treatmentinthefieldofemploymentandworkingconditions.Article3(6)ofthatdraftactextends,in
vagueterms,thenotionofjustificationforindirectdiscriminatoryactswhere thesearewarranted‘bylegitimateaimspursuedthroughappropriateandproportionatemeans’.
Theclauseextendingthatjustification,whichdoesnotrefertothespecificreligiousbeliefsearliercited,
doesnotpreciselydetailthevariouscasesforwhichtheItalianGovernmentintendstoestablishapracticeornationallawasprovidedforinArticle4oftheEuropeanDirective,andthereforeleavesemployers
substantialleewayforinterpretation,particularlyintheareaofaperson’ssexualorientation.Theonly
specificdefinitionprovidedinthelegislativedecreeconcernsthelegitimacyofexcludinganyonewhohasreceivedadefinitivesentenceforpaedophiliaorothersexcrimesagainstminorsfrompostsinthefieldofassistance,careandeducationforchildren.ThisspecificdefinitionandthelackofaclearandunequivocaldefinitionofdiscriminatorydifferencesoftreatmenthasinpracticebeenusedbytheRAIheadofficeinVenice to exclude staff who had stated a particular sexual orientation from managing broadcasts oftelevisionprogrammesforchildren.
DoestheCommissionnotconsiderthatthevaguenessofArticle3(6)oftheItalianlegislativedecreecould
giverisetoarbitraryinterpretationsandconsequentlytoapplicationsofthatdecreethatconflictwith
Article4ofDirective2000/78/EC(
1),underwhichtheonlydiscriminatoryactsnottobedeemedassuch
relate to manifest incompatibilities between personal religious beliefs and the tenets of religiousorganisations?
What steps will it take vis-à-vis the Italian Government to ensure that Directive 2000/78/EC of
27November2000istransposedinacorrectandconsistentmannerandthatanyunlawfuldiscriminatoryactconflictingwiththeactualderogationsprovidedforinthatdirectiveispenalised?
(1) OJL303,2.12.2000,p.16.
AnswergivenbyMrsDiamantopoulouonbehalfoftheCommission
(8October2003)
AstheCommissionjustreceivedofficialnotificationfromItalyon4September2003ofthetransposalof
CouncilDirective2000/78/ECof27November2000establishingageneralframeworkforequaltreatmentinemploymentandoccupation(
1),itisnotinapositiontocommentatthisstageonthetextadopted.
InordertoensurethattheDirectiveistransposedfullyandcoherently,theCommissionhasaskedMember
Statestoprovide,insupportoftheirnotification,atableshowingcorrelationbetweentheprovisionscontainedintheDirectiveandthosecontainedinnationallegislation.TheCommissionwillusethistabletoexamineindetailtheprovisionstowhichitrefers,andinparticularthelimitedderogationspermittedbytheDirectives.
(1) OJL303,2.12.2000.
(2004/C58E/213) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2707/03
byRaffaeleCosta(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(11September2003)
Subject:Electronichealthcard
Inwinter2002,theCommissionmadeaproposalfortheintroductionofapersonalelectronichealthcard
carrying allthemedicalandadministrative dataoneach citizen ofaMemberState.ThiscardwouldreplacetheE111formthatisneededtoobtaincoveragefortheexpensesbornebycitizensofaMemberStateintheeventoftheirreceivinghealthtreatmentinanotherMemberStateduringastayasatourist,wouldfullyrespectprivacyandcouldalsobeusedinrelationtopatientmobility.C58E/198 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
CouldtheCommissionindicatewhatstagethisproposalhasreached,whetheratimetablehasbeenagreed
for its implementation and whether a feasibility study has been conducted to gauge costs and therepercussionsforpatientmobility?
AnswergivenbyMrsDiamantopoulouonbehalfoftheCommission
(14October2003)
TheCommissionwouldliketoinformtheHonourableMemberthaton18June2003theAdministrative
CommissiononSocialSecurityforMigrantWorkersadoptedthreedecisionswhichwillallowtheuseoftheEuropeanhealthinsurancecardasof1June2004.Theobjectiveofthiscardistofacilitateaccesstohealth care across Europe, and therefore to promote mobility by avoiding the current form-based
procedures.
TheEuropeancardwillbeintroducedinitiallyinaformatwhichwillallowessentialdatafortheprovision
ofhealthcareandreimbursementofthecosttobereadbythehumaneye.However,countrieswhichalreadyuseelectronicmediamaycontinuetodosoandincorporatethedatawhichmustbeincludedonthe European card. Ingeneral, Member Statesmay choosetoincorporate the European card intoanexistingnationalcard/dashorcardsissuedbyregionalauthorities/dashortoissueaspecialcard.
TheEuropeancardwillinitiallyreplaceonlyformE111,whichallowsaccesstoemergencyhealthcare
duringavisittoaMemberStateotherthanthestateinwhichtheindividualisinsured.AdoptionoftheproposalforaRegulationamendingRegulations(EEC)Nos1408/71(
1)and574/72(2)inrelationtothe
alignmentofrights(3)willallowtheEuropeancardtobesubstitutedforotherformsusedforaccessto
healthcareduringatriptoanothercountry,namelytheE128(usedinthecaseofpostingstoorstudiesinanotherMemberState),theE110(usedforinternationalroadtransport)andtheE119(usedforjobseekersinanotherMemberState).
TheideabehindtheEuropeancardistotransferultimatelytoanelectronicversionoftheforms.Oneof
thefactorsonwhichthiswilldependistheevaluationofcertainprojectswhicharecurrentlyunderwayandarebeingsupportedbytheUnion,suchasNetc@rds,inwhichseveralMemberStatesareinvolved.AtthisstageoftheprojecttheCommissionhasnotyetdecidedthearrangementsfortransferringtoanelectronicversioninallMemberStates.
(1) Regulation(EEC)No1408/71oftheCouncilof14June1971ontheapplicationofsocialsecurityschemesto
employedpersonsandtheirfamiliesmovingwithintheCommunity,OJL149,5.7.1971.UpdatedbyCouncil
Regulation(EC)No118/97,OJL28,30.1.1997,andlastamendedbyRegulation(EC)No1386/2001oftheEuropeanParliamentandoftheCouncil,OJL187,10.7.2001.
(
2) Regulation(EEC)No574/72oftheCouncilof21March1972fixingtheprocedureforimplementingRegulation
(EEC)No1408/71,OJL74,27.3.1971.UpdatedbyCouncilRegulation(EC)No1290/97,OJL176,4.7.1997,and
last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 187,10.7.2001.
(
3) COM(2003)378final.
(2004/C58E/214) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2714/03
byKathleenVanBrempt(PSE)totheCommission
(11September2003)
Subject:Claimsfordamagesinthecaseofwrongfulbirths
InBelgiuminrecentyearstherehavebeenscoresoflegalactionsbroughtbyparentsofdisabledchildren.
Theparentsaresystematicallyclaimingdamagesfromdoctorswhofailtodiagnoseadefectinthefoetusduringpregnancy.Theparentsclaimthatifthedisabilityhadbeendetected,aterminationcouldhavebeencarriedout.Belgiancourtshaveordereddoctorstopaysignificantsumsindamages.VeryrecentlyajudgeintheNetherlandsawardeddamagestoaseriouslyhandicappedgirlagednine.InFrancetherehasbeenasimilarjudgment(NicholasPerruchecase).Insurersandobstetriciansrefertotheseaswrongfulbirthorwrongful births. They also point out that gynaecological examinations never provide 100 per centcertainty.6.3.2004EN C58E/199 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion