WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/03 by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC.
Date: 2003-12-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, administration of the Institutions, antisemitism, image, report

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/313

Article 22 of Regulation 1408/71 has in fact made provision for a mechanism for the reimbursement of
expenses for treatment which patients have been authorised to undergo in another Member State,
particularly for hospital care. Article 36 of the Regulation organises the practical conditions for this
reimbursement between social security institutions. With regard to treatment which a person intends to
undergo in another Member State, the aforementioned Article 22 sets out cases in which Member States
cannot refuse authorisation for the financial reimbursement of treatment abroad. It therefore leaves the
Member States every opportunity to determine other circumstances in which authorisation can be
accorded under their national legislation. The problems to which the Honourable Member refers have been
raised by Member States with regard to the reimbursement of hospital care obtained directly in another
Member State under the freedom to provide services and not under Regulation 1408/71. This does, in fact,
require prior authorisation for hospital care, which the Court feels is justified. This instrument does
therefore contain technical and administrative solutions for the reimbursement of patients in another
Member State under guaranteed conditions, provided that the Member States use it more broadly and
more transparently.

(1) Written answer of 17.12.2003.
(2) V.G. Müller-Fauré v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij OZ Zorgverzekeringen UA and E.E.M. van Riet v.
Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorgverzekeringen judgment. Case C-385/99 of 13.05.03, ECR 2003
p. I-04509.

(3) Kohll judgment, Case C-155/96 of 28.04.98, ECR 1998 p. I-1931, Decker judgment, Case C-120/95 of 28.04.98,
I-05473,

I-1831, Smits and Peerbooms judgment, Case C-157/99 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p.

ECR 1998 p.
Vanbraekel judgment, Case C-368/98 of 12.07.01, ECR 2001 p. I-05363.

(4) Patricia Inizan/Caisse Primaire d’Assurance Maladie des Hauts de Seine judgment, Case C-56/01 of 23.10.03 (not yet

published).

(5) 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, version updated by
Regulation 118//97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2004/C 78 E/0314)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3693/03

by Armin Laschet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 December 2003)

Subject: Unpublished study on anti-Semitism drawn up by the EUMC

1.
Can the Commission say whether it agrees with the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and
Xenophobia (EUMC) that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-Semitism at the
Technical University in Berlin in October 2002 should not be published?

2.

If so, for what reasons?

If not, whether it will try to ensure that the study drawn up by the Centre for Research on Anti-

3.
Semitism at the Technical University in Berlin is published as soon as possible?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 January 2004)

The report on anti-Semitism to which the Honourable Member refers was carried out by the Berlin
Technical Institute under contract to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC)
and not the Commission. A statement by the EUMC issued on 26 November 2003 rejects the allegations
that the report was ‘shelved’. In this statement, the Chair of the Management Board stated that the
members of the Management Board ‘considered the work undertaken by the contractors to be of poor
quality and lacking in empirical evidence’. The Chair also made clear his regret that a ‘collective decision of
the Board based purely on the insufficient quality of the research carried out by the Berlin Centre has been
used to discredit the important work which the EUMC has to do in the fight against racism and
xenophobia in Europe’.

C 78 E/314

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Management Board of the EUMC which took the collective decision on the quality of the research is
composed of 15 independent and eminent experts in the field of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism as
well as a representative of the Commission, the Council of Europe and the Parliament.

The research in question has now been published on the EUMC website at the following address: http://
www.eumc.eu.int/eumc/index.php.

The report is accompanied by a statement setting out why the Management Board deemed the research to
be of insufficient quality.

(2004/C 78 E/0315)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3696/03

by Anna Karamanou (PSE) to the Commission

(3 December 2003)

Subject: Balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process

Council recommendation 96/694/EC (1) of 2 December 1996 calls on the Commission to submit to the
Parliament (inter alia) a report on its implementation ‘on the basis of the information provided by the
Member States and the institutions, subsidiary bodies and decentralised bodies of
the European
Communities’, for the first time three years after adoption of the recommendation and thereafter annually.
Only the first of these reports has so far been transmitted to the European Parliament in 2000.

When is the Commission intending to transmit the annual reports which should have followed? Have the
questionnaires been sent to the Member States (and those states and institutions concerned by the
to gather and assimilate information on progress achieved in the
recommendation)
implementation of the recommendation? Why has the Commission not yet complied with its obligation
under the Council recommendation?

in order

(1) OJ L 319, 10.12.1996, p. 11.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

A balanced participation between women and men in decision-making is a subject
Commission attaches much importance.

to which the

Council recommendation 96/694/EC on the balanced participation of women and men in decision making
was followed up by a report by the Commission in 2000. The report concluded that the policies
implemented since 1996 have had a positive effect overall. However, original expectations had not been
met and further follow up has taken place.

The Commission has been following the situation in regard to gender equality in decision- making in its
annual reports on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. The reports produced from 2000 onwards
have provided selected figures in the field and also described trends in the development of legislation in
Member States concerning gender balanced political participation.

Since 1999 the Council of Ministers has adopted conclusions on indicators for monitoring progress in
policy areas related to the Beijing Platform for Action. A set of indicators and statistics focusing on women
in economic decision-making was adopted at the meeting of the Council on 1 December 2003.

Under the framework of the 4th Union Action Programme on Equal Opportunities, the Commission
funded the ‘European Database Women in Decision-Making’. The balanced participation of women and
men in decision making in all spheres of life was the central theme of programme activities for grants in