WRITTEN QUESTION E-2701/97 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission (1 September 1997)

Subject: Double premiums on supplementary pensions

In its additional communication of 10 December 1996 on petitions Nos 734/93 and 1080/94, the Commission says that the 'Contribution Sociale Généralisée' (CSG) in France must be regarded as a social premium within the meaning of Regulation 1408/71 ((OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2. )). This premium cannot therefore be levied on Dutch citizens living in France whose pensions are subject to Dutch legislation. However, the Commission refers in this respect to decisions of the Court of Justice to the effect that Regulation No 1408/71 does not apply to supplementary pensions.

1. Why should the double levying of social premiums on supplementary pensions not be covered by the provisions of Regulation 1408/71?

2. Is it permissible to levy additional social premiums in France in the case of the abovementioned petitions given that the Dutch citizens in question have had to sign a declaration in France that they can never claim any social benefits in France, even though they are obliged to pay premiums in this respect?

3. If not, is this levying of a premium by France to be regarded as discrimination on the grounds of nationality, which is prohibited by Article 6 of the EC treaty?

4. How many European citizens who are entitled to a pension and who have settled in another Member State on retirement are faced with double premiums being levied on their supplementary pension?

5. Is the levying of double premiums on supplementary pensions a barrier to the freedom of movement of persons?

6. If so, does the Commission have any plans for fresh legislation or for amending Regulation 1408/71 in such a way as to prevent citizens settling in another Member Stated having to pay premiums twice in respect of their supplementary pensions?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission (29 September 1997)

1. - 3., 5. - 6. The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Court of Justice, in its judgments of 16 January 1992 (Case C-57/90, Commission v. France) and 6 February 1992 (Case C-253/90, Commission v. Belgium), ruled against the Commission to the effect that supplementary pension schemes based on agreements do not fall within the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71. The Court took the view that Article 1(j) excludes such schemes from the scope of the Regulation.

The provisions of the Regulation therefore do not apply to these schemes. This also seems to be confirmed by the principle of a single applicable legislation, as set out in Article 13 of the Regulation, which prohibits the deduction of social security contributions in two Member States at the same time.

Nor did the Court accept the Commission's argument that the principle of a single applicable legislation derived directly from the provisions of the EC Treaty (see No 9 of the judgment of 16 January 1992 and No 7 of the judgment of 6 February 1992).

For the time being, the Commission does not intend to propose any new provisions or amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 concerning this matter.

4. The Commission does not have any statistics on European pensioners who have moved to another Member State after their retirement and who are faced with the problem of dual deductions from supplementary pensions.