WRITTEN QUESTION E-2767/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The Commission's actions in the sickness insurance case before the Court of Justice.
Date: 2001-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, European Commission, health insurance, interpretation of the law, preliminary issue, redemption

C 81 E/208

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

In its amended proposal (2), the Commission introduced, on the basis of the opinion of the European
Parliament (3), a certain number of provisions to increase legal certainty, transparency and the rights of
third parties in order to prevent abuses of protection by utility model. The improvements made include a
better definition of inventive activity, the possibility for third parties (cid:129) and not only for applicants (cid:129) to
request that a search report be drawn up on the state of the art, the adding of the search report to the file,
and the obligation to draw up a search report in the event of legal proceedings or extension of protection
beyond six years.

Lastly, and this is an important point if the concerns of the Honourable Member were to be borne out, the
amended proposal provides for a follow-up of the Directive. After a period of three years following
transposition of the Directive into national law in the Member States, the Commission may propose that
corrections be made to the mechanism.

(1) OJ C 36, 3.2.1998.
(2) OJ C 248 E, 29.8.2000.
(3) OJ C 175, 21.6.1999.

(2002/C 81 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2767/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s actions in the sickness insurance case before the Court of Justice

In the Vanbraekel case heard by the Court of Justice the governments of Sweden, Iceland, Norway and
another nine EU countries intervened, arguing that in their opinion Dutch patients should not be entitled
to reimbursement by their national sickness insurance scheme for treatment in another country.

The Commission urged the Court to take the opposite view.

Does the Commission consider it reasonable to directly oppose the majority of EU Member States on such
a burning political issue? Should the Commission not lie low and adopt a more (cid:145)civil service(cid:146) attitude and
refrain from pushing for a politically revolutionary social policy with a supranational thrust?

Answer given by Ms Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

submitted for a preliminary ruling,
the Vanbraekel case
In connection with questions
(C-368/98) (1), the Commission,
in its role as guardian of the provisions of the Treaty, pursuant to
Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty, presents the Court of Justice with elements of interpretation
of Community law that it considers to be relevant for settling the dispute concerned.

such as

The observations presented by the Commission to the Court of Justice are in keeping with the objectives of
the Community laid down in the EC Treaty and can only be based on the principles established in
Community law, primary or secondary legislation, as interpreted by the Court of Justice through its case-
law concerning, in particular, the exercising of basic freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty.

(1)

Judgment of the Court of 12 July 2001.