WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3489/97 by Richard HOWITT to the Commission. Mismatch in entitlement to incapacity social security benefits between the UK and Spain
C 158/128 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 25. 5. 98 (98/C 158/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3489/97 by Richard Howitt (PSE) to the Commission (3 November 1997) Subject: Mismatch in entitlement to incapacity social security benefits between the UK and Spain Can the Commission advise on the principles arising from the case of my constituent, Mr Thomas Hawking, who moved from the UK to Spain in 1995 before becoming incapacitated by serious illness in 1996? The Commission should note that he made continuos social security contributions in Spain, but was denied benefit because two years of contributions were insufficient and also that his move made him ineligible to claim benefit back in Britain because his previous full contributions there had ceased at the time of his move, leaving him less than two full years of entitlement there. Does the Commission agree that this is patently unfair? Does it plan to bring forward proposals to end such anomalies on behalf of citizens exercising their right of free movement in the European Union? In the meantime, what mechanisms exist in the Commission or in the Member States to allow personal review of such cases? Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (25 November 1997) The Honourable Member raises a question of entitlement to an invalidity pension for a migrant worker. Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families working within the Community (1) provides detailed rules on invalidity. In particular, a person who was insured in a Member State where the amount of pension is independent of the length of insurance periods should get a pension from the Member State where he was insured at the moment when he became an invalid. The institution of that Member State should determine whether the person concerned satisfies the conditions for entitlement to benefits, taking into account, where necessary, periods of insurance which have been completed under the legislation of any other Member State (Article 38). The only condition is that the person was insured at least one year in the Member State where the pension is claimed. However, the information given by the Honourable Member is too general to enable the Commission to determine whether, in this particular case, Community law has been respected. Therefore, the Commission would invite the Honourable Member to submit more details of the case, so that the Commission may examine them in the light of Community law. (1) An up-dated version of this Regulation has been approved by Council Rgulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2. 12. 1996 › OJ L 28, 30. 1. 1997. (98/C 158/168) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3492/97 by Hugh McMahon (PSE) to the Commission (29 October 1997) Subject: Agenda 2000 Agenda 2000 proposes a phasing out over a transitional period of regions currently eligible under Objective 1 which exceed the 75% threshold. It also proposes that areas currently eligible under Objectives 2 and 5b, which would no longer be eligible under the future selection criteria, should also retain financial support for a transitional period. What is the Commissionís view on the length of these transitional periods and will they be the same for Objective 1 and non-Objective 1 areas?