WRITTEN QUESTION E-1347/02 by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission. Social security provision.
Date: 2002-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU Member State, case-law (EU), disabled person, free movement of persons, interpretation of the law, residence, social security, social-security benefit

14.11.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 277 E/191

In view of all this, can the Commission say:

(cid:20) whether the report is true;

(cid:20) if it is, how this strategy will benefit farmers, especially those with small and medium-sized and family
farms, bearing in mind the proposals to dismantle the CAP’s market pillar and for the co-funding of
agricultural expenditure (as has already been proposed for the candidate countries);

(cid:20) what the risks are as regards the EU’s dependence on food and agriculture, in particular in the area of
vegetable proteins, which might be caused by this kind of strategy, and what the risks for food safety
are?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(24 June 2002)

The Commission has no knowledge of the report mentioned by the Honourable Member.

The Community’s position in the World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations on agriculture is set out
in the negotiating proposal adopted by the Council
the
Agriculture Council (20-21 November 2000). The Commission is negotiating within the limits of the
Council position.

in October 1999 and the conclusions of

(2002/C 277 E/212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1347/02

by Robert Evans (PSE) to the Commission

(13 May 2002)

Subject: Social security provision

Would the Commission clarify the current situation regarding Member States’ obligations towards their
citizens who move to another EU country, as regards the continued payment of social security benefits?

I have a constituent who has been receiving Disability Living Allowance and who wishes to move to
Belgium, where he will live with his partner. It seems that he is entitled to continue receiving Incapacity
Benefit but not Disability Allowance.

Would the Commission clarify this?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2002)

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. This is the case with the
British Incapacity Benefit.

However,
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). This list includes the British
disability living allowance.

C 277 E/192

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.11.2002

The validity of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 was questioned in case C-20/96, Snares v
Adjudication Officer. The Court of Justice held in that case that the amendments introduced by Regulation
(EEC) No 1247/92 actually worked to protect the interests of migrant workers in accordance with
Article 51 (now Article 42) of the EC Treaty. This is because such a person can be entitled to these special
non-contributory benefits in the Member State of residence without having previously been subject to that
Member State’s social security system, and the Member State of residence will, in appropriate cases, have to
take into account periods of employment, residence and insurance completed in other Member States. The
Court therefore concluded that the Community legislator was entitled to enact Regulation (EEC) No
1247/92. This conclusion was confirmed by the Court in the Partridge case (C-297/96) at paragraph 29, in
the Jauch case (C-215/99) at paragraph 21 and in the Leclere case (C-43/99) at paragraph 32.

In the Snares judgements the Court of Justice, answering exclusively the question of the validity of
Community Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92, confirmed in principle the compatibility of such a derogation
from the principle of the exportability of social security benefits with the EC Treaty, in particular in the
case of benefits which are closely linked to a specific economic and social context. The conditions for the
entry of any particular benefit in Annex IIa, according to its characteristics under national
law, and
therefore the correctness in general of the entry of the benefits in the Annex, were not considered by the
Court. However, the Court has supplemented this case law by the judgements handed down in Jauch and
Leclere. In these judgements the Court held that the derogation in respect of exportability resulting from
the inclusion of certain benefits in Annex IIa is incompatible with the principle of free movement of
workers laid down in the EC Treaty, particularly where these were not special benefits but related to the
traditional areas of social security.

In the light of this jurisprudence, the Commission is currently examining whether the benefits listed in
Annex IIa always meet the criteria laid down by the Court of Justice to justify their non-exportability. This
examination concerns all the benefits in the Annex including the British disability living allowance. If
certain benefits do not satisfy those criteria, the Commission will propose to the Community legislator to
legislative
remove from Annex IIa those entries which it
amendments or even pursue infringement proceedings.

feels are no longer justified to present

(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 of 2 December 1996, (OJ L 28, 30.1.1997).

(2) See Article 4(2)a and Article 10(a) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, introduced by Regulation (EEC) No 1247/92 of

30 April 1992, (OJ L 136, 19.5.1992).

(2002/C 277 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1354/02

by Carlos Carnero González (PSE) to the Commission

(6 May 2002)

Subject: Commission’s position on the use of nuclear energy in the EU

In statements made at
the end of April 2002, Commissioner Loyola de Palacio publicly and
unambiguously advocated the use of nuclear energy in the EU with a view to enabling the Union to
meet its commitments under the Kyoto Protocol. She thus confirmed her previous statements, which had
led the author of the present question to put an earlier question on 4 February 2002 (E-0133/02) (1). The
Commission’s remarkably brief answer, received on 2 April 2002, simply stated that the Commission’s
position on nuclear energy is set out in the Green Paper on energy supply of November 2000 and that the
like those of any other Commissioner, be
statements referred to in the questions concerned should,
understood in context. Despite this, press reports published today state that the Commissioner for the
environment, Mrs Margot Wallström, has expressed her opposition to Mrs de Palacio’s pro-nuclear views.
The author of this question obviously agrees with Mrs Wallström and, it may well be, with a majority of
public opinion.

Given these circumstances, can the Commission state whether its official position on nuclear energy is that
of Mrs Wallström or that of Mrs de Palacio?

(1) OJ C 172 E, 18.7.2002, p. 151.