WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1920/97 by Mark WATTS to the Commission. Superannuation pensions
Date: 1997-06-04
Institutions: European Parliament, WATTS
Subjects: EU law, United Kingdom, competence of the Member States, equal pay, equal treatment, gender equality, labour law, pension scheme, tax on income

22. 1. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 21/121

(98/C 21/233)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1920/97

by Mark Watts (PSE) to the Commission

(4 June 1997)

Subject: Superannuation pensions

I have been given to understand that Community law allows superannuation pensions to be regarded as deferred
pay and that there should, therefore, be no abatement of earnings in the case of persons drawing a superannuation
pension. Would the Commission please confirm that such is the case.

If so, is the Commission aware that the National Health Service is not applying that law and is indeed taking an
abatement of earnings from employees who have been re-employed?

Can the Commission indicate whether the NHS rules are unlawful under Community law? If so, what action will
it take to remedy the situation?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 1997)

In accordance with the established case law of the Court of Justice (1), superannuation schemes as found in the
United Kingdom are included under the scope of Article 119 of the EC Treaty on equal pay for male and female
workers. However, Community intervention is limited to matters concerning equal treatment for men and women
(Article 119 and Directives 86/378/EEC (2) and 96/97/EC (3)) and, in part, the protection of employees’ pension
rights in the event of transfers of undertakings (Directive 77/187/EEC (4) and the insolvency of the employer
(Directive 80/987/EEC) (5). The latter two Directives apply only to the private sector.

The organisation, functioning and calculation of the various benefits under these schemes are matters for the
national authorities, provided that the above-mentioned Community rules are complied with. For this reason the
Commission cannot intervene in the case described by the Honourable Member, on the grounds that it would not
appear to be governed by current Community law.

(1)  Cf. Barber judgment of 17 May 1990 (C-262/88), ECR 1990 I-1889, Beunc judgment of 28 March 1994 (C-7/93), ECR 1994 I-4471, and

DEI judgment of 17 April 1997 (C-147/95), not yet published.

(2)  OJ L 225, 12.8.1986.
(3)  OJ L 46, 17.2.1997.
(4)  OJ L 61, 5.3.1977.
(5)  OJ L 283, 20.10.1980.

(98/C 21/234)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/97

by Anita Pollack (PSE) to the Commission

(4 June 1997)

Subject: Abolition of duty-free sales in 1999

Has  the  Commission  undertaken  any  research  into  the  social  and  economic  consequences  of  the  planned
abolition of duty-free sales?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 July 1997)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the Council decided to abolish duty-free sales in
intra-Community trade in 1991, when the directives abolishing tax-related border controls were adopted as part
of the moves to establish the single market.

However, the Council decided to allow intra-Community duty-free sales to continue until 30 June 1999, so that
the necessary measures could be taken during the seven-year transition period to mitigate the social impact in the
sectors concerned and the associated regional problems. This temporary exemption, a one-off measure in support
of a specific activity, represents an exception to the principles underlying the single market.