WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2698/98 by Amedeo AMADEO to the Commission. Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care
C 135/98 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 14. 5. 1999 Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (9 October 1998) Five Member States (Belgium, Greece, France, Italy, Austria and Portugal) have still not fully completed the transposition process of Council Directive 94/56/EC of 21 November 1994 establishing the fundamental principles governing the investigation of civil aviation accidents and incidents (1). The Commission has already sent reasoned opinions to these Member States and will decide before the end of the year whether Court referrals are necessary. (1) OJ L 319, 12. 12. 1994. (1999/C 135/115) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2698/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1998) Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care With regard to the serious problems caused in Italy by the distinction between the register of dentists and the register of surgeons, in which doctors specialised in dentistry and in odontostomatology are registered, can the Commission say: 1. whether in any Member States other than Italy, doctors practising dentistry belong to the same professional body; 2. whether in France and Luxembourg there are regulations governing ‘activities involving the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of. (. ). the teeth, mouth, jaws. ’ carried out by dentists who are not doctors or by doctors (whether or not specialising in stomatology) practising either in the public sector or privately, and also whether exceeding any such restrictions on the right to practise constitutes a criminal offence or merely an aggravating factor in cases of malpractice? (1999/C 135/116) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2699/98 by Amedeo Amadeo (NI) to the Commission (1 September 1998) Subject: Dispute between Italy and the Commission regarding stomatological and orthodontic care The so-called ‘doctor directives’, Directives 75/362/EEC (1) and 75/363/EEC (2) regulate, on the basis of analogous criteria (mutual recognition and right of establishment) the right to practise, among other things, odontostomatology (activities simply involving the treatment of mouth and teeth problems carried out without restrictions by doctors). It should be noted that the ‘doctor directives’ do not specify the fields of activity of doctors, only the criteria for their training. Indeed, no Member State has ever considered it possible to place an anatomical limit on the scope of the actions of a doctor called upon to treat a patient. Only in Italy has it been deemed that because the treatment of one part of the body (the teeth, mouth, etc. ) has been entrusted to a health- care professional who is not a doctor this should automatically mean that this part of the body must by law no longer come within a doctor’s sphere of activity. Can the Commission say whether any Community legislation or precedents exist that may in any way have imposed some kind of regulatory framework on Member States forcing them explicitly to ban doctors from practising in the areas of the treatment of the mouth and the teeth? (1) OJ L 167, 30. 6. 1975, p. 1. (2) OJ L 167, 30. 6. 1975, p. 14