WRITTEN QUESTION E-2425/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Categories of residents that are difficult to insure because of exclusion clauses applied by sickness insurance schemes.
Date: 2001-09-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU initiative, EU national, Netherlands, health insurance, private insurance, residence, social security

C 115 E/82

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

In 1997,

the Netherlands authorities decided,

1.
to replace
declarations certified by external accountants with controls carried out by the Control Department of
Arbeidsvoorziening. The reason for this transfer was that earlier controls carried out by the Commission
had revealed that these accountants’ declarations were of no use with respect to the actual compliance of
the projects with the European Social Fund (ESF) rules. The same declarations that were found to be of no
use for the ESF in 1996 can of course not be used as evidence for compliance with ESF rules five years
later.

in agreement with the Commission,

Moreover, according to the report of the accounting department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and
Employment, also all projects qualified as ‘irregular’ had received a positive accountants’ declaration.

2.
The accounting department of the Netherlands Ministry conducted the control of the 45 projects, in
order to verify the legitimacy and the correctness of their declarations. The Commission is convinced that
this investigation was based on the regulations and decisions in force at the time that the projects were
carried out.

(2002/C 115 E/086)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2425/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 September 2001)

Subject: Categories of residents that are difficult to insure because of exclusion clauses applied by sickness

insurance schemes

Since 1998 private sickness insurance schemes in the Netherlands have been required to provide cover for
all applicants. This means that persons living in the Netherlands must be accepted on the basis of a
standard package, subject to certain conditions.

Since 1971 workers have been covered by a European Regulation under which those who migrate to other
Member States are entitled to access to a sickness insurance scheme on the same terms as residents of the
country concerned (Regulation (EEC) 1408/71 (1)).

There are no such rules for individuals who go and live in another Member States and have to rely on a
private sickness insurance scheme. Consequently, they often find themselves subject to exclusion clauses
whereby,
for example, the insurers exclude future risks on the basis of medical history. Exclusions
frequently involve risks that citizens cannot afford because of extremely expensive new treatments.

1.

Is the Commission aware of this situation?

2.
Does the Commission share the view that any citizen who settles in another Member State of the
European Union is in principle entitled to medical care of an acceptable minimum level and that there
should be no question of exclusion clauses?

How many people fall into the category that is at risk of being partially uninsured owing to the

3.
absence of a duty on private insurers to provide cover?

Does the Commission have an overview of the situation in different European countries? If not, is

4.
prepared to draw up an inventory? If so, will it make this information available?

Is the Commission drafting proposals to ensure that no group of residents of the Member States of
irrespective of income, occupation or nationality, can in future be refused standard sickness

5.
the EU,
insurance? If not, why is the Commission postponing or refraining from introducing such measures?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/83

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2001)

The questions raised by the Honourable Member are in line with the concerns already set out
1. and 2.
by the European Parliament in its own-initiative report on supplementary health insurance (1), which was
adopted on 15 November 2000. This report provided an analysis of supplementary health insurance
schemes and rightly emphasised that state or statutory health insurance schemes, which are covered by
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 (2), provide very broad
healthcare cover in the majority of Member States. The report rightly discussed the role which these
supplementary health insurance schemes might nevertheless play in access to healthcare and raised in
particular the question of the obstacles to free movement of persons and services in another Member State
which can result from the very significant differences between systems.

3. and 4.
The Commission welcomed the parliamentary initiative and has undertaken to draw up an in-
depth report of the situation in order to gain a better understanding of the diversity and intrinsic
complexity of the various schemes. A study of supplementary health insurance schemes within the
Community was therefore begun and is currently under way.

5.
The results of the study are expected in December 2001 and will be published at the beginning of
2002. They will be used as a basis for all other Commission initiatives in this area and will in particular
help to give rise to a debate with all other parties involved.

(1) 2000/2009 (INI) PE 286.239.
(2) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.

(2002/C 115 E/087)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2428/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Subject: Use of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq and the European Union’s Common Foreign and

Security Policy

In reply to Question E-0680/01 (1) the Council indicated that ‘the use of chemical weapons against the
Kurds has not been raised within the Council or Council bodies’. ‘The Council has not therefore expressed
its views on the issue’ (sic). This position is very surprising. The 15 EU Member States are refusing to
develop a clear view on the use of chemical weapons against, on the one hand, the Kurds in Iraq and, on
the other hand, the Kurds in Turkey.

On Friday, 16 February American and British aircraft attacked the region of the capital of Iraq. The British
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Robin Cook, said that the bombing was necessary to maintain the
no-fly zones in the northern and southern zones of Iraq. These zones were needed to protect the Kurdish
people in the north and the Shiites in the south. ‘When Saddam was allowed to fly over the northern zone
he used chemical weapons on the Kurds. He would do it again if he had the opportunity’, Cook said.

Cook’s position on the use of chemical weapons in Iraq is in stark contrast to the attitude of the EU
Member States on the use of chemical weapons in Turkey. For example, the Council has still not expressed
an opinion on the Turkish army’s use of chemical weapons on 11 May 1999. Nevertheless, there is a need
to develop a clear view of the Kurdish question in Iraq and Turkey in the context of the Common Foreign
and Security Policy.

Will the Commission ‘submit proposals to the Council’ in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU so that a
clear view is reached on the ban of chemical weapons in Turkey and Iraq? If not, why does the
Commission refuse to submit a proposal in accordance with Article 22 of the TEU as the question is
extremely important for the Common Foreign and Security Policy?

(1) OJ C 340 E, 4.12.2001, p. 66.