WRITTEN QUESTION E-0702/00 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Non-exportability of the Netherlands Wajong benefit.
Date: 2000-03-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, disability insurance, disabled person, free movement of workers, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law

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.

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/139

The (cid:145)special(cid:146) nature of this type of benefit lies in the fact that their characteristic features fall
1. and 2.
simultaneously within the areas of social security and social assistance; this is because of their personal
scope, their aims and the arrangements for their application. These benefits thus confer a legally defined
entitlement within the field of social security. In the area of social assistance, (cid:145)need(cid:146) is an essential criterion
for granting such benefits. This term may, however, refer to the specific situation in which the persons
concerned find themselves and is not evaluated purely in financial terms (cid:129) for which it is assumed that
means testing would necessarily be carried out. This is especially true when national legislation aims to
meet the special needs of disabled people arising from their mental or physical state.

the Court of

Justice has already had occasion to accept

the principle of non-
In this connection,
exportability of a non-means-tested benefit for disabled people (see Case C-20/96 SNARES, 4 November
1997) (2). In addition, the Court has ruled that the special status of this type of benefits was also justified
by the fact that they were closely linked to the economic and social structure of the Member State granting
them, and thus also to the place of residence of the person concerned (see esp. judgment of 27 September
1998 in Case C-313/86 Lenoir) (3).

3.
Finally, in the rulings referred to above, the Court accepted the validity of special coordination rules
governing special non-contributory benefits, and in particular their non-exportability, under provisions of
the EC Treaty.

In view of the above observations, the Commission considers that it would not serve any useful

4.
purpose to look in greater detail at the characteristics of special non-contributory benefits.

(1) Most recent consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.10.1997).
(2) ECR 1997, I-6057.
(3) ECR 1998, p. 5391.

(2000/C 374 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0704/00

by Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE) to the Council

(2 March 2000)

Subject: High-Level Group on the withholding tax

1. Who has been appointed to serve in the High-Level Group charged with breaking the deadlock on
the withholding tax and led by Manuel Baganha? In particular, who has been nominated to serve on the
group by the British Government?

2. What is the formal remit of this working group and what languages will be used during meetings?

3. What meetings of the group have taken place, and when and where were they held? Please state in
relation to each meeting (a) who attended the meetings and what was discussed, and (b) what was on the
agenda and what were the formal conclusions.

4. When will the group next meet and what other future meetings have been scheduled? What will be
on the agenda at these future meetings?

5. What consultations will the group undertake and with whom? How will the group determine which
interest groups to consult on this very important matter? Will any representatives of the City of London
financial services industry be consulted? If so, which representatives? What role will the Commission play
in relation to the group?

6. When is the group expected to finalise its conclusions and/or to report back to the Council of
Ministers?