WRITTEN QUESTION No. 2709/97 by Viviane REDING to the Commission. Impediment to free movement caused by health insurance deductions
Date: 1997-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, REDING
Subjects: France, case-law (EU), deduction at source, foreign national, free movement of workers, health insurance, national law, supplementary pension, tax exemption

3. 4. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 102/99

(98/C 102/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2709/97

by Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Impediment to free movement caused by health insurance deductions

Under the French rules on the health insurance deductions made by the Joint Regional Occupational Pension
Fund  (CRIREP),  persons  in  receipt  of  a  supplementary  pension  may  not  be  exempted  from  social  security
deductions if they live outside France.

Community  regulations,  however,  stipulate  that  persons  living  outside  France  are  exempt  from  the  3.6%
deduction when health insurance benefits are not chargeable to the French social security scheme.

Several national Members of Parliament have already raised this problem with the French Ministry of Labour
and Social Affairs, but the inconsistency has so far not been corrected.

Does not the situation in question constitute an obstacle to free movement of workers and pensioners?

What steps will the Commission take to resolve the matter?

Answer given by Mr Flynn on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 1997)

The Commission is fully aware of the problem raised by the Honourable Member.

It was for this reason that, pursuant to Article 169 of the EC Treaty, it brought an action against France on the
grounds that, by deducting sickness insurance contributions from both the supplementary pensions and the early
retirement benefits of persons residing in a Member State other than France and whose sickness and maternity
insurance is not covered by a French scheme, France has failed in its obligations under the EC Treaty and, in
particular, infringed the provisions of Articles 13(1) and 33 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on
the  application  of  social  security  schemes  to  employed  workers  and  their  families  moving  within  the
Community (1).

This action was dismissed by the Court of Justice on the grounds that supplementary schemes do not constitute
legislation within the meaning of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71; consequently, Article 33 of the Regulation,
which prohibits double contributions, does not apply to them. This ruling shows that a category of workers is
inadequately  protected  by  the  Community  social  protection  rules  concerning  persons  moving  within  the
Community. The Commission will very soon be proposing appropriate provisions to remedy this situation.

(1)  OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(98/C 102/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2710/97

by Ben Fayot (PSE) and Viviane Reding (PPE) to the Commission

(1 September 1997)

Subject: Cross-border information centres

An  audit  report  assessing  the  work  of  the  cross-border  information  centres,  including  those  dealing  with
consumer information, has been submitted to the Commission.

Will the Commission respond to the call made by Parliament in its resolution of 20 February 1997 on priorities
for consumer policy 1996-1998 (A4-0317/96) (1) and draw up a communication setting out its policy as regards
expansion of the cross-border information centres, in particular those which demonstrate their professionalism
and  meet  the  genuine  need  for  information,  advice,  and  out-of-court  settlements  concerning  international
transactions?  Furthermore,  does  the  Commission  intend  to  establish  the  current  pilot  project  on  a  more
permanent footing?

(1)  OJ C 85, 17.3.1997, p. 133.