WRITTEN QUESTION P-2251/01 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Follow-up questions on the Social Security Supplements Act.
Date: 2001-07-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European social policy, Netherlands, free movement of persons, social security, social-security benefit

C 40 E/228

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

(2002/C 40 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2251/01

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 July 2001)

Subject: Follow-up questions on the Social Security Supplements Act

On 21 May, together with my colleague Ria Oomen-Ruijten, I asked questions about the Netherlands
Government(cid:146)s intention to cease paying social security benefits under the Social Security Supplements Act
(Written Question E-1525/01 (1)). Commissioner Diamantopoulou has now answered these questions. To
our regret, she gave a very general answer and did not go into any of the detailed points we had raised.

I would therefore like to ask the following two questions:

(cid:129) Can the Commission answer the first three questions asked on 21 May 2001 individually?

(cid:129) Can the Commission give an estimate as to when it expects to take a decision regarding the

Netherlands Government(cid:146)s proposal?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

At the Honourable Member(cid:146)s request, the Commission wishes to clarify the answer given to written
question E-1525/01 from the same Member.

As regards the first question, the Commission wishes to confirm that,
in the framework of the free
movement of persons within the Community, Member States must in principle pay social security benefits
acquired under their legislation to beneficiaries residing on the territory of another Member State.
However, as was pointed out in the Commission(cid:146)s preceding answer, the Community rules coordinating
the national social security systems, and in particular Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1), provide for certain
exemptions to the principle of exportation, notably in the case of special non-contributory benefits. Hence
the system established by Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (and in particular Article 10a thereof) provides
insured persons, who are resident in a Member State, with guarantees as regards the payment of special
non-contributory benefits provided for by the legislation of the Member State on whose territory they
reside.

As regards the second question, the Commission is keen to stress that it is highly sensitive to the
consequences for the parties concerned of a possible loss of income that is under the minimum. However,
it is for each Member State to specify the conditions for
absent harmonisation at Community level,
entitlement
the free
movement of citizens. It is in this context that one should examine the question as to whether the non-
exportation of the Netherlands benefit in question is justified on the basis of the criteria fleshed out by the
Court of Justice, particularly in the jurisprudence to which the Commission(cid:146)s preceding answer refers.

to benefits, provided it respects Community law and notably the principle of

As to the third question, the Commission, as it stated in its new Social Policy Agenda (2), shares the goal of
modernising social protection for all Europeans. It will also take this goal into account when it decides
whether to propose including this benefit in the list of non-exportable benefits.

The Commission intends to present a package of amendments to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 before
year(cid:146)s end. These amendments are mainly designed to bring this Regulation into line with the rulings of
the Court of Justice. More particularly, this proposal will follow up the Court of Justice(cid:146)s judgments in
Jauch (3) and Leclere (4) on the Austrian and Luxembourg benefits which the Court deemed to be
exportable, but which are still on the list of non-exportable benefits (Annex IIa). As regards the benefit
provided for in the Social Security Supplements Act (Toeslagenwet) the Commission will examine (cid:129) on
the basis of the criteria set out in this answer and in the answer to written question E-1525/01 (cid:129) the
advisability of including this benefit in the list and, if appropriate, will propose doing so in the same
package of amendments.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/229

Not only the Council but also the European Parliament would be required, as part of the codecision
procedure that applies to any amendment to Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, to give an opinion on any
such proposals.

(1) 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 (OJ L 149, 5.7.1971), Regulation updated by Regulation
(EC) No 118/97 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2) COM(2000) 379 final.
(3)
(4)

Judgment of 8 March 2001, Jauch, C-215/99, not yet published.
Judgment of 31 May 2001, Leclere, C-43/99, not yet published.

(2002/C 40 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2262/01

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Follow-up questions on (cid:145)Wajong(cid:146) as a result of the Jauch judgment

On 17 March 2000 I asked a number of questions on the non-exportability of the Netherlands (cid:145)Wajong(cid:146)
benefit (written question E-0702/00) (1). These questions were answered by Commissioner Diamantopou-
lou on 2 May 2000. Following new developments in case law (cid:129) in particular the Jauch judgment (cid:129)
I would like to put a number of supplementary questions to the Commission.

1.
The Commission gave me a fairly general answer relating to the coordination mechanism, in which it
stated that the mechanism was correctly applied. As the law stood at the time this was indeed correct.
However, the judgments in the Jauch and Leclere cases have altered the situation. Will the Commission
give a new answer to the questions I put on 17 March 2000 in the light of the recent case law?

2.
The third question, with regard to the free movement of workers with children, was answered to the
effect that this was permitted under Snares and other applicable case law. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view
of the statement by the Court of Justice that the regulation should aim to create the greatest possible
freedom of movement for workers (Jauch judgment, paragraph 20)? Does this judgment also alter the
answer initially given to my third question?

3. With regard to non-exportability, according to the Jauch and Leclere judgments,
it is no longer
sufficient for a benefit to be listed in Annex IIa for it to be non-exportable, but the requirements must also
be satisfied in substance. Is the Commission prepared to revise Annex IIa to ensure that in future only
benefits that satisfy the conditions listed in Jauch and Leclere appear on that list?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 138.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Commission wishes to confirm that, in the framework of the free movement of persons within the
Community, Member States must
in principle provide social security benefits acquired under their
legislation to beneficiaries residing on the territory of another Member State. However, as was pointed out
in the Commission(cid:146)s answer to written question E-702/00 by the Honourable Member, the Community
rules co-ordinating the national social security systems, and in particular Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1),
provide for certain exemptions to the principle of exportation, notably in the case of special non-
contributory benefits intended either to provide supplementary, substitute or ancillary cover against the
relevant risks or solely as specific protection for the disabled. Hence, the system established by this
Regulation provides that such benefits, provided they are listed in Annex IIa, shall belong to a specific
system which only guarantees that the benefits prescribed by the legislation of the Member State shall be
provided to beneficiaries residing on its territory (2).