WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/99 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Discrimination with regard to the right to the guaranteed minimum income in Luxembourg.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Luxembourg, equal treatment, free movement of workers, infringement procedure (EU), opinion, subsistence level income

8.8.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 225 E/199

(2000/C 225 E/225)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2742/99

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Discrimination with regard to the right to the guaranteed minimum income in Luxembourg

On 29 July 1999 the then Commissioner Padraig Flynn informed the Luxembourg trade union federation
OGBL that he intended to open infringement proceedings against the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
pursuant to Article 226 of the EC Treaty on the grounds that the law of 29 April 1999 contained
provisions which were incompatible with the right to equal treatment and which appeared to be in breach
of Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (1) on freedom of movement for workers, and of Article 43
of the EC Treaty.

The new law of 29 April 1999 reduced but did not abolish the minimum period of residence in
Luxembourg required in order to be entitled to the guaranteed minimum income, a condition which
places Luxembourg citizens at an advantage over citizens from other Member States resident
in
Luxembourg.

Have proceedings been opened as announced, and if not, what will the Commission do to ensure that
Luxembourg respects the right to freedom of movement and complies with Community legislation in this
area?

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission decided to issue a reasoned opinion concerning the provisions of
Luxembourg law on the entitlement to a guaranteed minimum income which make the granting of this
benefit conditional upon a minimum of five years(cid:146) residence in Luxembourg. In the Commission(cid:146)s view,
these provisions are indeed incompatible with the right to equal treatment laid down in Articles 39 and 43
(ex-Articles 48 and 52) of the EC Treaty and in Article 7 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of
to which the
15 October 1968 on freedom of movement
Honourable member refers.

for workers within the Community (1),

(1) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, pp. 2-12.

(2000/C 225 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2745/99

by Ioannis Mar(cid:237)nos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Possible breach of Community law

Council Directive 93/42/EEC of 14 June 1993 concerning medical devices, published in the Official Journal
of the European Communities (1), imposes on manufacturers the obligation to set up, apply and maintain
quality systems, as set out in the Directive, extending right up to the time of placing on the market.
However, Decision E 3/833/22-6-99 of the Ministry for Health and Welfare (Government Journal Issue
1329/B/29-6-99) extended manufacturers(cid:146) obligations, in contravention of the above-mentioned Directive
93/42, to firms trading in such goods and even made their certification compulsory no later than one year
from the publication of the ministerial decision referred to above, i.e. by 30 June 2000.

In the light of the above, could the Commission say:

(cid:129) whether this is a breach of European law, and

(cid:129) what action it intends to take against the Greek Government to eliminate the adverse consequences of

the above-mentioned provision?

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993, p. 1.