WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/03 by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Electronic health card.
Date: 2003-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU national, electronic document, form, free movement of persons, health card, health care, health policy, information technology applications, social security

C 58 E/198

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

treatment in the field of employment and working conditions. Article 3(6) of that draft act extends, in
vague terms, the notion of justification for indirect discriminatory acts where these are warranted ‘by
legitimate aims pursued through appropriate and proportionate means’.

The clause extending that justification, which does not refer to the specific religious beliefs earlier cited,
does not precisely detail the various cases for which the Italian Government intends to establish a practice
or national law as provided for in Article 4 of the European Directive, and therefore leaves employers
substantial leeway for interpretation, particularly in the area of a person’s sexual orientation. The only
specific definition provided in the legislative decree concerns the legitimacy of excluding anyone who has
received a definitive sentence for paedophilia or other sex crimes against minors from posts in the field of
assistance, care and education for children. This specific definition and the lack of a clear and unequivocal
definition of discriminatory differences of treatment has in practice been used by the RAI head office in
Venice to exclude staff who had stated a particular sexual orientation from managing broadcasts of
television programmes for children.

Does the Commission not consider that the vagueness of Article 3(6) of the Italian legislative decree could
give rise to arbitrary interpretations and consequently to applications of that decree that conflict with
Article 4 of Directive 2000/78/EC (1), under which the only discriminatory acts not to be deemed as such
religious
relate to manifest
organisations?

religious beliefs and the tenets of

incompatibilities between personal

What steps will
to ensure that Directive 2000/78/EC of
27 November 2000 is transposed in a correct and consistent manner and that any unlawful discriminatory
act conflicting with the actual derogations provided for in that directive is penalised?

take vis-à-vis the Italian Government

it

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(8 October 2003)

As the Commission just received official notification from Italy on 4 September 2003 of the transposal of
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation (1), it is not in a position to comment at this stage on the text adopted.

In order to ensure that the Directive is transposed fully and coherently, the Commission has asked Member
States to provide,
in support of their notification, a table showing correlation between the provisions
contained in the Directive and those contained in national legislation. The Commission will use this table
to examine in detail the provisions to which it refers, and in particular the limited derogations permitted
by the Directives.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000.

(2004/C 58 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2707/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 September 2003)

Subject: Electronic health card

In winter 2002, the Commission made a proposal for the introduction of a personal electronic health card
carrying all the medical and administrative data on each citizen of a Member State. This card would
replace the E111 form that is needed to obtain coverage for the expenses borne by citizens of a Member
State in the event of their receiving health treatment in another Member State during a stay as a tourist,
would fully respect privacy and could also be used in relation to patient mobility.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/199

Could the Commission indicate what stage this proposal has reached, whether a timetable has been agreed
for its implementation and whether a feasibility study has been conducted to gauge costs and the
repercussions for patient mobility?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(14 October 2003)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that on 18 June 2003 the Administrative
Commission on Social Security for Migrant Workers adopted three decisions which will allow the use of
the European health insurance card as of 1 June 2004. The objective of this card is to facilitate access to
health care across Europe, and therefore to promote mobility by avoiding the current
form-based
procedures.

The European card will be introduced initially in a format which will allow essential data for the provision
of health care and reimbursement of the cost to be read by the human eye. However, countries which
already use electronic media may continue to do so and incorporate the data which must be included on
the European card. In general, Member States may choose to incorporate the European card into an
existing national card (cid:1) or cards issued by regional authorities (cid:1) or to issue a special card.

The European card will initially replace only form E 111, which allows access to emergency health care
during a visit to a Member State other than the state in which the individual is insured. Adoption of the
proposal for a Regulation amending Regulations (EEC) Nos 1408/71 (1) and 574/72 (2) in relation to the
alignment of rights (3) will allow the European card to be substituted for other forms used for access to
health care during a trip to another country, namely the E 128 (used in the case of postings to or studies
in another Member State), the E 110 (used for international road transport) and the E 119 (used for
jobseekers in another Member State).

The idea behind the European card is to transfer ultimately to an electronic version of the forms. One of
the factors on which this will depend is the evaluation of certain projects which are currently under way
and are being supported by the Union, such as Netc@rds, in which several Member States are involved.
At this stage of the project the Commission has not yet decided the arrangements for transferring to an
electronic version in all Member States.

(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. Updated by Council
Regulation (EC) No 118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997, and last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 187, 10.7.2001.

(2) Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71, OJ L 74, 27.3.1971. Updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/97, OJ L 176, 4.7.1997, and
last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1386/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 187,
10.7.2001.

(3) COM(2003) 378 final.

(2004/C 58 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2714/03

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Claims for damages in the case of wrongful births

(11 September 2003)

In Belgium in recent years there have been scores of legal actions brought by parents of disabled children.
The parents are systematically claiming damages from doctors who fail to diagnose a defect in the foetus
during pregnancy. The parents claim that if the disability had been detected, a termination could have been
carried out. Belgian courts have ordered doctors to pay significant sums in damages. Very recently a judge
in the Netherlands awarded damages to a seriously handicapped girl aged nine. In France there has been a
similar judgment (Nicholas Perruche case). Insurers and obstetricians refer to these as wrongful birth or
wrongful births. They also point out that gynaecological examinations never provide 100 per cent
certainty.