WRITTEN QUESTION P-0297/03 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Pension reform.
Date: 2003-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, social-security contribution

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/205

Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3) lays down provisions with a view to enabling people who are staying or
residing in the territory of a Member State other than the State providing insurance to obtain medical care
there. Forms have been drawn up to allow people who need medical care in the State where they are
staying or residing to obtain such care on presentation of the appropriate form. For example, form E 128,
quoted by the Honourable Members, allows people who are temporarily posted by their employer to the
territory of another Member State to obtain the necessary medical care during their stay.

As a general rule, the principles of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 lay down that health care is provided
according to the legislation of the Member State where the person receives treatment as if they were
insured in that country, the costs of treatment then being chargeable to the institution in the State
providing insurance for that person. In principle, this system ensures equal treatment of people residing or
staying in the territory of a Member State.

Consequently, Italian nationals resident in Belgium who present form E 128 can claim the necessary care
in Belgium, in accordance with Belgian legislation, as if they were insured there. Under the principle of
equal treatment, they should therefore benefit from the same prices as Belgians who are insured, as the
Court of Justice recently pointed out in the Ferlini judgment (4). Being subject to Belgian legislation, they
are also obliged, in the same way as those insured in Belgium, to pay the health care providers the amount
of the fees and then to apply for reimbursement from the mutual benefit association.

The Commission cannot, therefore, approach the Belgian authorities to obtain the right
for Italian
nationals to be fully reimbursed for the medical costs that they incur. Furthermore, since the sickness
scheme organisation is exclusively a matter for Belgium, the Commission cannot intervene to obtain
intervene if it turned out that doctors or
checks on doctors practising in Belgium. It could, however,
hospitals are charging people insured according to the legislation of other Member States higher prices
than they are charging those insured in Belgium.

(1)

Judgment of 28.4.1998, Case C-158/96, Kohll;
12.7.2001, Case C-157/99, Smits and Peerbooms.

judgment of 28.4.1998, Case C-120/95, Decker;

judgment of

(2) There are exceptions to this general principle, notably in the case of hospital treatment. In this case, the insurance

body pays the health care provider the amount of the entitlement directly.

(3) Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to
employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the Community, last
updated by Regulation (EEC) No 118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(4) Case C-411/98, judgment of 3.10.2000.

(2003/C 161 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0297/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(4 February 2003)

Subject: Pension reform

A reform of EU civil servants’ pensions is currently in preparation. In the course of the preparations it has
become clear that the Commission will not require officials to pay the cost of pension contributions
amounting to one third of the total pension cover, as laid down in the Council regulation. Consequently
the bill for over two-thirds of these pension payments will come to the Member States. How does the
Commission justify the fact that the full amount of the pension payments is not collected from the
officials?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 March 2003)

According to the Staff Regulations, officials are required to finance one third of the contribution necessary
for the actuarial balance of the scheme, and they always have. Nothing in the proposals made by the
Commission justifies the view expressed in the Honourable Member’s question that ‘the Commission will
not require officials to pay the cost of pension contributions amounting to one third of total pension
cover’.

C 161 E/206

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Employees’ contributions have been increased several times since the adoption of the EU civil service
pension scheme. The last increase dates back to January 1993 and brought the total contribution to
24,75 % (one third to be borne by staff and therefore accounting for 8,25 %). An expert actuarial study
carried out in 1998 showed that this overall contribution rate might prove to be insufficient in the future.
The study also drew attention to the fact that the parameters to be taken into account for calculating the
contribution had not been clearly defined. As a result, the components of the scheme, the actuarial method
to be taken into account, and the parameters to be used (interest rates, mortality table, etc.) had not been
properly identified. Without clear definitions any proposal based on inadequate hypotheses and parameters
can obviously be disputed.

In its reform proposal, the Commission has consequently proposed means of giving greater clarity to the
arrangements by the establishment of an objective procedure aimed at clearly specifying the components
of the scheme and at ensuring the actuarial balance provided for in the Staff Regulations. This procedure is
included in the proposed amendments to be made to the Staff Regulations (Annex XII).

The Honourable Member is invited to note that, in its proposal, the Commission does not advocate any
new actuarial burden-sharing between the staff and the budget. Under the Commission proposal, the staff
will still contribute one third to the financing of the scheme. As soon as an agreement on the parameters
to be taken into account is achieved in the Council, the contribution rate will be adjusted accordingly. It is
envisaged that the new contribution will be implemented from 1 January 2004, and the Commission has
proposed that it be reviewed annually thereafter.

(2003/C 161 E/215)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0299/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Closure of the www.savechechnya.org website in the Russian Federation

On 21 January 2003 the Russian Internet service provider Mastak.Ru decided to close the www.savechech-
nya.org information website of
the Council of Non-Governmental Organisations (CNO). Ms Galina
Borisova, the service provider’s representative, explained Mastak.Ru’s decision as follows: ‘Our company
has always tried to stay outside political questions and your site has an anti-Russian slant, which creates
the site in question, which provided independent
serious problems for us in our work’. However,
information on the humanitarian and political situation in Chechnya and campaigned against the war in
the Caucasian Republic, never had the slightest anti-Russian content. The decision to close the site
represents a violation of the right of users of Russian, Chechen or any other nationality to free and
independent information. It constitutes a new attack on the freedoms and fundamental rights of citizens of
the Russian Federation, a breach of the Russian Federation’s international undertakings and a fresh obstacle
to the freedom of action of the NGOs. It contributes, furthermore, to reinforcing still further the news
blackout on the many abuses of power committed by the Russian military and paramilitary forces in
Chechnya.

What information does the Commission have on this matter? Has the Commission asked the Russian
authorities for an explanation of this latest arbitrary decision violating freedom of thought and speech?
What steps will the Commission take to induce the authorities in the Russian Federation to put an end to
the continual erosion of the fundamental freedoms and civil and political rights of the citizens of the
Russian Federation?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(28 February 2003)

The Commission is aware of reports that a private Russian Internet provider has decided to refuse to host
the Internet sites of the Chechen Committee for National Salvation and the Council of non-governmental
organisations, allegedly for their ‘anti-Russian’ content.

The Commission is, however, not aware that there is evidence of pressure having been brought by the
authorities on the Internet provider to refuse to host the Internet sites in question. It would appear that
this particular matter should be settled between those directly involved.