WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3987/97 by Georges BERTHU to the Council. Euro bank notes - distinctive national symbols
C 187/106 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 16. 6. 98 In Germany propolis preparations are subject to the law on pharmaceuticals as regards their manufacture, marketing and sale. For this reason they can be sold only by pharmacists. Can the Commission say in which European Union countries propolis can be bought directly from 1. bee-keepers? 2. Are the different approaches consistent with the rules of the single market? Answer given by Mr Bangemann on behalf of the Commission (14 January 1998) The Commission has no information concerning the regulation of the sale of propolis by bee-keepers in the different Member States. The supply of medicinal products within the meaning of Article 1 of Directive 65/65/EEC of 26 January 1965 on the approximation of provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action relating to proprietary medicinal products (1) to the public continues to be a matter for the Member States and there exists no Community legislation in this field. This gives Member States the possibility to maintain provisions in accordance with Articles 30-36 of the EC Treaty that restrict the supply of medicinal products to the public to pharmacies and to interdict any other form of supply to the public on their territory. (1) OJ 22, 9. 2. 1965. (98/C 187/160) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3986/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (15 January 1998) Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols At its meeting on 3 December 1996 the Council of the European Monetary Institute (EMI) decided that both sides of Euro bank notes were to be identical in all countries and were to be devoid of any distinctive national symbols. This position amounts to settling, in a roundabout way, a crucial question: if the bank notes are indistinguishable from one country to another, it will be virtually impossible to áuncoupleí a country in the event of a serious crisis threatening the survival of the system. In certain borderline cases, therefore, the risks of complete collapse would be increased. Does the Council not agree that in adopting this political position › which is frequently presented as a definitive decision in European documents › the EMI Council has exceeded the terms of Article 109f(3) of the Treaty which only gives it the power to supervise the átechnical preparationí of the future bank notes? (98/C 187/161) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3987/97 by Georges Berthu (I-EDN) to the Council (15 January 1998) Subject: Euro bank notes › distinctive national symbols The position adopted by the EMI Council on 3 December 1996 prohibiting distinctive national symbols on the future European bank notes does not appear to have been the subject of a proper democratic debate. The Dublin European Council (13 and 14 December 1996) seems merely to have been áinformedí of it, but there is no sign in its conclusions of explicit approval or even of a mere mention of this specific point. Although this total lack of democratic supervision is, and though it may seem, provided for by the Treaty itself, unlike the arrangements made for the future coins, does the Council not agree that on such an important point the Member States should be involved in the decision in some way? Is it conceivable that there should be a complete lack of parliamentary supervision at any level?