WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/00 by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission. Refusal of private health insurers in the Netherlands to provide cover for frontier workers with compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ).
Date: 2000-03-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Netherlands, competence of the Member States, free movement of workers, frontier worker, health insurance, infringement of EU law, residence

C 26 E/114

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

sickness insurance scheme but are privately insured are no longer entitled to coverage for exceptional
medical expenses (Algemene Wet Bijzondere Ziektekosten (cid:129) General Act on Exceptional Medical
Expenses) and will no longer be required to pay the associated social contributions. In the context of
introducing this residence clause, a transitional measure was adopted allowing persons who were
voluntarily covered before 1 January 2000 to retain a right to financial compensation for expenses linked
to certain forms of ongoing hospitalisation, as long as care is necessary.

Numerous complaints from persons affected by this Netherlands measure have also been submitted to the
Commission.

However, the Commission wishes to draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that Community
law does not impinge on Member States(cid:146) powers to regulate their social security systems. In the absence of
social security harmonisation at Community level, each Member State is free to determine the conditions
governing the right or obligation to join a social security scheme and the conditions which create an
entitlement to social benefits. These principles are based on the consistent case law of the Court, notably
recalled in points 17 and 17 of the Kohll judgment of 28 April 1998 (C-158/96), mentioned by the
Honourable Member.

It is true that Member States must respect Community law in exercising their powers. In this connection,
one should note Articles 39 and 42 (ex-Articles 48 and 51) of the EC Treaty and Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-
their family moving within the Community (1) and Council
employed persons and to members of
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 (2), which are designed to coordinate the statutory social security schemes of the
Member States (3).

However, given that the parties affected by the Netherlands reform are privately insured in respect of
exceptional medical expenses, the protection guaranteed by Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 and 574/72
cannot be relied on in this particular case.

Hence, the Commission is not in a position to intervene in this area, which concerns the exclusive
competence of a Member State.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.
(3) Latest consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97 (cid:129) OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/142)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0825/00

by Ieke van den Burg (PSE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Refusal of private health insurers in the Netherlands to provide cover for frontier workers with

compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ)

Is the Commission aware that frontier workers who work in the Netherlands but reside in another
1.
Member State and who have compulsory insurance under the Exceptional Medical Expenses Act (AWBZ)
pursuant to Regulation 1408/71 (1) are rejected by Dutch private medical insurers because of their place of
residence? This means that, although such frontier workers have compulsory AWBZ insurance in the
Netherlands, they are required to take out supplementary private insurance in a different country, a
combination which is expensive and impractical?

2.

Does not this refusal violate the principle of free movement of workers?

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

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/115

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 May 2000)

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention to the fact that Community law does not
affect the Member States(cid:146) responsibility for their social security systems. In the absence of any Community-
level harmonisation in the field of social security, the laws of each Member State are free to stipulate the
conditions for membership of a social insurance scheme, as well as the conditions of eligibility for social
security benefits. These principles derive from the invariable practice of the Court of Justice.

Community law is therefore not in conflict with national schemes, such as that in the Netherlands, which
do not provide for compulsory health insurance for workers whose income exceeds a certain level, and
who must then take out private health insurance.

When exercising their powers, the Member States must respect Community law. In this connection,
particular reference should be made to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the
Community (1) and Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for
implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (2), which seek to coordinate the Member States(cid:146) social
security systems (3).

However, the protection guaranteed under these Community regulations cannot be invoked in the present
case because the persons concerned are not covered by a compulsory health insurance scheme provided
for under the Netherlands(cid:146) Sickness Insurance Funds Act (Ziekenfondswet).

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.
(3) Last consolidated version: Regulation (EC) No 118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0826/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(21 March 2000)

Subject: Greyhound racing

Around the middle of January, Commissioner Fischler said that he was aware of press reports alleging ill-
treatment of racing greyhounds (1). Greyhounds are subjected to appalling cruelty once they are no longer
capable of running races. According to Mr Fischler, no Community support is provided to enterprises
rearing greyhounds in the Community.

Can the Commission confirm that no Community support is provided in any way to businesses,
1.
people and/or organisations breeding greyhounds in the Community? If not, will the Commission review
its financial support programmes in order to establish beyond all doubt whether or not Community
support is provided to businesses, people and/or organisations that breed greyhounds in the Community?

2.
Does the Commission provide Community support to businesses, people and/or organisations that
organise greyhound races in the Community? If so, how much is made available for this purpose per
annum, and to whom are subsidies granted?

3.
On the basis of existing European legislation, can the Commission do anything about the ill-
treatment of greyhounds in the fifteen EU Member States? If so, will the Commission order an inquiry
into the ill-treatment of greyhounds which has been complained of in the media?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 90.