WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/02 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Pension rights.
Date: 2002-11-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Ireland, United Kingdom, bonus payment, citizens' Europe, cumulative pension entitlement, pension scheme, retirement conditions

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/71

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 November 2002)

It is for each Member State, in accordance with its national legal system, to organise and distribute powers
within its own structures, bearing in mind the treaties. Article 203 of the EC Treaty provides that ‘the
Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, authorised to commit
the government of that Member State’. The Honourable Member’s attention is also drawn to the answer by
the Commission to Oral Question H-0683/02 tabled by Ms Diez Gonzalez during question time at the
October 2002 (1) part-session of the European Parliament.

(1) Written answer of 22.10.2002.

(2003/C 161 E/076)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3155/02

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2002)

Subject: Pension rights

Is it acceptable that a primary school teacher who gives 40 years unbroken service in two European
Member States, namely the UK and the Republic of Ireland suffers from discrimination in contrast to other
workers in a similar situation, in that the teacher will not receive the full pension and end-of-service
gratuity to which forty years’ unbroken service should entitle him/her?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(22 November 2002)

The question raises two separate issues:

1.

Entitlement to Pension:

(cid:1) It is not clear from the information provided whether the person concerned is having problems
with his/her state pension, or with an occupational pension. As regards the former, Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 (1) aims to ensure that people who move do not lose out on their social
security rights. When a person reaches pensionable age he/she will receive an old age pension in
respect of each Member State where he/she has paid social insurance contributions for at least
12 months.

(cid:1) On occupational pensions, Council Directive 98/49/EC (2) offers some protection. However,

it
does not stipulate minimum vesting periods, nor are occupational pension schemes obliged to
allow members who move to another Member State to continue to make contributions. Further
information is required in order to give more specific advice.

2.

Entitlement to end-of-service gratuity:

(cid:1) The Commission considers that migrant workers’ previous periods of comparable employment
acquired in another Member State must be taken into account by Member States’ administrations
for determining professional advantages (e.g. salary, grade)
in the same way as applies to
experience acquired in their own system (Article 39 of the EC Treaty and Article 7 of Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 (3));

(cid:1) In the view of

the Commission an end-of-service gratuity could be considered as such a
professional advantage; more information about this gratuity would be necessary in order to
evaluate this in-depth;

C 161 E/72

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

(cid:1) From the information provided in the written question it is not clear in which of the two Member
States mentioned the person concerned has
encountered the described problems. The
Commission, therefore, suggests that the Honourable Member or the concerned citizen provide
additional
information direct to the services of Directorate General Employment and Social
Affairs. On the basis of that information the Commission will evaluate if further investigations
will be undertaken.

(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.

(2) Council Directive 98/49/EC of 29 June 1998 on safeguarding the supplementary pension rights of employed and

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

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

Community, OJ L 257, 19.10.1968.

(2003/C 161 E/077)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3191/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 November 2002)

Subject: Investigation into a cartel of plasterboard manufacturers

In his reply to question E-0929/02 (1), Commissioner Monti repeats virtually verbatim the text of MEMO/
01/149. Very recently, the Belgian construction materials manufacturer Etex announced that it was selling
its 52,94 % holding in Gyproc Benelux NV to the British company BPB. The latter already held 46,1 % of
the shares. At the same time it was announced that British Plasterboard intended to sell its shares in Polish
and German branches of Gyproc to the French company Lafarge. Although the Commission is not
officially prepared to divulge their names, the four companies were named in articles in the press in April
2001 in connection with a cartel investigation by the Commission.

Is the Commission aware of these by no means insignificant changes in the plasterboard industry, and does
it consider them to be in accordance with economic legislation within the EU?

Has the formal hearing referred to in MEMO/01/149 and the answer to question E-0929/02 already taken
place? If so, can the Commission provide a progress report on the investigation?

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 59.

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

To date, the Commission has not been informed (cid:1) formally or informally (cid:1) of any of the transactions
referred to in the Honourable Member’s question.

As regards the investigation into the companies mentioned by the Honourable Member, the Commission
adopted on 27 November 2002 a decision imposing fines of EUR 249,6 million on Lafarge SA,
EUR 138,6 million on BPB plc, EUR 85,8 million on Gebrüder Knauf Westdeutsche Gipswerke KG and
EUR 4,32 million on Gyproc Benelux SA/NV, making a total of EUR 478,32 million (1). Following its in-
depth investigation, the Commission concluded that between 1992 and 1998 these companies had taken
part in a cartel on the plasterboard markets in Germany, France, the United Kingdom and the Benelux
countries, whereby they had agreed to restrict competition on these markets in line with their interests,
exchanged information on sales volumes and informed one another of price increases on the German and
UK markets. Lafarge, BPB and Knauf were involved in the cartel from 1992 to 1998 and were joined in