WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/03 by Giovanni Pittella (PSE)and Elena Paciotti (PSE) to the Commission. Professional training of future specialists.
Date: 2003-02-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law - national law, Italy, education grant, in-service training, national implementing measure, pay, physician, social security, vocational training

C 161 E/216

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(19 March 2003)

According to the Annual Report 2002 of the European Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA),
the Greek Ministerial Council approved a number of decisions in June 2001 directed towards a holistic,
unified and co-ordinated policy on drugs. According to the report, the government committed itself to
introducing a five-year national action plan on drugs with specific targets. Further development of the
treatment services for the drug addicts is part of this policy.

Greece has also taken part in the mid term evaluation of the Union Action Plan on drugs 2000-2004 by
submitting to the Commission information concerning the implementation of the targets set for the
Member States in the Union Action Plan. A final evaluation of this Action Plan will take place in 2004.

Greece has participated in many of
the Community Action Programmes against drugs and drug
dependencies from 1996-2002, but the projects subsidized within this programme aim at prevention
rather than cure. The treatment systems set up in the Member States for the treatment of drug addicts do
not fall within Union competence but are the responsibility of the Member States. Funding for the
reintegration of the former drug addicts to the labour market e.g. through education may have been made
available through different non drug specific programs.

(2003/C 161 E/226)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0421/03

by Giovanni Pittella (PSE)
and Elena Paciotti (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Professional training of future specialists

In Italy Legislative Decree No 368 of 17 August 1999 implemented Directive 93/16/EEC (1) on the free
movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of
formal qualifications, as amended by Directives 97/50/EC (2), 98/21/EC (3), 98/63/EC (4) and 1999/46/EC (5).

On the basis of this legislation the contractual status of doctors studying to become specialists is equivalent
to that regulated by on-the-job training contracts.

The implementation of the provisions of Legislative Decree No 368/99 is dependent on the adoption of
regulations concerning financial cover, which the Italian Government has, however, not incorporated in
the budget.

Can the Commission say what steps it intends to take to ensure that Italy implements Directive 93/16/EEC
by providing adequate financial cover for Legislative Decree 368/99, in order to make contractual and
social security arrangements for on-the-job training applicable to doctors undergoing further training?

(1) OJ L 165, 7.7.1993, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 291, 24.10.1997, p. 35.
(3) OJ L 119, 22.4.1998, p. 15.
(4) OJ L 253, 15.9.1998, p. 24.
(5) OJ L 139, 2.6.1999, p. 25.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

According to Annex I of Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of
doctors and the mutual
formal
qualifications (also called Doctors Directive) the training of specialists shall be carried out in specific
posts recognised by the competent authority. Whilst no specific indication is given concerning the

their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of

recognition of

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/217

In this respect

to an appropriate remuneration.

contractual and social security arrangements, the above-mentioned annex explicitly stipulates that this
training is subject
the
Honourable Members is drawn to the ruling of the European Court of Justice in case C-131/97 (Carbonari)
where it was stated that the obligation resulting from the above Directive that the trainee specialists receive
remuneration is unconditional. The Court equally pointed out that it is common ground that the Doctors
Directive does not contain any Community definition either of the remuneration which is to be regarded
as appropriate or of the methods by which that remuneration is to be fixed. Such definitions are in
principle a matter for the Member States, which must adopt specific implementing measures in the field.
At the same time Member States enjoy a broad discretion in determining the body liable to provide
remuneration for the periods of training in medical specialities.

the particular attention of

It follows that a Member State might decide either to remunerate the trainee specialists with a ‘borsa di
studio’ (study bursary) or in accordance with ‘contratto di formazione’ (training contract) while respecting
the above principles. On the basis of available information, the Commission does not see any ground for
intervention as it cannot be concluded that Italy is currently breaching the principles resulting from the
jurisprudence of the Court

(2003/C 161 E/227)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0427/03

by Jean Lambert (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: The status of pension entitlements

It has recently been brought to my attention that, in the UK, pensioners have a proportion of their pension
withdrawn from them for every week over 6 weeks that they spend in hospital. As a result of pressure
from various groups, that period will be increased to 11 weeks in October 2003.

This creates problems for many pensioners, since time spent in hospital does not necessarily reduce
monthly outgoings (e.g. rent payments).

It appears to me that, since pensions constitute social security payments, and are thus an entitlement based
on a percentage of wages paid in over the years rather than a social welfare benefit which is awarded
according to need, there is no justification for reducing pension payments during time spent in hospital.

Does the Commission agree that pensions are entitlements based on contributions made to the social
security system rather than social welfare benefits?

Does the Commission agree that stopping pensions payments during time spent in hospital penalises
pensioners in this position and may therefore be deemed to be discriminatory?

Can the Commission give its view on this UK practice?

Is the Commission aware of any similar rules in place in other Member States?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 March 2003)

In most Member States, the link between contributory benefits and the total amount of contributions is
not fully actuarial and there are elements of solidarity built into contributory social protection schemes.
These solidarity elements may operate both on the contribution (e.g. no upper limit to contributions even
though earnings-related benefits are capped) and on the benefit side (e.g. taking into account individual
needs). The United Kingdom state pension is a flat-rate pension benefit financed from earnings-related
contributions. A supplement is paid for dependents. Both the basic state pension and the supplement for
dependents can be reduced in the event of a hospital stay.