WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/01 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Commitology.
Date: 2001-08-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: bank, comitology, committee (EU), drafting of EU law, insurance, securities

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/71

The Court of Justice held that the insured person is entitled to additional reimbursement from the Member
State of registration if the latter’s legislation provides for a higher level of reimbursement than the Member
State in which the services were provided (3). Besides the Court has endorsed the right to reimbursement
for certain non-hospital benefits and medical products, in accordance with the law of the Member State of
registration, even in the absence of authorisation (4). Finally,
in the context of a case concerning the
reimbursement of hospital treatment obtained voluntarily in a Member State other than the Member State
of registration, the Court of Justice held that a national administrative authorisation scheme might be
justified for overriding reasons provided it is based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria which are
known in advance (5).

All the consequences of this case law that has been progressively developed by the Court of Justice are
currently being examined by the Commission.

(1) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to

employed persons and their families moving within the Community 4 OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council 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 4 OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.

(3) See Banbraeckel, C-368/98, judgment handed down on 12 July 2001.
(4) See Kohll and Decker, judgments handed down on 28 April 1998.
(5) See Smits-Peerbooms, C-157/99, judgment handed down on 12 July 2001.

(2002/C 115 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2391/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Commitology

the Commission give an assurance that

the Insurance Committee and the Banking Advisory
Will
Committee have always respected the undertakings concerning openness in the agreements and regulations
on commitology? Does the Commission regard the behaviour of those committees as a suitable model for
the Regulators Committee and Securities Committee (the Lamfalussy Committees)?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Neither the Insurance Committee nor the Banking Advisory Committee, which are both committees
assisting the Commission, have ever exercised new comitology powers in the period since the Council
adopted its comitology decision on 28 June 1999 (1). However,
the Commission transmits 4 on a
voluntary basis 4 the summary agendas of the Committee meetings to the Parliament. In addition, the
Commission also transmits summary minutes of the meetings of the Insurance committee. To date, no
comments have been received from the European Parliament on any of the transmitted information.

In the case of the Banking Advisory Committee, the Commission has also kept the Parliament updated on
the review of bank capital adequacy rules in meetings of the Committee on Economic and Monetary
Affairs.

In contrast, the European Securities Committee and the Committee of the European Securities Regulators,
which have been set up as internal advisory committees by Commission Decisions of 6 June 2001 (2), do
not act as comitology committees today. As regards the European Securities Committee, such a role has,
however, been proposed by the Commission in the area of prospectuses (3) and market abuse (4). The

C 115 E/72

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Commission hopes that both proposals as well as future legislative initiatives, all of which implement the
Financial Services Action Plan of 1999 (5) and the Lamfalussy Report of 2001, will be adopted soon under
arrangements on openness and transparency being satisfactory to all the Institutions.

(1) Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing

powers conferred on the Commission, OJ L 184, 17.7.1999.

(2) Commission Decisions 2001/527/EC et 2001/528/EC of 6 June 2001, OJ L 191, 13.7.2001.
(3) Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on the prospectus to be published when securities are

offered to the public or admitted to trading OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(4) Proposal for a Directive of the Parliament and of the Council on insider dealing and market manipulation (market

abuse), OJ C 240 E, 28.8.2001.

(5) COM(1999) 630 final.

(2002/C 115 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2393/01

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 August 2001)

Subject: Violence on the part of the ‘Black Bloc’ at the G8 summit in Genoa and the active participation of

an Italian member of parliament

What steps does the Commission intend to take following the serious incidents caused in Genoa by the
‘Black Bloc’, an international anarchist and revolutionary organisation with members in many EU
countries?

Is the Commission in a position to help ascertain the facts and, if so, how?

Does the Commission know of any international links between extremist anti-globalisation organisations
who organised the clashes in Genoa?

Is the Commission aware of any international protection offered to the ‘Black Bloc’?

Is the Commission in a position to ascertain, via the Italian State, whether it is true that an Italian member
of parliament actively assisted the anti-G8 protesters in creating a battering-ram designed to breach the
fence protecting the delegates to the summit?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(18 October 2001)

The Commission would like to recall that the responsibility with regard to the maintenance of law and
order and the safeguarding of internal security during summit meetings lies within the competence of
Member States, as clarified by Article 33 of the European Union Treaty. However, the Member States have
increasingly come to acknowledge the need to improve cooperation in this area in order to be more
effective in ensuring the peaceful development of such meetings.

According to Article 36 (2) of the European Union Treaty, the Commission is fully associated with the
work in the area of police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters and actively supports the efforts of
Member States in the prevention of serious disturbances at high-level meetings. In doing so, it always
keeps in mind the need to guarantee the fundamental rights of everybody as enshrined in the Union
Charter.

The Commission supports the conclusions of the special Justice and Home Affairs Council of 13 July 2001
regarding security at European Councils and similar events, and has continued to bring its input into the
discussion on how to improve cooperation.

The Commission has also put the expertise of its services at the disposal of the Presidency of the Council
in order to work together on improved cooperation with a view to the upcoming high-level meetings to
take place in Belgium until the end of December 2001.