WRITTEN QUESTION E-2851/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act.
C 280 E/148 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (25 February 2000) According to the information in the Commissionís possession, it is true that as from 1 January 2000 recipients of long-term social security benefits from the Netherlands (WAO, AOW) granted on the basis of previous occupational activity in that country are no longer regarded as being covered by statutory insurance there if they reside in another Member State. This change in the legislation means that compulsory contributions will no longer be levied and the persons concerned will no longer be entitled, for instance, to family benefits (AKW), survivorís and orphanís pensions (ANW), or to coverage of special medical costs (AWBZ). However, persons aged 65 or over will still have the right to take out voluntary ANW insurance in order to provide social security cover for their survivors. to self-employed persons and to members of The question is whether the change is compatible with Community law, in particular certain provisions of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, their families moving within the Community (1), as interpreted by the Court of Justice, for example in judgment C-275/96 (2) delivered on 11 June 1998 (Kuusijarvi case). The substance of this judgment is that Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 does not preclude the legislation of a Member State from making the right of a person who has ceased all occupational activity in its territory to remain subject to its legislation dependent on continued residence there. The Court also held that if such a person has transferred his residence to another Member State, where he lives with the members of his family, he loses the right to continue to receive family benefits paid under that legislation. The Commission has received a large number of complaints from persons affected by this change in the Netherlands and has therefore requested further information from the Netherlands authorities so that it can form an opinion on this complex issue. The Commission is carefully examining the detailed reply that it has received from the Netherlands authorities. (1) OJ L 28, 30. 1. 1997 (amending). (2) [ECR 1998 ü I-3419]. (2000/C 280 E/167) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2851/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act On 20 October 1998, the Commission replied to my question No E-2744/98 (1) about discrimination against EU citizens in implementation of the Netherlands Benefit Entitlement (Residence Status) Act. It said that it would seek information from the Dutch authorities about the scope of the Act and the relevant circular. What was the outcome of the Commissionís inquiries? Does the Commission believe that the question of this legislation and its application to EU citizens has now been resolved in a non-discriminatory manner? (1) OJ C 118, 29. 4. 1999, p. 132. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000) The Commission has contacted the Netherlands authorities. They confirm that Community nationals who are entitled to reside in the Netherlands in accordance with Community law as interpreted by the Court of Justice are treated on a par with Netherlands nationals. Notably, this means that there is no discrimination as regards the award of social security benefits or social advantages. 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/149 The Netherlands authorities confirm that entitlement to these benefits and advantages is not conditional either on the possession of a residence permit or on enrolment with the communal registers (GBA). The Netherlands authorities guarantee that the residence permit mentioned in the circular of 28 April 1998 ü referred to in Written Question E-2744/98 (1) by the Honourable Member ü is of a purely declaratory nature. In these circumstances the Commission ü which incidentally has not received any recent complaints on this subject ü considers that the abovementioned instrument does not discriminate against Community nationals. The Commission will carefully monitor the enforcement of the instrument in question. (1) OJ C 118, 29. 4. 1999. (2000/C 280 E/168) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Medical insurance in the European Union In his answer of 22 January 3294/98 (1), Mr Flynn said that the Commission expected to give its conclusions once answers to supplementary questions had been received from the Dutch Government. Now, almost a year later, has the Dutch Government provided answers to the supplementary 1. questions? 2. 3. If so, what conclusions does the Commission draw from the answer? If not, when can an answer from the Dutch government be expected? (1) OJ C 320, 6. 11. 1999, p. 40. Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission (3 March 2000) After examining the information provided by the Dutch authorities, the Commission concludes that private health insurance schemes existing in the Netherlands are not to be considered as statutory schemes within the scope of Council Regulation EC No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self- employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1). (1) OJ L 149, 5. 7. 1971, last amended by OJ L 28, 30. 1. 1997. (2000/C 280 E/169) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2856/99 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: The Commissionís approach to employment policy Dagens Nyheter of 8 December 1999 reported on an internal agreement between the Commissioner, Mrs Diamantopoulou and her Director-General Allan Larsson on the division of responsibilities between them for the Commissionís work on employment matters. There has been debate in Sweden on the extent to which the conflict between the Commissioner and the Director-General might be ascribed to their differing administrative backgrounds. Mr Larsson has now announced his departure from his present post this spring