WRITTEN QUESTION E-1025/01 by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Insurance in the single market.
Date: 2001-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition law, consumer protection, insurance, single market

C 318 E/184

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

The Commission has received neither objective information nor allegations about significant differences in
application and enforcement of the Seveso II legislation by the Member States.

For the reasons given below it is probably premature to focus on possible discrepancies in the application
of the Seveso II legislation (Council Directive 96/82/EC of 9 December 1996 on the control of major-
accident hazards involving dangerous substances (1)). Indeed, transposition is not yet completed in the
Member States and the notified legislation fails in several respects to correctly fulfil the Directive(cid:146)s
requirements.

The Commission as guardian of the EC Treaty has to ensure that the provisions of the EC Treaty and the
measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied (Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the
EC Treaty).

The Commission consequently pursues all cases where Member States do not

(cid:129) communicate transposition of Community directives on time (non-communication),

(cid:129) transpose Community directives correctly or completely (non-conformity), and

(cid:129) apply the Community law (directives, regulations etc.) as required (bad application).

The Commission opened infringement procedures against all Member States which did not communicate
(full) transposition of the Seveso II Directive in 1999. At present six procedures of this type are still open
due to the ongoing failure of the Member States concerned to adopt the required national legislation
(five are before the Court of Justice, one has been sent a Reasoned Opinion).

The Commission has moreover assessed the conformity of the measures notified by Member States and has
addressed letters requiring additional information from those Member States where the Commission had
doubts about correct transposition. Furthermore a technical analysis of the transposition of Annex I in all
transposing laws or regulations is being carried out. Based on these results (responses by Member States
and technical evaluation of Annex I transposition) it is very likely that the Commission will also open non-
conformity procedures regarding the transposition of the Seveso II Directive.

the primary source of

With respect to the third type of infringements, bad application, an assessment of the application in all
Member States appears for the time being premature since one third of the Member States have not
transposed the Directive and the transposition seems also to be not very satisfactory in many cases. In
information about bad application of Community law consists of
general,
complaints by European citizens and non-governmental organisations
the
Commission undertakes where appropriate external studies which are normally focused on certain
important aspects of the application of a directive. The Commission could for example assess the
application of the Seveso II Directive or certain aspects of it, as e.g. review and test of external emergency
plans, land use planning, information duty, system of inspections, once the conformity of the legislation
has been assessed and action taken.

In addition,

(NGOs).

(1) OJ L 10, 14.1.1997.

(2001/C 318 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1025/01

by Neil MacCormick (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Insurance in the single market

Further to my Oral Question H-0053/01 (1) and to the Commission(cid:146)s answer, would it consider developing
class-specific directives so as to create a single market for simple insurance products such as home

13.11.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 318 E/185

contents insurance and term life assurance? Is it true that these insurance products are subject to no or to
few tax barriers and are already subject to similar consumer protection requirements in most Member
States?

(1) Written Answer dated 13 February 2001.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 May 2001)

The Commission would refer to its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Oral Question H-53/01 during
question time in Parliament(cid:146)s February 2001 part-session (1). The directives adopted in the insurance sector
have progressively created a single market
in insurance. The new system has already intensified
competition within the various national markets in terms of both price and new products available to
customers and has contributed significantly to greater innovation in the insurance products available in
both the life insurance and non-life insurance fields.

The Commission has no plans at the moment for any directives aimed at harmonising class-specific
insurance products, such as multi-risk home insurance or term life insurance. Harmonising certain class-
specific insurance products, for example in terms of cover and guarantees provided, could have the effect
of hampering product
innovation and restricting further competition, which could in time lead to
a reduction in the supply of new insurance products and the presentation of insurance policies that are not
necessarily suited to the different requirements of policyholders. Measures have been adopted in the area of
insurance covering legal costs to ensure that this can be provided in the Community by non-specialist
insurance companies and to avoid any conflict of interests between insurers and policyholders, and in the
compulsory motor vehicle insurance sector to ensure protection of road accident victims and the free
movement of persons within the Community.

