WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/00 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission. Free movement of workers.
C 303 E/206 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 (2000/C 303 E/236) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0617/00 by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Council Subject: EU rapid deployment force: Helsinki conclusions (24 February 2000) In Annex I to Annex IV of the Helsinki Summit Presidency Conclusions, the EU Rapid Deployment Force is described as follows: áthey (Member States) will be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces in operations up to corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50-60 000 persons) They must be able to sustain such a deployment for at least one year. This will require an additional pool of deployment units (and supporting elements) at lower readiness to provide replacements for the initial forces. í However, in the first indent of paragraph 28 of the Presidency Conclusions, the text refers purely to Member States having áto deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least 1 year military forces of up to 50 000 ü 60 000 persons. í Could the Council state whether the decision taken at Helsinki was for a maximum deployment of 5 brigades sustainable for 1 year or of the 15 brigades referred to in the Annex? Reply (13 April 2000) The decision taken at Helsinki was that Member States should be able to deploy rapidly and sustain forces capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding, in operations up to Corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50 000 ü 60 000 persons). (2000/C 303 E/237) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/00 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission (9 March 2000) Subject: Free movement of workers I Sweden, repayment of State study loans is governed by the Study Finance Act (1973:349) and the Study Finance Decree (1973:418). People residing in Sweden are required to repay study loans at an annual rate of 4 % of their combined income from service, employment and capital. However, people residing abroad, including therefore in other EU Member States, are required to repay them at an annual rate of 1/20 of the debt. Admittedly, these rules apply to all, irrespective of nationality, but in reality they make it unaffordable for those on low or middle incomes, or part-time workers, who have studied for a medium length of time (four to five years) to live and work in another Member State, as they are required to repay a considerably larger amount per annum than they would if they remained in Sweden (for those on high incomes, the situation may of course be reversed). Person A has a debt of about SEK 300 000 from a study loan (a normal amount for a person who has studied for four or five years) and an annual income of SEK 168 000 (SEK 14 000 per month). If this person lives and works in Sweden, he/she will have to repay SEK 6 720 per annum. However, if the same person happens to live and work in France, the annual repayment will be more than twice as much: SEK 15 000. Thus Swedenís repayment rules favour those in high income groups, while those on low or middle incomes or who work part-time cannot afford to take advantage of the fundamental freedom to live and work in another Member State (cf. ECJ judgment in the case of Kraus, C-19/92). Do these repayment rules violate the fundamental freedom to seek employment and to live and work in another Member State (Article 39 of the EC Treaty)? 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/207 Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (12 April 2000) The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings. (2000/C 303 E/238) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0706/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission (3 March 2000) Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act In the Netherlands, everybody is covered by the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ). Since 1 January 2000, Netherlands nationals living abroad who are not insured with a health insurance fund have no longer been covered by the AWBZ. However, Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium cannot subscribe to a health insurance fund because Belgian social legislation regards this as incompatible with the Dutch AWBZ facilities. This is very much a Catch 22 situation: Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium must subscribe to a health insurance fund in order to be entitled to AWBZ facilities, but Belgian health insurance funds refuse to accept them as members because they are entitled to AWBZ facilities. 1. Does the decision by the Netherlands Government to exclude Netherlands nationals who reside abroad and are not insured with a health insurance fund from AWBZ facilities as of 1 January 2000 violate European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, no. C-158/96)? (a) If so, what will the Commission do to remedy this situation? (b) If not, does not the Netherlands Governmentís measure detract from European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, no. C-158/96)? 2. Does the decision by the Netherlands Government violate the principle of trust, since the persons concerned have moved abroad in good faith in the knowledge that they will continue to enjoy full cover for medical expenses under the AWBZ? If not, does not the Commission consider that the Netherlandsí measure detracts from the principle of trust? Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (3 April 2000) According to the Commissionís information, as of 1 January 2000, beneficiaries of long-term social security benefits from the Netherlands (WAO, AOW) residing in another Member State, who are not subject to the compulsory sickness insurance scheme but who are insured privately, are no longer covered by the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) and are no longer required to pay the corresponding social contributions. The introduction of this residence clause has been accompanied by a transitional measure allowing persons insured voluntarily prior to 1 January 2000 to retain entitlement to financial compensation for the costs of certain forms of on-going hospital treatment, provided that the care is necessary. The Commission has received a large number of complaints from persons affected by this amendment to the Netherlands law. The Commission draws the Honourable Memberís attention to the existence of Community provisions coordinating the national social security systems, in particular Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and 574/72, which are intended to coordinate the statutory social security schemes of the Member States (last consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97) (1). Since those concerned are subject privately to the legislation on exceptional medical costs, the protection guaranteed by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 mentioned above may not be invoked in this case