WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reciprocity in health care.
Date: 2000-06-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU national, competence of the Member States, infringement of EU law, legal basis, right to health

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/131

(2001/C 72 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1847/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Noise pollution from aircraft

Can the Commission state whether there are or should be common arrangements to cover noise pollution
from aircraft at EU airports, and to what extent these arrangements cover light aircraft?

Are there and should there be any requirements to ensure consultation with local communities that may
be affected?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

As part of its environmental policy the Commission intends to present in the near future to the other
institutions a proposal for a framework directive on the assessment and reduction of environmental noise
exposure. This framework directive is intended to be applicable to major airports, i.e. airports with a
number of annual movements exceeding a certain threshold. Therefore, noise nuisance caused by light
aircraft would be covered insofar as such aircraft operate at major airports and their noise levels are
incorporated in the noise exposure assessment methods.

The Commission is of the opinion that the availability of neutral and transparent information about levels
of noise exposure to the public, as required in the draft framework directive, will facilitate the consultation
process for those who may be affected.

In addition, in its communication on air transport and environment (1) the Commission has stressed the
necessity to give due consideration to establishing enforceable rights for local communities to request
consultations and negotiations on the introduction of new operating rules at airports, as well as guarantees
that noise nuisance is actually reduced and not just shifted to other areas.
It intends to undertake
discussions with interested parties on the appropriateness of framework regulations at Community level
serving this purpose.

(1) COM(1999) 640 final.

(2001/C 72 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1851/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Reciprocity in health care

Can the Commission state what the legal basis is for Member States(cid:146) obligations to provide health care to
each other(cid:146)s nationals (whether residents or tourists) and whether the refusal by some states, such as
Belgium, to provide free health care to nationals of other states unless those nationals have contributed to
a local health scheme, even though its own nationals will be treated free of charge in some other Member
States, constitutes a form of discrimination or impediment to freedom of movement that could be
challenged in the European Court of Justice?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 July 2000)

The Commission would point out that Community law does not affect the power of the Member States to
organise their social security systems and, in particular, their health care systems, as they wish.

C 72 E/132

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

There is therefore considerable variation in the way in which State health care systems are organised in the
Community. For example, certain Member States have opted for a system of direct provision of health
benefits in kind without financial consideration from the patient (for example,
in Germany and the
Netherlands), while other systems provide medical services and products in return for payment by the
patient, followed by reimbursement by his health insurance fund according to a corresponding scale (e.g.
Belgium and France). Each Member State is also free to choose the range of health care and medical
products that are provided or reimbursed on its territory.

However, Community law must be complied with in the exercise of this power that has remained in
national hands. Mention should be made in this connection of the existence of Council Regulation (EEC)
574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the
Community (1), which coordinates the statutory social security schemes of the Member States in order to
provide effective protection to persons who move within the Community.

These regulations guarantee, in particular, that all citizens who have the nationality of a Member State
other than the Member State in which they reside enjoy the same rights as citizens of that Member State.
They also lay down the conditions relating to the reimbursement of medical expenses whenever a person
requires medical care during a temporary stay in a Member State other than the one in which he is insured
or whenever a person moves with the specific aim of receiving care in another Member State. If the
conditions laid down in Community regulations are met, notably the proof of entitlement to health care in
the State of affiliation, which generally issues an E 111 or E 112 form, any Community citizen may receive
care provided under the legislation of the Member State in which he resides, payable by the State in which
he is insured.

Belgium is therefore entitled to require all recipients of medical care on its territory to pay the costs of
such care, which will, in principle, be reimbursed to them under the scale laid down in Belgian legislation.

(1) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972 (cid:129) Most recent consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996

(OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2001/C 72 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1853/00

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(9 June 2000)

Subject: Funds for Turkey

What proportion of the total funds earmarked for Turkey under the MEDA programme and the European
strategy for Turkey has been spent in sectors such as education, health, the environment, promotion of
civil society, human rights and protection of minorities in the south-east (Kurdish) region of Turkey?

What checks are carried out in order to ensure that the money is in fact spent on the identified projects
and is the Commission satisfied by the degree of local consultation with the Kurdish people in connection
with framing and implementation of the projects?

Answer given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2000)

Within the framework of the MEDA I programme (1996-1999), the Commission has committed a total of
€ 376 million for Turkey. The Commission(cid:146)s policy is to focus its interventions on the most disadvantaged
groups in society, such as women, children and minorities. Thus, a substantial proportion of the sums
committed to Turkey have been allocated to projects which are (cid:145)gender-centric(cid:146) (for example, funding
family-planning centres) and which are implemented in those regions which suffer from the greatest
(cid:145)development deficit(cid:146), such as the south-east (for example, a project to support basic education in the
south-eastern provinces).