, but seem nevertheless to be extremely dangerous in practice, particularly for
young children, who are dragged to the ground at the end of the escalator by the moving rubber handrail,
and could be injured or killed as a result?

2.
Is the Commission aware that such an accident happened to a child in 1998 in a shoe shop in the
Dutch town of Spijkenisse and that on 7 January 2004 a judge in Haarlem ordered the chain of shops
responsible to pay compensation of EUR 45 000 for the permanent kidney and liver damage sustained?

Did the Netherlands Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment file a report on this incident, which
3.
was investigated in 1998 by the Netherlands factory and shop inspectorate, which could be used as a basis
for incorporating this experience into an amendment to the European safety standards for escalators?

Is the Commission aware that escalators of the same kind as the one on which the accident took
4.
place in 1998 are still in use in half of large stores, and that every year in the Netherlands 550 people who
have been injured on escalators need medical treatment?

Are Member States which themselves do nothing to counteract this problem in breach of their

5.
obligations, or should they wait for European legislation?

6. Why have the European safety standards for escalators still not been tightened up, six years after this
accident? Is this because of lack of information?

7. What can be done to improve safety standards in the short term? What is the Commission doing to
encourage this?

Source: TV Nederland 1, ‘Netwerk’ of 11 January 2004.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2004)

1. to 4.
of the accidents and other related events that have taken place in the Netherlands.

The Commission has, until the question posed by the Honourable Member, not been informed