WRITTEN QUESTION P-0695/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against parents of mentally handicapped children by certain insurance companies.
Date: 2000-03-03
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, discrimination based on disability, infringement of EU law, insurance premium, life assurance

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/137

The (cid:145)strict approach(cid:146) vis-(cid:224)-vis the applicant countries was taken on the basis of a clear (cid:145)political acquis(cid:146)
given by the Member States. No equivalent acquis exists for nuclear facilities inside the Community.
However, the Commission has already discussed the British Nuclear installation inspectorate report with
the company concerned and has agreed to meet senior officials of the company to review steps taken to
improve the safety of the installations in the coming weeks.

The main Community requirements concerning protection against the effects of ionising radiation are laid
down in Council Directive 96/29/Euratom laying down basic safety standards for the protection of the
health of the workers and the general public against the dangers arising from ionising radiation (2). The
Commission will continue to cooperate with the United Kingdom authorities with a view to the full
application of the Community provisions. There is no evidence so far that the recent criticism on the
Sellafield plant has any implications from a radiation protection point of view.

(1) Commission Decision of 16 November 1999 (1999/819/Euratom) concerning the accession of the 1994 Conven-

tion on nuclear safety by the European atomic energy Community (Euratom), OJ L 318, 11.12.1999.
(2) OJ L 159, 29.6.1996. Directive 96/29/Euratom repeals previous directives with effect from 13 May 2000.

(2000/C 374 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0695/00

by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Discrimination against parents of mentally handicapped children by certain insurance companies

Does the Commission consider as compatible with the principles of non-discrimination the practice by
certain insurance companies of doubling the life-assurance premiums charged to parents of mentally
handicapped children?

If there is nothing in European Union legislation as it now stands to outlaw such injustice, will the
Commission not propose ways and means of ensuring non-discriminatory access to this type of insurance
contract?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2000)

The Commission is aware of the current negotiations for the renewal of the group life assurance contract
(temporary optional membership) subscribed to by the Union nationale des associations de parents et amis
de personnes handicapØes mentales (Unapei) with a French assurance company. According to the latest
information, the assurance company concerned has decided to pursue talks with Unapei, and in the
meantime will maintain guarantees for the current year without raising premiums or reducing benefits.

The Commission shares parents(cid:146) concern and strongly hopes the negotiations will succeed, thus maintain-
ing present levels of coverage.

Regarding Community law in this field, the Commission would recall that the third insurance directives,
specifically the third life assurance directive (1),
laid down the principle of freedom to set rates and
abolished preliminary or systematic checks on rates and contracts which the assurance companies
proposed to offer. Companies will generally set rates so as to achieve a balance between contributions
and the amount of provision necessary to cover amounts due, in the light of actuarial principles.

Since it is the duty of the home Member States to check the assurance companies concerned, the
Commission cannot check premiums and give an opinion on their level. It is the task of the national
institution to ensure that insurance premiums are appropriate and in accordance with reasonable actuarial
assumptions to enable companies to meet their contractual commitments.

C 374 E/138

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

In addition, assurance companies must make available to the public the bases and methods used to assess
technical provisions. Policy-holders are entitled to receive clear and accurate information in writing
concerning the premiums felt to be appropriate and complaints procedures, including the existence of a
complaints body if there is one, without prejudice to the right to take legal proceedings.

(1) Council Directive 92/96/EEC of 10 November 1992 on the coordination of laws, regulations and administrative
life assurance and amending Directives 79/267/EEC and 90/619/EEC (third life

provisions relating to direct
assurance Directive), OJ L 360, 9.12.1992.

(2000/C 374 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/00

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 March 2000)

Subject: Non-exportability of the Netherlands (cid:145)Wajong(cid:146) benefit

The Netherlands Government has placed the Invalidity Insurance (Young Disabled Persons) Act (cid:129) acronym
(cid:145)Wajong(cid:146) (cid:129) in the annex to Article 10a of Regulation 1408/71 (1), as a result of which benefits under this
Act can no longer be exported.

It is apparent from the preamble to Regulation 1247/92 (2) that (cid:145)need(cid:146) is the essential criterion for the
1.
granting of the relevant benefits. Do Wajong benefits meet this requirement, given that they are available
to all, irrespective of income from other sources?

2.

Does the Commission agree that in fact only means-tested benefits can be listed in the annex?

3.
To what extent does the situation described above detract from free movement of workers and the
self-employed pursuant to Articles 39 and 42 of the EC Treaty, because children of these workers and self-
employed persons cannot export the benefit concerned?

Article 4(2a) refers to special benefits. Will the Commission indicate the criteria for the concept

4.
(cid:145)special(cid:146)?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 136, 19.5.1992, p. 1.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(2 May 2000)

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1) and its implementing Regulation No 574/72 coordinating the various
social security schemes guarantee equal treatment in relation to the nationals of a given country, provide
for the export of social security benefits within the Community and the aggregation of periods of
insurance, and enable the sole applicable legislation to be determined so that migrant workers are not
placed at a disadvantage as compared with persons who have spent their entire career in a single Member
State.

The material scope of this Community legislation also encompasses special non-contributory benefits
intended either to provide supplementary, substitute or ancillary cover against the risks referred to, or
solely as specific protection for the disabled (Article 4(2a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71). Article 10a of
the same Regulation states that such benefits, provided that they are listed in Annex IIa, are subject to
special arrangements which depart from the exportability principle in that persons entitled to such benefits
may only receive them in the territory of the Member State in which they reside.

Having said this, the Commission would like to make the following observations in response to the
questions raised by the Honourable Member concerning benefits provided for under the Act passed by the
Netherlands on 24 April 1997 (Wajong), which are entered in Annex IIa of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71
and thus constitute special non-contributory benefits not subject to export.