WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/00 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission. Intellectual property rights and human genetic material.
26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/147 (2001/C 26 E/182) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1028/00 by Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso (NI) to the Commission Subject: Breach of Articles 2(4) and 6(2) of the Treaty of Amsterdam (29 March 2000) The Austrian coalition Government has been the target of intense criticism since taking office last February. In a clear bid to underline EU public opinion, thousands of Europeans marched through the streets of Vienna, encouraged by global backing from all the EU institutions. On 11 March 2000 at the Spanish-French border that separates the Basque people, Paris sent police forces to hinder the passage of Basque citizens going to a popular march in the northern town of Bayonne. The goal of this gathering was to denounce the dispersal of Basque political prisoners all over France and Spain and the violation of their rights and those of their relatives. The French Government, with full agreement from Madrid, applied Article 2 of the Schengen Convention that allows borders to be closed on an exceptional basis. Paradoxically, we note that, while the Vienna march was encouraged, that of Bayonne was forbidden. Can the EU Member States inform the European citizens as to which human rights they are allowed 1. to defend? Can the Schengen provisions, as applied by the French Government totally contradict fundamental 2. rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the very principle of free movement of persons inside the EU? 3. Can the Basques live in an EU without their internal iron curtain? Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (28 April 2000) Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention enables Member States, provided they comply with certain procedures laid down by the Schengen acquis, to re-introduce checks on persons at internal borders for a limited period where public policy or national security so require. Under current Community law on the free movement of citizens of the Union, such checks may be imposed on grounds of public policy or public security. (1) The exercise of fundamental rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of peaceful assembly may, under Article 10(2) and Article 11(2) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, be subject to certain restrictions provided for by law and taking the form of measures necessary on grounds of national security or public policy in a democratic society. (1) See Article 39(3), Article 46(1) and Article 55 of together with Directive 64/221/EEC of 25 February 1964 on the coordination of special measures concerning the movement and residence of foreign nationals which are justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health (OJ 56, 4. 4. 1964). the EC Treaty, (2001/C 26 E/183) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1037/00 by Francesco Speroni (TDI) to the Commission Subject: Intellectual property rights and human genetic material (4 April 2000) The difficult ethical and legal issues raised by the recent granting by the EPO (European Patent Office) of a patent for human genetic material, have once again focused attention on the rules that currently govern the sensitive area of biotechnology. C 26 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 Can the Commission say whether it considers that steps should be taken to ensure that the patent granted by the EPO to the Australian firm Stem Cell Sciences is withdrawn? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (5 June 2000) The Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal market stated to Parliament, in the course of a debate on 31 March 2000, that the Commission is aware of, and indeed shares, the concerns expressed about the granting of patent EP695351 to the University of Edinburgh for an invention in the area of stem cell technology made by that institution in collaboration with Stem Cell Sciences. He informed the Parliament that he has written to the European Patent Office requesting that the Office takes whatever action it considers necessary to correct the error that resulted in this patent being granted in its current form. In response, the European Patent Office agreed to establish an opposition division immediately to consider the oppositions that have already been filed against this patent. This opposition division, which was duly established on 29 March 2000, will issue a preliminary ruling as soon as possible. This could lead to the patent being either revoked, upheld in its present form or upheld in an amended form. The Commission will continue to monitor the situation and, should the preliminary ruling not prove to be acceptable, will consider further action including formally opposing this patent itself. Furthermore, following the Parliament resolution of 30 March 2000, the European group on ethics in sciences and new technologies is preparing an opinion on the ethical aspects of human embryonic stem cell research that will be published this summer. (2001/C 26 E/184) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1054/00 by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council (6 April 2000) Subject: Cyprus Could the Council confirm or deny reports that Cypriot citizens will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU unless Turkey joins simultaneously? In the House of Commons on 15 February 2000 (Hansard Column 781), the Rt Hon Robin Cook MP, Her Majestyís Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, made the following announce- ment in relation to the accession of Cyprus to the EU: Freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector would apply only if Turkey simultaneously joined the EUí. Does this statement reflect the views of the Council? Could the Council state whether any citizens of the Republic of Cyprus will be denied their right to freedom of movement when Cyprus joins the EU? If the answer to this question is yes, could the Council explain why Cypriot citizens are to be denied (on an indefinite basis) the basic rights afforded by the Treaties? Could the Council justify the decision to discriminate against Cypriot citizens in this way? Could the Council explain why the decisions on the accession of Cyprus are being linked to EU relations with a foreign country which maintains an illegal occupation force in the Republic of Cyprus, contrary to the stated position of the UN, the European Parliament, the European Council and the overwhelming majority of the international community? Reply (8 June 2000) The attention of the Honourable Parliamentarian is drawn to the Councilís reply to Written Question E-711/00 submitted by Mr. Ioannis Marinos on the same issue