Boessen Sandra, Maarse Hans
Department of Health Organization, Policy and Economics, Faculty of Health, Medicines and Life Sciences, Maastricht University, PO Box 616, 6200MD Maastricht, The Netherlands.
BMC Health Serv Res. 2008 Apr 8;8:77. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-8-77.
The Europe Against Cancer programme was initiated in the late 1980s, recognising, among other risk factors, the problematic relationship between tobacco use and cancer. In an attempt to reduce the number of smokers in the European Community, the European Commission proposed a ban on tobacco advertising. The question of why it took over ten years of negotiating before the EU adopted a policy measure that could in fact improve the health situation in the Community, can only be answered by focusing on politics.
We used an actor-centred institutionalist approach, focusing on the strategic behaviour of the major actors involved. We concentrated our analysis on the legal basis as an important institution and evaluated how the absence of a proper legal basis for public health measures in the Treaties influenced policy-making, framing the discussion in market-making versus market-correcting policy interventions. For our analysis, we used primary and secondary sources, including policy documents, communications and press releases. We also conducted 9 semi-structured interviews.
The ban on tobacco advertising was, in essence, a public health measure. The Commission used its agenda-setting power and framed the market-correcting proposal in market-making terms. The European Parliament and the Council of Ministers then used the discussion on the legal basis as a vehicle for real political controversies. After adoption of the ban on tobacco advertising, Germany appealed to the European Court of Justice, which annulled the ban but also offered suggestions for a possible solution with article 100a as the legal basis.
The whole market-making versus market-correcting discussion is related to a broader question, namely how far European health regulation can go in respect to the member states. In fact, the policy-making process of a tobacco advertising ban, as described in this paper, is related to the 'constitutional' foundation of health policy legislation in the Community. The absence of a clear-cut legal basis for health policies does not imply that the EU's impact on health is negligible. In the case of tobacco-control measures, the creative use of other Treaty bases has resulted in significant European action in the field of public health.
“欧洲抗癌计划”始于20世纪80年代末,该计划认识到诸多风险因素,其中包括烟草使用与癌症之间的问题关系。为减少欧共体吸烟者数量,欧盟委员会提议禁止烟草广告。欧盟为何在采取一项事实上能够改善共同体健康状况的政策措施之前,进行了长达十多年的谈判,这一问题只能从政治角度来解答。
我们采用了以行为体为中心的制度主义方法,重点关注主要行为体的战略行为。我们将分析集中于作为一项重要制度的法律基础,并评估条约中缺乏公共卫生措施的适当法律基础如何影响决策,将讨论框定在市场创设型与市场矫正型政策干预方面。为进行分析,我们使用了一手和二手资料,包括政策文件、通信和新闻稿。我们还进行了9次半结构化访谈。
禁止烟草广告本质上是一项公共卫生措施。委员会利用其议程设定权,以市场创设的方式来构建市场矫正提案。欧洲议会和部长理事会随后将关于法律基础的讨论用作真正政治争议的载体。在通过禁止烟草广告的决定后,德国向欧洲法院提起上诉,欧洲法院废除了该禁令,但也以第100a条作为法律基础提出了可能的解决方案建议。
整个市场创设型与市场矫正型的讨论涉及一个更广泛的问题,即欧洲卫生监管在多大程度上能够适用于成员国。事实上,本文所述的烟草广告禁令的决策过程与共同体卫生政策立法的“宪法”基础相关。卫生政策缺乏明确的法律基础并不意味着欧盟对健康的影响可以忽略不计。在烟草控制措施方面,对其他条约基础的创造性运用已在公共卫生领域促成了重大的欧洲行动。