WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/02 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Barriers to free movement posed by the system of non-statutory supplementary pensions.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: citizens' Europe, double taxation, equal treatment, free movement of workers, retired person, supplementary pension, tax system, transfer of pension rights

C 205 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the replies already given on these matters during
Question Time at the February 2002 part-session in Strasbourg (Question H-0055/02 by Hans-Peter
Martin ‘Salary demands of the Chairman of the Convention’) and in response to Hans-Peter Martin’s
Written Question P-3630/01 ‘President of the Convention’.

The Council would point out that at its plenary session on 27 and 28 February 2002 the European
Parliament approved the arrangements for financing the Convention.

It would also remind the Honourable Member that it was the European Council which appointed Mr Valéry
Giscard d’Estaing Chairman of the Convention, as can be seen from point III of Annex I
‘Laeken
declaration on the future of the European Union’ to the Presidency conclusions 9 Laeken, 14 and
15 December 2001. His question 6 is therefore no longer an issue.

(2002/C 205 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Barriers to free movement posed by the system of non-statutory supplementary pensions

The system of non-statutory supplementary pensions poses barriers to mobility for EU citizens who are
employed, or have been employed, in a number of Member States in the course of their working lives.
Examples of such barriers are the fact that some schemes stipulate a qualifying period before pension
rights can be built up or the fact that 9 and this occurs more frequently 9 periods cannot be aggregated.
As non-statutory supplementary pensions do not come under the relevant regulations, there are no
arrangements to compensate for barriers placed in the way of the free movement of workers.

Does the Commission agree that the system of non-statutory supplementary pensions poses barriers to the
free movement of workers within the Union? Does the Commission intend to introduce compensatory
measures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, current Community legislation on social security for
migrant workers (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) does not cover non-statutory supplementary pension
schemes.

These schemes fall under Directive (EC) No 98/49 (2) which guarantees equality of treatment as regards
preservation of pension rights. Member States are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure the
preservation of vested pension rights for members of a supplementary pension scheme,
in respect of
whom contributions are no longer being made to that scheme as a consequence of their moving from one
Member State to another, to the same extent as for members in respect of whom contributions are no
longer being made but who remain within the same Member State.

Member States should also ensure that, in respect of members of supplementary pension schemes, as well
as others holding entitlement under such schemes, supplementary pension schemes make payments in
other Member States, net of any taxes and transaction charges which may be applicable, of all benefits due

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/97

under such schemes. Directive (EC) No 98/49 also enables contributions to continue to be made to a
supplementary pension scheme established in a Member State by or on behalf of a posted worker who is a
member of such a scheme during the period of his or her posting in another Member State.

However, this directive does not address other problems such as that of qualifying periods. Given the
complexity of this issue, which concerns, both social protection and taxation matters, it is important to
involve all interested parties in the development of appropriate solutions. The Commission has therefore
created a European Pensions Forum which gives the Member States, the social partners and pensions
institutions and funds the opportunity to examine jointly the main obstacles and try to identify the best
solutions. On the basis of the outcome of these discussions the Commission will, as announced in its
Action Plan for skills and mobility of 13 February 2002 (3), formally consult with the social partners in
Spring 2002 with a view to further action in order to make progress in the portability of
the
supplementary pension rights for migrants workers.

Furthermore, the taxation of supplementary pensions often creates barriers to the free movement of
workers. Therefore, the Commission issued its ‘Communication on the elimination of tax obstacles to the
cross-border provision of occupational pensions’ on 19 April 2001 (4). On the basis of this Communi-
cation the Ecofin Council has undertaken to work on improvement of the exchange of information on
occupational pensions between Member States, and on double taxation and double non-taxation issues.
The Ecofin has given itself until the end of this year to conclude this work. The Commission for its part is
currently examining Member States’ tax rules on occupational pensions, and will take the necessary steps
to ensure effective compliance with the fundamental freedoms of the EC Treaty, including bringing the
matter before the Court of Justice on the basis of Article 226 of the EC Treaty. There are already two cases
pending in the Court of Justice, the Danner case and the Skandia-Ramstedt case (5). Both cases could
contribute strongly to the elimination of tax barriers, if ruled in favour of the taxpayers.

(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, OJ L 149, 5.7.1971. Regulation updated by
Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97of 2 December 1996 (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997) and last amended by Regulation (EC)
No 1386/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 5 June 2001 (OJ L 187, 10.7.2001).

(2) Council Directive (EC) no 98/49 of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pensions rights of employed

and self-employed persons moving within the Community, OJ L 209, 25.7.1998.

(3) COM(2002) 72 final.
(4) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee,

OJ C 165, 8.6.2001.

(5) Cases C-136/00 and C-422/01 respectively.

(2002/C 205 E/109)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0231/02

by Arlindo Cunha (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Implementation of the CSF in the forestry sector in Portugal

framework for Portugal was approved,

When the Community support
the Minister of Agriculture
announced the Government’s intention to invest PTE 200 billion in the forestry sector. However,
information from those working in the sector indicates that the rates of execution (aid agreements between
the State and beneficiaries) both under the AGRO programme (Measure No 3) and under RURIS
(afforestation of agricultural land) are well below the levels agreed with the Commission, which may lead
to Community appropriations being transferred to other States after 2002.

In view of this scenario, can the Commission say what the material and financial rates of execution of
these measures (in the form of contracts, not merely approved projects) are?