In its Financial Services Action Plan (2), the Commission noted that national consumer protection law,
while ensuring an adequate level of protection for policyholders in the Member States, must comply with
Community law if it is to be legally justified, otherwise it could be deemed to constitute an obstacle to the
smooth operation of the single market. This will be particularly relevant looking ahead to the development
of e-commerce (3). In this context, the Commission has undertaken to review the national consumer
protection rules that apply, with a view to determining equivalence and ensuring greater convergence
between national regulations. On the basis of this work it will present a report to the Council and
Parliament setting out guidelines for future policy in this field. Work is also under way in the area of
harmonising the requirements for pre-contract information to be given to customers in connection with
distance contracts in the financial sector.

As regards the tax treatment of insurance products, the sixth VAT Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977
provides an exemption from VAT for insurance and reinsurance operations, including services relating to
these operations carried out by brokers and insurance intermediaries. However, the directives on insurance
provide for insurance contracts to be subject to the indirect taxes on premiums that apply in the host
Member State (usually the Member State in which the policyholder is resident). This rule establishes a clear
criterion which facilitates the conclusion of insurance contracts under the system of freedom to provide
services. However,
it is quite possible that certain national regulations governing the tax treatment of
insurance contracts concluded under the system of freedom to provide services, particularly in the area of
life insurance (e.g. deductibility of insurance premiums, tax treatment of revenue and benefits from
insurance contracts), contain obstacles to the smooth operation of the single market which are not always
compatible with the rules of the single market. The Communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to
the cross-border provision of occupational pensions, adopted by the Commission on 19 April 2001,
contains a legal analysis of these obstacles in the pensions sector. Much of this analysis would also apply to
life insurance.

C 318 E/186

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

the Commission reviews the compatibility of such national
In its role of guardian of the Treaties,
regulations with Community law and takes appropriate steps, where necessary initiating infringement
proceedings.

(1) Written answer of 13.2.2001.
(2) COM(1999) 232 final.
(3) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on e-commerce and financial

services (COM(2001) 66 final).

(2001/C 318 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1027/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Theresa Villiers (PPE-DE)
and Piia-Noora Kauppi (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: Counterfeiting threat to the euro exacerbated by over-strict data-protection laws

Is the Commission aware of the concern expressed by Ronald Noble, the newly-appointed American Head
of Interpol, (as reported in The Sunday Telegraph on 25 February 2001) that excessively strict European
data-protection laws will
inhibit the release of information on counterfeiters by Europol to Interpol?
Mr Noble is reported as saying that, if Europol discovers that counterfeiting of the Euro is taking place
outside the EU (a likely place for such activity) and identifies the individuals, nothing can be done because
(cid:145)Europol does not have an agreement on such data with Interpol. It cannot send that information to us (cid:129)
or any country outside the EU without such an agreement (cid:129) and there is no time to make one before the
euro comes in. So when the euro is circulated, we(cid:146)re going to see large quantities of counterfeit, with
police officers handcuffed and unable to investigate.(cid:146)

Does the Commission accept the accuracy of Mr Noble(cid:146)s assessment? If so, will it discuss the problem
urgently with Wim Duisenberg and Mr. Noble and prepare any legislative changes that are necessary to
preserve the integrity of the European economic system and, hence, trade flows between Member States
and with the wider world?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2001)

The Commission(cid:146)s proposal for a Regulation on the protection of the euro against counterfeiting (1) was
the subject of an agreement at the Ecofin Council on 12 February 2001 (2). This regulatory framework is
aimed particularly at facilitating exchanges of information and at cooperation, including cooperation with
international organisations. The Commission notes that Interpol played a full part in the work of the
experts which enabled the Commission to present this proposal.

The Commission would also point out that Europol(cid:146)s powers have been extended to the fight against
counterfeiting and forgery of means of payment.

As regards more particularly the transfer of personal data to Interpol, the Commission would point out
first of all that, under the Europol Convention, such a transfer is authorised if it is necessary, in individual
cases, to prevent or combat the infringements falling under Europol(cid:146)s powers.

Furthermore, as things stand, specific measures to prevent or combat criminal infringements involving
counterfeiting are being taken by the Member States cooperating on the basis of the International
Convention for the Suppression of Counterfeiting Currency signed in Geneva in 1929, including with
Interpol. In the case of counterfeiting, in particular of the euro, Europol intends to facilitate the exchange
of information at European level and to communicate the results of the analysis it is carrying out to the
Member States. If the latter wish to transfer the data obtained from Europol to the authorities responsible
in third countries for preventing and combating criminal infringements, that transfer will be made on the
basis of the internal rules of those Member States and any conventions governing that type of transfer.