WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands.
C 280 E/146 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 3. 10. 2000 (2000/C 280 E/164) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/99 by Fernando FernÆndez Martín (PPE-DE) to the Commission Subject: Restructuring of the European Community Humanitarian Office (18 January 2000) The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has seen various changes in its operational, political and administrative structure within the European Commission in recent years. Most recently, it was under the responsibility of the Commissioner for during the Commissionís last term of office, Humanitarian Aid and Fisheries. Now it has been added to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation. In any case, both spheres (development and cooperation and humanitarian aid), as far as Parliament the Committee on Development and Cooperation. is concerned, have always been the competence of According to some sources it has been mooted that competence for the humanitarian aid provided by ECHO may be assigned to the EUís High Representative for the common foreign and security policy ( Mr CFSPí). The current operational structuring, which adds ECHO to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for Cooperation and Development, Mr Nielsen, was the result of a considered decision designed to give both departments greater coherence and unity of action. Hence, it is worrying that after such a short time another change is already on the cards, although there is no justification for it as regards either political responsibilities or improved coordination and greater efficiency in the management of the budget. Does the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation have any information on the subject? What does he think about the possibility of further restructuring and what would be the justification for it? Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000) The Commission has no knowledge of the sources referred to by the Honourable Member according to which there are plans for assigning responsibility for the humanitarian aid granted by the European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) to the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy. There has never been any question of handing over the management of humanitarian aid to the Council. As it indicated in its recent communication to the Council and Parliament (1), the Commission wishes to maintain and further improve the quality of the humanitarian aid which it provides through ECHO and has no plans for restructuring of the sort referred to by the Honourable Member. The Commission is very conscious of the advantage of having brought the two portfolios Development cooperation and Humanitarian aid together under one Member of the Commission. It is envisaged that the communication on linking relief, rehabilitation and development planned for presentation in July 2000 will underline the advantage of a closer relationship between the two portfolios. (1) COM(99) 468 final. (2000/C 280 E/165) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands Since 1 June 1994 there has been a requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands. The Ministry of Justice has published a brochure, Alles over identificatieplichtí, containing information about what this entails. The publication is not only aimed at the general public but is also used, for example, by the Chamber of Commerce, social insurance authorities, employers, notaries etc. 3. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 280 E/147 Page 12 of the brochure indicates what identity documents are permitted. The only non-Dutch document which is permitted is a non-Dutch passport. No distinction is made between EU citizens and non-EU citizens. Does the Commission consider the brochureís interpretation of Dutch legislation to be contrary to 1. the relevant EU legislation, particularly that concerning free movement of persons and non-discrimination? Dutch driving licences are recognised as identity documents, but not the driving licences of other 2. Member States. Does this constitute discrimination? 3. Identity cards of EU Member States are not recognised but only passports, although the same identity cards are recognised as travel documents and the Netherlands recognises its own identity card. Does this constitute discrimination? In a number of cases, a foreign passport alone is not sufficient: the passport must contain an 4. indication that a residence permit has been issued. Does not this constitute discrimination? 5. What will the Commission do to change this situation? 6. If Dutch legislation accords with the Treaty on European Union but the brochure does not, can the Commission take steps to ensure that the brochure is altered, since in practice it is regarded as containing binding instructions? Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission (7 February 2000) The Commission will contact the Dutch authorities to obtain full details of the circumstances to which the the Commission will certainly institute proceedings under Honourable Member refers. Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty. If necessary, (2000/C 280 E/166) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree In the Netherlands, an amendment to the Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree entered into force on 1 January (new Royal Decree 746). According to the decree, retired people who are in receipt of long-term benefit and reside in another EU Member State are no longer regarded as enjoying insurance cover. Many commentators consider that the decree may violate Regulation 1408/71 (1) and European case law. 1. The Netherlands Government does not agree, as witness the reply by State Secretary Hoogervorst to questions tabled by Mrs Verburg, Member of the Lower House of the Netherlands Parliament. The State Secretary invokes the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June 1998 in case C-275/96, A. Kuusijärvi v. Riksförsäkringsverket, and the text of the Regulation as amended in 1991. Does the Commission agree with this reasoning? What might case C-275/96 have to do with the issue, as the undersigned feels that the link between case C-275/96 and the amendment in question is far from obvious? If the Commission considers that the contentious amendment of the contentious decree seems to 2. violate European measures, what will it do about this? (1) OJ L 149, 5. 7. 1971, p. 2