WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/00 by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission. Free movement of workers.
Date: 2000-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, education grant, free movement of workers, infringement of EU law

C 303 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

24.10.2000

(2000/C 303 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0617/00

by William Newton Dunn (PPE-DE) to the Council

Subject: EU rapid deployment force: Helsinki conclusions

(24 February 2000)

In Annex I to Annex IV of the Helsinki Summit Presidency Conclusions, the EU Rapid Deployment Force
is described as follows: (cid:145)they (Member States) will be able to deploy rapidly and then sustain forces (cid:133) in
operations up to corps level (up to 15 brigades or 50-60 000 persons) (cid:133) They must be able to sustain
such a deployment for at least one year. This will require an additional pool of deployment units (and
supporting elements) at lower readiness to provide replacements for the initial forces.(cid:146)

However,
in the first indent of paragraph 28 of the Presidency Conclusions, the text refers purely to
Member States having (cid:145)to deploy within 60 days and sustain for at least 1 year military forces of up to
50 000 (cid:129) 60 000 persons.(cid:146)

Could the Council state whether the decision taken at Helsinki was for a maximum deployment of
5 brigades sustainable for 1 year or of the 15 brigades referred to in the Annex?

Reply

(13 April 2000)

The decision taken at Helsinki was that Member States should be able to deploy rapidly and sustain forces
capable of the full range of Petersberg tasks, including the most demanding, in operations up to Corps
level (up to 15 brigades or 50 000 (cid:129) 60 000 persons).

(2000/C 303 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0674/00

by Marit Paulsen (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 March 2000)

Subject: Free movement of workers

I Sweden, repayment of State study loans is governed by the Study Finance Act (1973:349) and the Study
Finance Decree (1973:418).

People residing in Sweden are required to repay study loans at an annual rate of 4 % of their combined
income from service, employment and capital. However, people residing abroad, including therefore in
other EU Member States, are required to repay them at an annual rate of 1/20 of the debt.

Admittedly, these rules apply to all, irrespective of nationality, but in reality they make it unaffordable for
those on low or middle incomes, or part-time workers, who have studied for a medium length of time
(four to five years) to live and work in another Member State, as they are required to repay a considerably
larger amount per annum than they would if they remained in Sweden (for those on high incomes, the
situation may of course be reversed). Person A has a debt of about SEK 300 000 from a study loan (a
normal amount for a person who has studied for four or five years) and an annual income of SEK 168 000
(SEK 14 000 per month). If this person lives and works in Sweden, he/she will have to repay SEK 6 720 per
annum. However, if the same person happens to live and work in France, the annual repayment will be
more than twice as much: SEK 15 000. Thus Sweden(cid:146)s repayment rules favour those in high income
groups, while those on low or middle incomes or who work part-time cannot afford to take advantage of
the fundamental freedom to live and work in another Member State (cf. ECJ judgment in the case of Kraus,
C-19/92).

Do these repayment rules violate the fundamental freedom to seek employment and to live and work in
another Member State (Article 39 of the EC Treaty)?

24.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 303 E/207

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 April 2000)

The Commission has asked the Member State concerned for information regarding the facts raised to by
the Honourable Member. It will inform her of its findings.

(2000/C 303 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0706/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 March 2000)

Subject: Amendments to the Netherlands Exceptional Medical Expenses Act

In the Netherlands, everybody is covered by the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ). Since 1 January
2000, Netherlands nationals living abroad who are not insured with a health insurance fund have no
longer been covered by the AWBZ. However, Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium cannot subscribe
to a health insurance fund because Belgian social legislation regards this as incompatible with the Dutch
AWBZ facilities.

This is very much a Catch 22 situation: Netherlands nationals residing in Belgium must subscribe to a
health insurance fund in order to be entitled to AWBZ facilities, but Belgian health insurance funds refuse
to accept them as members because they are entitled to AWBZ facilities.

1.
Does the decision by the Netherlands Government to exclude Netherlands nationals who reside
abroad and are not insured with a health insurance fund from AWBZ facilities as of 1 January 2000
violate European law, inter alia the freedom of citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States
(ECJ, 28 April 1998, no. C-158/96)? (a) If so, what will the Commission do to remedy this situation? (b) If
not, does not the Netherlands Government(cid:146)s measure detract from European law, inter alia the freedom of
citizens and patients to settle in other EU Member States (ECJ, 28 April 1998, no. C-158/96)?

2.
Does the decision by the Netherlands Government violate the principle of trust, since the persons
concerned have moved abroad in good faith in the knowledge that they will continue to enjoy full cover
for medical expenses under the AWBZ? If not, does not the Commission consider that the Netherlands(cid:146)
measure detracts from the principle of trust?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2000)

According to the Commission(cid:146)s information, as of 1 January 2000, beneficiaries of long-term social
security benefits from the Netherlands (WAO, AOW) residing in another Member State, who are not
subject to the compulsory sickness insurance scheme but who are insured privately, are no longer covered
by the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ) and are no longer required to pay the corresponding
social contributions. The introduction of this residence clause has been accompanied by a transitional
measure allowing persons insured voluntarily prior to 1 January 2000 to retain entitlement to financial
compensation for the costs of certain forms of on-going hospital treatment, provided that the care is
necessary.

The Commission has received a large number of complaints from persons affected by this amendment to
the Netherlands law.

The Commission draws the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the existence of Community provisions
coordinating the national social security systems, in particular Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and 574/72,
which are intended to coordinate the statutory social security schemes of
the Member States (last
consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97) (1).

Since those concerned are subject privately to the legislation on exceptional medical costs, the protection
guaranteed by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 mentioned above may not be invoked in this case.