WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands.
Date: 2000-01-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, discrimination on the basis of nationality, free movement of persons, identity document, infringement of EU law

C 280 E/146

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

(2000/C 280 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2845/99

by Fernando FernÆndez Mart(cid:237)n (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Restructuring of the European Community Humanitarian Office

(18 January 2000)

The European Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) has seen various changes in its operational,
political and administrative structure within the European Commission in recent years. Most recently,
it was under the responsibility of the Commissioner for
during the Commission(cid:146)s last term of office,
Humanitarian Aid and Fisheries. Now it has been added to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for
Development and Cooperation. In any case, both spheres (development and cooperation and humanitarian
aid), as far as Parliament
the Committee on
Development and Cooperation.

is concerned, have always been the competence of

According to some sources it has been mooted that competence for the humanitarian aid provided by
ECHO may be assigned to the EU(cid:146)s High Representative for the common foreign and security policy
((cid:145)Mr CFSP(cid:146)).

The current operational structuring, which adds ECHO to the responsibilities of the Commissioner for
Cooperation and Development, Mr Nielsen, was the result of a considered decision designed to give both
departments greater coherence and unity of action. Hence, it is worrying that after such a short time
another change is already on the cards, although there is no justification for it as regards either political
responsibilities or improved coordination and greater efficiency in the management of the budget.

Does the Commissioner for Development and Cooperation have any information on the subject?

What does he think about the possibility of further restructuring and what would be the justification for it?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(22 February 2000)

The Commission has no knowledge of the sources referred to by the Honourable Member according to
which there are plans for assigning responsibility for the humanitarian aid granted by the European
Community Humanitarian Office (ECHO) to the High Representative for Common Foreign and Security
Policy.

There has never been any question of handing over the management of humanitarian aid to the Council.
As it indicated in its recent communication to the Council and Parliament (1), the Commission wishes to
maintain and further improve the quality of the humanitarian aid which it provides through ECHO and
has no plans for restructuring of the sort referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission is very conscious of the advantage of having brought the two portfolios Development
cooperation and Humanitarian aid together under one Member of the Commission. It is envisaged that the
communication on linking relief, rehabilitation and development planned for presentation in July 2000
will underline the advantage of a closer relationship between the two portfolios.

(1) COM(99) 468 final.

(2000/C 280 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2848/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands

Since 1 June 1994 there has been a requirement to produce proof of identity in the Netherlands. The
Ministry of Justice has published a brochure, (cid:145)Alles over identificatieplicht(cid:146), containing information about
what this entails. The publication is not only aimed at the general public but is also used, for example, by
the Chamber of Commerce, social insurance authorities, employers, notaries etc.

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/147

Page 12 of the brochure indicates what identity documents are permitted. The only non-Dutch document
which is permitted is a non-Dutch passport. No distinction is made between EU citizens and non-EU
citizens.

Does the Commission consider the brochure(cid:146)s interpretation of Dutch legislation to be contrary to
1.
the relevant EU legislation, particularly that concerning free movement of persons and non-discrimination?

Dutch driving licences are recognised as identity documents, but not the driving licences of other

2.
Member States. Does this constitute discrimination?

3.
Identity cards of EU Member States are not recognised but only passports, although the same identity
cards are recognised as travel documents and the Netherlands recognises its own identity card. Does this
constitute discrimination?

In a number of cases, a foreign passport alone is not sufficient: the passport must contain an

4.
indication that a residence permit has been issued. Does not this constitute discrimination?

5. What will the Commission do to change this situation?

6.
If Dutch legislation accords with the Treaty on European Union but the brochure does not, can the
Commission take steps to ensure that the brochure is altered, since in practice it is regarded as containing
binding instructions?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2000)

The Commission will contact the Dutch authorities to obtain full details of the circumstances to which the
the Commission will certainly institute proceedings under
Honourable Member refers.
Article 226 (formerly Article 169) of the EC Treaty.

If necessary,

(2000/C 280 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/99

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(18 January 2000)

Subject: Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons) Decree

In the Netherlands, an amendment to the Access to Social Insurance (Additional Categories of Persons)
Decree entered into force on 1 January (new Royal Decree 746). According to the decree, retired people
who are in receipt of long-term benefit and reside in another EU Member State are no longer regarded as
enjoying insurance cover. Many commentators consider that the decree may violate Regulation 1408/71 (1)
and European case law.

1.
The Netherlands Government does not agree, as witness the reply by State Secretary Hoogervorst to
questions tabled by Mrs Verburg, Member of the Lower House of the Netherlands Parliament. The State
Secretary invokes the judgment given by the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 11 June
1998 in case C-275/96, A. Kuusij(cid:228)rvi v. Riksf(cid:246)rs(cid:228)kringsverket, and the text of the Regulation as amended
in 1991. Does the Commission agree with this reasoning? What might case C-275/96 have to do with the
issue, as the undersigned feels that the link between case C-275/96 and the amendment in question is far
from obvious?

If the Commission considers that the contentious amendment of the contentious decree seems to

2.
violate European measures, what will it do about this?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.