WRITTEN QUESTION P-2712/02 by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission. Welfare benefits for emigrant Spanish grape-pickers.
Date: 2002-09-20
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agricultural labour force, migrant worker, seasonal worker, social security legislation, social-security benefit, social-security contribution, social-security harmonisation

C 58 E/8

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

The Commission would furthermore draw the Honourable Member’s attention to the fact that projects
financed under the Structural Funds (1) often have a cultural dimension,
including the restoration and
utilisation of the architectural and cultural heritage, the building of cultural facilities, the setting-up of
cultural and tourist services and the provision of training in the arts or in the management of cultural
activities.

(1) More specifically: the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), the European Social Fund (ESF) and the

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF).

(2004/C 58 E/008)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2712/02

by María Izquierdo Rojo (PSE) to the Commission

(20 September 2002)

Subject: Welfare benefits for emigrant Spanish grape-pickers

More than 15 000 Spanish casual workers are currently employed as grape-pickers in France. As far as
their rights are concerned, it has been stated that for the present harvesting season of 2002 ‘grape-pickers
shall be exempted from the obligation to pay sickness insurance and pension contributions under the
French social security system’. In addition, the information booklet distributed by the Spanish Ministry of
Employment to the grape-pickers states clearly that ‘at the end of the contract, workers should ask their
employer to give them their pay receipts, which should include specification of the social security
payments made on their behalf’. In the present circumstances, it is difficult to see how this obligation
could be met.

Can the Commission confirm that for the harvesting season of 2002 grape-pickers will be exempted from
the obligation to pay sickness insurance and pension contributions under the French social security system,
and will thus not be entitled to the corresponding social and employment benefits? Does the Commission
not consider that this situation points up the ineffectiveness of the EU rules on social security and the
failure to respect the international principles governing welfare? Is this not a case of discrimination against
workers from another Member State? Can the Commission provide an estimate of the total sum of lost
benefits for these workers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

Community law, as laid down in Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the
application of social security schemes to employed persons, self-employed persons and their families
moving within the Community and in Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 fixing the
procedure for its implementation (1), provides only for coordination of Member States’ social security
systems with a view to providing social protection to persons moving within the Union. Seasonal workers,
as defined in Article 1(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, enjoy the same rights and obligations as any
other category of workers. This is clear from Article 2 (persons covered), Article 3 (principle of equal
treatment for Member State and Community nationals) and Article 13(2)(a) (applicable legislation) of the
Regulation.

As far as the specific benefits referred to in the Honourable Member’s question are concerned, it should be
pointed out that, in the case of sickness benefits, Article 18(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 states
clearly that the provisions governing the aggregation of insurance periods, periods of employment and
periods of residence apply also to this type of workers, provided only that the worker concerned has not
ceased to be insured for period exceeding four months. To this end, the seasonal worker must present to
the institution in the place of residence a certified statement issued by the competent institution and valid
for the same duration as the seasonal work (2).

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/9

As for occupational accident benefits, Article 52 of the aforementioned Regulation is clear insofar as it
extends the same protection to all types of workers by entitling them to benefits in kind offered by the
State of residence and paid by the competent State. In this respect, Article 60(3) of Regulation (EEC)
No 574/72 provides that the competent State shall issue a certified statement entitling the holder to these
benefits in the State of residence.

In the case of unemployment benefits, it should be noted that, as a general rule, unemployed persons are
entitled to unemployment benefits in the State of their last employment. Thanks to Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71, however, seasonal workers have a right to choose between the country of residence and the
country of last employment: they may choose to make themselves available to the employment services of
either their country of employment or their country of residence. This right of option derives from social
and practical efficiency considerations. It is,
in fact, only natural that these workers, who have close
personal and professional
links with the country in which they have established themselves and are
ordinarily staying, should have the best chances of reintegrating into the labour market in that State (3).

Finally, Article 108 of Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 imposes an obligation on seasonal workers to present
their stamped contract of employment to the employment services of the State in which they are carrying
out their activity. This procedure counters the concern expressed in the question that it would be difficult
for workers to ask their employer to give them their pay receipts specifying the social security payments
made on their behalf.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971 and OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.
(2) Cf. Article 17(3) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.
(3) Cf. Article 69(1)(c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71.

(2004/C 58 E/009)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3549/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

(4 December 2002)

Subject: Compatibility of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 with the free movement of workers within the

European Community guaranteed by the EC Treaty

On 25 July 2002 the Lombardy Association of Journalists wrote to the President of the Milan Court
requesting the annulment of the decision registering Mr Claude Marie Jenacolas, a French citizen, as editor-
in-chief of the Italian magazines ‘Gente Casa’ and ‘Spazio Casa’ published by Hachette-Rusconi.

The Lombardy Association of Journalists claimed that Claude Jenacolas could not carry out the functions
of editor-in-chief because, although he had been a journalist for decades, he was not entered on the
professional register of
journalists: Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 (law establishing the
Association of Journalists) provides that the editor and deputy editor of a daily newspaper, periodical or
press agency (…) must be entered on the register of professional
journalists (a judgment by the
Constitutional Court has since ruled that those entered on the register of publicists (cid:1) designed to cover
those who work as journalists on a non-exclusive, but regular and paid basis (cid:1) may also carry out such
functions).

The Lombardy Association of Journalists seems to want to resolve this issue with a solution which is
anything but transparent, proposing that Mr Claude Marie Jenacolas should register with the association of
publicists; however, (cid:1) as pointed out above (cid:1) this register is in fact intended to cover those who work as
journalists on a non-exclusive, but regular and paid basis, and consequently does not cover the case of
Mr Jenacolas who is working exclusively and permanently as a journalist. In this context, it should also be
noted that the decision of the Council of the Lombardy Association of Journalists of 11 November 2002
entering Mr Jenacolas on the register of publicists appears irregular to say the least, given that Article 35 of
Law 69/9063 requires those entered to have worked as publicists for at least two years, evidenced by a
minimum number of published and paid articles, and certified by a statement by the editor-in-chief of the
Italian publication in which the articles appeared.

Does the Commission not consider that Article 46 of Law 69 of 3 February 1963 is incompatible with
Article 39 of the EC Treaty, which provides for the free movement of workers within the Community?