WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/00 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. EU funding for NGOs.
Date: 2000-10-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, access to EU information, administrative transparency, non-governmental organisation

C 136 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

(2001/C 136 E/236)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3188/00

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 October 2000)

Subject: Failure by insurance companies to cover treatment of road accident victims

The financial burden incurred by Greek social security agencies to cover hospital expenses, outpatient care
and benefits for road accident victims is a substantial one. This is because a large part of the medical
expenses are not covered by the private insurance companies which insure vehicles and drivers, but by
public social security agencies, which are not able to claim back these expenses from the private
companies. A typical example is the IKA social security institution which during 1996 paid out
GRD 20,6 billion on medical expenses for victims of road accidents.

What are the Commission(cid:146)s views on the situation described above, which is tantamount to an indirect
subsidy to private Greek insurance companies and is a burden on the budget of public social security
agencies? Should it be seen as a competition problem? Are social security agencies in other Member States
entitled to claim back from insurance companies part of the expenses they pay out in connection with
road accidents?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 October 2000)

One of the objectives of the Directives in force with regard to motor vehicle insurance (1) is to ensure that
victims of accidents who suffered injury through the fault of a driver are covered by the compulsory
insurance of the vehicle which caused the accident. This insurance covers liability for bodily harm to all
passengers apart from the driver. Under Community law as it stands at present, the driver is excluded from
cover through his own compulsory motor vehicle insurance where he was at fault.

The question asked by the Honourable Member refers to an external aspect of insurance relations, that is
to say, the possibility for a third party who bore the hospitalisation costs of the victim (in this case social
insurance bodies) to obtain reimbursement of these costs from the insurance company of the vehicle at
fault. The Directives on insurance do not deal with this aspect which is left to the national law of the
Member States.

(1) Council Directive 72/166/EEC of 24 April 1972 (OJ L 103, 2.5.1972), Council Directive 84/5/EEC of 30 December
1983 (OJ L 8, 11.1.1984), Council Directive 90/232/EEC of 14 May 1990 (OJ L 129, 19.5.1990) and Directive
2000/26/EC of the Parliament and the Council of 16 May 2000 (OJ L 181, 20.7.2000).

(2001/C 136 E/237)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3196/00

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 October 2000)

Subject: EU funding for NGOs

The Commission is able to support a number of NGOs(cid:146) activities in various countries within the limits of
the EU(cid:146)s annual budget. Since this aid should be public and transparent, can the Commission state to
which organisations the Commission or its Finnish office directed EU budget appropriations in 1999, and
what amounts were involved?

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/203

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 December 2000)

The Commission is collecting the information it needs to answer the question. It will communicate its
findings as soon as possible.

(2001/C 136 E/238)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3208/00

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2000)

Subject: The value of national currencies in the EU Member States following the rejection of the euro by

the Danish electorate on 28 September 2000

1.
In the light, inter alia, of the result of the Danish referendum and of opinion polls in other States, it
would appear that the replacement of national currencies by the euro meets with least opposition in
Member States and applicant countries which had a weak currency in the preceding period, and with most
opposition in Member States which had a strong currency at the outset. One factor that may weaken the
new currency is the fact that the populations of other Member States have not yet had the opportunity to
state their views. Is the Commission prepared to require that the populations of these Member States be
given the opportunity to express their opinion as to the desirability of the euro being introduced and
participation in this process by their countries, with a view to establishing reliably how viable a single
European currency is?

2.
Since the exchange rate was fixed at the end of 1998, the value of the euro has fallen by 25 %,
leaving it not only below the value of the US dollar, but also weakened vis-(cid:224)-vis the national currencies of
those EU Member States which have not so far committed themselves to membership of European
Monetary Union. This means that there is a psychological sense of defeat which may be self-perpetuating,
as well as a need to produce more banknotes and coins to represent any given value. Is the Commission (cid:129)
if the attempt to introduce a single currency is continued (cid:129) prepared to initiate steps to fix the value of
the euro, well in advance of the planned introduction date of 1 January 2002, at a level much higher than
(for example, twice as high as) the value assigned to it in 1998, so that this value remains lastingly higher
than that of the British pound or the US dollar, and the number of the soon to be needed coins and
banknotes is halved?

3. What other possible ways does the Commission see of ensuring in the short term that the exchange
value of the national currencies in the European Union Member States is brought into line with the
strength of their economies?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(20 November 2000)

1.
Although public opinion regarding European integration and the adoption of the euro is regularly
assessed through the Eurobarometer surveys, the EC Treaty does not require that a Member State should
hold a referendum before deciding whether or not to adopt the euro, nor does the Commission propose to
introduce such a requirement. The issue of whether or not a referendum should be held before a Member
State adopts the euro is a matter for individual Member States. In any event, it should be noted that only
Denmark and the United Kingdom have opt-out clauses as far as membership of the euro is concerned.
Sweden, on the other hand, does not have an opt-out clause and will be required to adopt the euro once it
has met the convergence criteria. As far as the candidate countries for accession are concerned, none of
them has requested an opt-out clause for membership of the euro. Upon joining the Union, these countries
will be considered as countries with a derogation.

2.
There is widespread agreement that the euro is currently undervalued on foreign exchange markets
and that it has substantial scope to appreciate over the medium term. Nevertheless, under a floating
exchange rate regime, the short-term value of a currency is primarily determined by expectations in
foreign exchange markets. It would therefore not be appropriate to fix the external value of the currency,
nor does the Commission have any plans to do so.