WRITTEN QUESTION E-2841/03 by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Social assistance benefit and right of residence.
Date: 2003-09-25
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Germany, Netherlands, equal treatment, free movement of workers, interpretation of the law, residence permit, social security legislation, social-security benefit, unemployment insurance

C 65 E/230

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

(2004/C 65 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2838/03

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject: Destruction of the road linking Paradisia and Tsakona in Messinia

The 13-kilometre road linking Paradisia and Tsakona in Messinia was funded under the 1st and 2nd
Community Support Frameworks and was opened in April 2000. In 1995, the road was already found to
have geological problems and the regional authorities asked the Ministry for the Environment, Planning
and Public Works in July 1995 to carry out a geological study with a view to repairing the road as there
was a landslide problem. Those authorities were ignored.

On 20 March 2000 a report by an advisor to the Ministry stressed the seriousness of the problem. A study
was commissioned and delivered on 29 April 2002, which confirmed that a landslide of 3 000 000 cubic
metres had taken place. No action had been taken to repair the road by 15 January 2003 when the
mountainside collapsed rendering the road unusable.

Can the Commission confirm or deny the above? Were the studies relating to the construction of the

1.
road put into effect? Were satisfactory geological studies carried out?

2. Was a report drawn up by the Special Quality Control Council
(ESPEL) on the qualitative
shortcomings of the above road? Were similar measures taken by the body responsible for inspecting
public works?

3.

Can the Commission jointly finance the reconstruction of the road if the Member State so requests?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2003)

The information provided by the Greek authorities responsible for the day-to-day management of projects
supported by the Structural Funds confirms that a report was submitted on 29 April 2002 indicating the
existence of a landslip affecting the route in question. On the basis of this report a further examination
was carried out in order to evaluate, among other things, the most efficient and effective way of dealing
with the problem. While this examination was being carried out, on 12 January 2003, 15 days before the
landslip, it was decided to close the road due to safety concerns.

The organisation for control, ESPEL, performed two visits to the project in question, documented in two
reports. The phenomenon was not detected during these two visits and the project was classified as clear
from any technical problems or insufficiencies. Following the landslip, the Body of Inspectors of Public
Works inspected the project and the circumstances surrounding the landship, and provided a report which
cleared the managers of the project from responsibility for the damage.

The reconstruction of the road is to be financed entirely from national resources.

(2004/C 65 E/246)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2841/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Social assistance benefit and right of residence

(25 September 2003)

A problem has arisen with a German family residing in the Netherlands which consists of a single
(divorced) mother aged 50 and three children aged 14, 18 and 19. The 19-year-old daughter has a child
who has both Netherlands and German nationality. The family has lived in the Netherlands for 5 years.
The mother worked in Germany for more than eight years as a frontier worker, after which she was made
redundant. She receives Dutch unemployment benefit pursuant to Article 71(1)(a)(ii) of Regulation (EEC)
No 1408/71 (1). This benefit is to be terminated very shortly. During her period of unemployment the

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/231

family has been entitled to Dutch child benefit and social benefits such as rent subsidy, financial assistance
to students, etc. The mother’s residence permit, which she renewed after she had become redundant, states
that she is an ‘economically inactive Community citizen’ and that ‘the right of residence will lapse in the
event of any claim being made on public funds’. The Dutch aliens police consider that when the statutory
unemployment benefit lapses she will have no entitlement to social assistance benefit in the Netherlands.
However, there will be such an entitlement if the mother and oldest daughter apply for a permanent
residence permit under the domestic law of the Netherlands. The fee for such a permit is EUR 511 per
person (or, for newly arrived EU citizens, EUR 890).

Do the German mother and her 19-year-old German daughter (with a Dutch/German child) fall
1.
under the scope of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 (2) (Articles 4 and 7) and Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 (3)
(Article 7)?

2.

If so, can the mother and daughter be denied Dutch social assistance benefit?

