WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/03 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Enlargement and social security advantages.
Date: 2003-11-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, accession to the European Union, disease prevention, free movement of persons, health care, health costs, health policy, seat of institution

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/461

(2004/C 88 E/0473)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3347/03

by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 November 2003)

Subject: Enlargement and social security advantages

Once EU enlargement is completed and EU citizens are free to move within new areas, new kinds of
problems will arise. One such problem is the different standard of public health in the old and new
Member States. In Estonia, for example, there are diseases highly resistant to antibiotics that will spread
more easily from one country to another when Estonia belongs to the Union. Estonia has as many carriers
of the HIV virus as Finland, even though, in population terms, it is less than a third of Finland’s size. Given
that the care of persons with HIV is expensive in any case but standards in the present EU countries are
higher than in the new Member States, the movement of sick people to other EU countries in search of
better care may pose a problem. Does the Commission think that it will be possible to prevent carriers of
dangerous diseases seeking a better standard of care from moving freely from country to country? What
progress has been made with the plans to set up a communicable diseases agency and is there any
proposal regarding its seat?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

The Honourable Member has raised a number of topics. The first relates to the spreading of communicable
diseases from one country to another. In order to provide a mechanism to observe and respond to patterns
in disease development, the Community has put in place a Community network for the epidemiological
surveillance and control of communicable diseases under Parliament and Council Decision No 2119/98/EC
of 24 September 1998 (1). This mechanism allows for continuous surveillance for diseases constituting a
major public health threat and for an alert and response system that enables the competent national
authorities to rapidly exchange relevant information. Accession countries have made considerable progress
in taking action to meet the provisions laid down by this Decision.

As regards questions relating to the mobility of patients between Member States, these issues are being
considered as part of the high-level reflection process on patient mobility and healthcare developments in
the Union.

The final meeting on this reflection process took place on 8 December 2003. The Commission plans to
respond to the recommendations of the process through a Communication in early 2004. As regards more
specifically the issue of assumption of medical costs incurred in another Member State,
it should be
pointed out that the Court, in a series of judgements (2), has recognised rights for patients to benefit from
medical treatment in another Member State and be reimbursed. Furthermore, the Court has clarified
conditions subject to which rights may be exercised in order, in particular, to guarantee the financial
balance of Member States’ social security systems and to ensure a high level of public health.

Finally, as regards the progress made in setting up the European Communicable Diseases Agency, the
Commission adopted in July 2003 the proposal for a Regulation establishing a European Centre for
Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) (3). The proposal aims at creating a European Centre able to
provide a structured and systematic approach to the control of communicable diseases and other serious
health threats which affect Union citizens. The creation of the ECDC as an independent European agency
would mobilise and significantly reinforce the synergies between the existing national centres for disease

C 88 E/462

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

control. It is expected to start operation in 2005. The Commission did not propose a site for the Centre, as
this issue will be addressed by the Institutions once the substance of the proposal has been agreed.

(1) OJ L 268, 3.10.1998.
(2) Kohll, case C-155/96, 28.04.98, ECR 1998 I-1931; Decker, case C-120/95, 28.04.98, ECR 1998 I-1831; Smits and
Peerbooms, case C-157/99, 12.07.01, ECR 2001 I-05473; Vanbraekel, case C-368/98, 12.07.01, ECR 2001 I-
05363; V.G. Müller-Fauré v Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij O.Z Zorkverzekeringen UA and E.E.M. Van Riet v
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorkverzekeringen, case C-385/99, 13.05.03 (not yet published); Patricia
Inizan v Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine, case C-56/01, 23.10.03 (not yet published).

(3) COM(2003) 441 final.

(2004/C 88 E/0474)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3369/03

by Cees Bremmer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 November 2003)

Subject: Detention of EU citizen in Thailand

Is the Commission aware of the sentencing of a European citizen, the Netherlands national Machiel Kuijt,
to life imprisonment for alleged drugs dealing? Is the Commission aware that this sentence was handed
down in appeal proceedings brought by the Thai Public Prosecutor after a lower Thai court had acquitted
Machiel Kuijt in March 2002, and that neither the convicted man nor his counsel, Geert-Jan Knoops, has
so far been allowed to see the grounds for the court’s decision?

Is the Commission aware of the extremely inhumane conditions in which Machiel Kuijt has been held
since 1997 in Klong Prem prison in Bangkok, where a strict regime of public corporal punishment is in
force, murder and rape are everyday occurrences, water is scarce and visits by relatives have so far been
permitted only twice a year?

Does the Commission agree that the above facts constitute a serious violation of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (particularly Articles 10 and 14), to which Thailand has been a party
since 29 January 1997?

Will the Commission at the earliest possible opportunity bring pressure to bear on the Thai authorities to
seek a fair and public judicial procedure and prevent Machiel Kuijt’s being held in such inhumane
conditions?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2003)

The Commission, through its Delegation in Bangkok, has been following the case of Mr Machiel Kuijt in
close liaison with the Embassy of the Netherlands in Thailand.

The Commission is aware of the recent judicial developments in this case and of the conditions of
Mr Kuijt’s imprisonment referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission does not get involved in cases of a consular nature, nor does it take a position, unless in
the context of a Union démarche previously agreed with the Member States.

In the Commission’s view, as indicated in its reply to written question E-2775/03 by Mr Maaten (1), the
competence to intervene in Mr Kuijt’s case lies primarily with the Dutch authorities.

The Commission would therefore suggest that the Honourable Member might wish to discuss this issue in
the first place with the Dutch Government.

(1) See page 114.