WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/02 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Study grants for the children of frontier workers.
Date: 2002-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Netherlands, citizens' Europe, discrimination on the basis of nationality, education grant, equal treatment, frontier worker, interpretation of the law, social legislation

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/211

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2002)

The record of Member States in transposing Council Directive 1999/13/EC of 11 March 1999 on the
limitation of emissions of volatile organic compounds due to the use of organic solvents in certain
activities and installations is far from being satisfactory. In accordance with Article 226 of the EC Treaty,
the Commission has initiated infringement procedures against all Member States for their failure to notify
the transposing measures within the deadline laid down in the Directive. Eight infringements have been
closed in the meantime, while Austria has received a reasoned opinion for having failed to transpose the
Directive and cases against Greece, Spain, Ireland, Italy and the United Kingdom are being brought before
the Court of Justice. Moreover, the infringement procedure against Belgium is still under examination.

In relation to the website which has been set up to facilitate implementation of the Directive which is
accessible from the Commission’s web site, the Commission is examining options to ensure that the
information on the web site remains up to date. It is too early to say whether the configuration of this
particular web site will serve as a good model to assist in the implementation of other environmental
directives. However, in general, internet based tools such as web sites clearly have a role to play in general
in both communicating environmental legislation and in assisting in its implementation.

(2002/C 309 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2234/02

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Study grants for the children of frontier workers

(23 July 2002)

With regard to the award of study grants to children of frontier workers, a large number of problems have
already been resolved. However, a few problems are still outstanding, and they need to be regulated more
effectively.

1.
Can the Commission indicate whether the Netherlands, as a Member State of the EU, may terminate
the award of a Netherlands study grant to the child of a Belgian (or German) frontier worker employed in
the Netherlands if the said frontier worker is obliged to terminate his/her employment on the grounds of
incapacity for work or invalidity or if he/she is made redundant?

Can the Commission indicate whether the Netherlands, as a Member State of the EU, may withhold
2.
study grants from children who are studying in the Netherlands and are members of a family living in the
Netherlands, all the members of which hold Belgian (or German) nationality and in which the father is
employed as a frontier worker in Belgium (or Germany), on the grounds that the children do not hold
Dutch nationality?

3.
Can the Commission indicate why the entitlement of Dutch students to the award of a grant to study
in neighbouring countries (except forWallonia) is restricted to higher education and is not available for
senior secondary vocational education?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 September 2002)

The Honourable Member has asked whether the Commission believes it

1.
is compatible with
Community law for the Netherlands to withdraw the right to a study grant for a frontier worker’s child
when the parent loses his or her job on the grounds of incapacity for work or redundancy. In this instance
the Commission would like to refer to the Meeussen case (C-337/97) (1), according to which the child of a
frontier worker can rely on Article 7(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (2) to obtain funding for studies
under the same conditions as those applied to the children of nationals of the State of employment.
However, for the children of workers who have lost their jobs on the grounds of incapacity or redundancy,
the Court of Justice has said that, as former frontier workers are not currently engaged in an employment

C 309 E/212

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

relationship, they cannot thereby claim to acquire new rights having no links with their former occupation
(Leclere judgment (C-43/99) (3), point 59). However, it may be deduced from this case law that rights
already acquired, as a migrant worker or the child of a migrant worker, must be preserved.

The case to which the Honourable Member refers in the second question concerns families of Belgian
2.
(or German) nationality living in the Netherlands, whose father is a frontier worker in Belgium or
Germany. In this case the child cannot invoke Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 in relation to the
Netherlands, as neither parent works in the Netherlands. However, this clearly refers to families of EU
citizens who have exercised the right conferred on them by the EC Treaty to reside in a Member State
other than their state of origin (Article 18, EC Treaty). Members of these families can therefore rely on
Article 12 of
the
the EC Treaty, which prohibits discrimination on grounds of nationality,
advantages which fall within the scope of Community law (see in particular Grzelczyk (C-184/99) (4) and
D’Hoop (C-224/98) judgments (5)). It follows from the answer to the first question that the right to study
grants in the Netherlands falls within the scope of Community law. The children of the families concerned
are therefore entitled to funding for studies under the same conditions as those applied to the children of
Dutch nationals in the same situation.

for all

3.
The Commission does not know why Dutch students’ entitlement to grants to study in neighbouring
countries is restricted to higher education and excludes senior secondary vocational education. On this
point,
it is up to the Member States to independently lay down the conditions for acquiring and
maintaining the right to benefits such as study grants, provided these conditions comply with Community
law, in particular the ban on discrimination on grounds of nationality. This latter principle does not appear
to be infringed in the case mentioned in the third question.

The Commission has contacted the authorities in the Netherlands to ask their opinion on whether the
cases referred to in questions 1 and 2 do not constitute discrimination on grounds of nationality, which
would mean they were incompatible with Community law. The Commission will keep the Honourable
Member informed of the outcome of this inquiry.

Judgment of 8 June 1999, ECR 1999, I-3289.

(1)
(2) Council Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the

Community, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.
Judgment of 31 May 2001, ECR 2001, I-4265.
Judgment of 20 September 2001, ECR 2001, page I-6193.
Judgment of 11 July 2002, not yet published.

(3)
(4)
(5)

(2002/C 309 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2241/02

by Torben Lund (PSE) to the Commission

(23 July 2002)

Subject: Call for eco-labels to be financed from taxes on chemicals

Regulation (EC) No 1980/2000 of 17 July 2000 (1) states that the aim of eco-labelling is to award an eco-
label in order to ‘promote products with a reduced environmental impact during their entire life cycle and
to provide consumers with accurate, non-deceptive and scientifically based information on the environ-
mental impact of products’.

In many ways,
the scheme is a success but it suffers from two main drawbacks. Consumers lack
information about eco-labels and companies are faced with major economic and administrative burdens
when a product is due to be awarded such a label.