Is it permissible for the residence permit of a Community citizen to include the statement, ‘the right

3.
of residence will lapse in the event of any claim being made on public funds’?

Is it permissible for an EU/EEA citizen who has resided in the Netherlands for 15 years to be charged

4.
a fee of EUR 511 for a permanent residence permit?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.
(2) OJ L 142, 30.6.1970, p. 24.
(3) OJ L 257, 19.10.1968, p. 2.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

1. and 2.
On the basis of the information provided in the written question, neither the German mother
nor any of her children are or have been working in the Netherlands. They have not therefore exercised
their right to free movement of workers when moving to the Netherlands; they have exercised their right
to free movement of persons as provided for in Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the
right of residence (1).

Therefore, the German mother and her 19-year-old daughter do not fall under the scope of Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement of workers within the
Community (Article 39 EC) and Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70 of the Commission of 29 June 1970 on the
right of workers to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State.
Rules on equal
treatment of Union nationals provided for on these Regulations are therefore not
applicable.

3.
As migrant workers and retired workers who fulfil the conditions of Regulation (EEC) No 1251/70
are entitled to equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State in relation to all social advantages
it is not permissible that the residence permits granted to these citizens
(including social assistance),
include the statement, the ‘right of residence will lapse in the event of any claim being made on public
funds’.

The Commission also considers that the practice of the Dutch authorities is contrary to Council Directive
90/364/EEC. For this reason, it has opened an infringement procedure against the Netherlands, and a
reasoned opinion following Article 226 of the EC Treaty has been sent to the Dutch authorities on 3 April
2003.

4.
Under current Community law a Member State is only obliged to grant Union citizens residence
permits with limited duration (the length depends on the right under which the citizen is living in the
other Member State e.g. at least five years for a migrant worker). According to Community law, these
residence permits should be issued and renewed free of charge or on payment of an amount not exceeding
the dues and taxes charged for the issue of identity cards to nationals.

C 65 E/232

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

However, the Commission considers that it is the sole competence of the Member States to grant to Union
citizens permanent residence permits. As long as the right of Union citizens to be granted the residence
permits with limited duration is equally provided for, it is up to the Member State to decide if and under
which conditions it will grant permanent residence permits. The Commission therefore considers that the
Dutch legislation in question is not violating Community law.

(1) OJ L 180, 13.7.1990.

(2004/C 65 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2842/03

by Ria Oomen-Ruijten (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(25 September 2003)

Subject: Introduction of deposit system for beverage packagings in Germany

Is the Commission aware of the leaked report by the independent German institute Prognos concerning
the impact of the introduction in Germany of a deposit system for non-returnable beverage packagings
(cost: up to EUR 1,2 billion and nearly 10 000 jobs)?

Does the Commission conclude from this that even greater efforts are needed to improve or secure the
abolition of the German deposit system?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(23 October 2003)

The Commission’s position on the German deposit system was explained in the replies given by the
Commission on 3 July 2003 to Written Question E-1549/03 by Mr Manders (1) and on 29 August 2003 to
Written Question E-2519/03 by the Honourable Member and Mrs Grossetête (2). Currently, measures are
being prepared in Germany to introduce a return and collection system for one-way packaging affected by
the German deposit system. The Commission is closely monitoring this process. The study mentioned by
the Honourable Member will be taken into account in the assessment of the German system. Based on the
results of this assessment, the Commission will not hesitate to take the appropriate action to ensure
compliance with Community law.

(1) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 192.
(2) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 267.

(2004/C 65 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2852/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 September 2003)

Subject: Italian projects submitted in the context of the Community action programme for public health

Data supplied by the Commission concerning the projects funded by the Community action programme
for public health reveal that 171 projects worth a total of approximately EUR 37 million were approved
and financed between 1996 and 2002. Only two of these were Italian projects and they accounted for only
about EUR 500 000.

Can the Commission say how many Italian projected were submitted under this programme, in order to
show whether
there were reasons for repeatedly
considering the projects unsuitable?

few Italian projects were submitted or whether