WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/03 by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission. Freedom of movement in the EU and risk of abuse of welfare systems.
Date: 2003-12-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: accession to the European Union, free movement of workers, job access, labour market, social security, transitional period (EU)

C 78 E/874

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

The Commission is carefully analysing the laws, regulations and administrative provisions which will be
brought into force by Member States to comply with Directive 2001/77/EC. In the case of Ireland, the
Commission started an infringement procedure on 25th November 2003 for non communication of the
national execution measures under Directive 2001/77/EC.

In the light of the transposition, the Commission will ensure that all measures are taken to ensure a fair
grid access as required in Article 7.

Regarding the State Aid aspects, the Commission takes the same view as in the previous Commission
answers to questions P-2460/03 and E-2457/03.

(1) OJ L 283, 27.10.2001.

(2004/C 78 E/0927)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3908/03

by Olle Schmidt (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Freedom of movement in the EU and risk of abuse of welfare systems

1 May 2004 will be an historic day (cid:1) West and East Europe reunited after decades of separation. While
we should welcome this occasion, we should also be aware of some of the issues which may arise in
connection with it, in particular those associated with freedom of movement. In the spring, when the
borders open to citizens in the ten new Member States, where in general the standard of welfare is lower
than in the rest of the EU, there is a risk of abuse of the welfare systems in the current Member States.
To obtain a residence permit, students are required to be self-supporting, whereas there is no such
requirement of workers. The Court of Justice has ruled that the minimum working time for definition as
employment is ten hours per week for some form of consideration, not necessarily money. Ten hours’
employment now entitles the employee to a residence permit, which opens the door to the Member States’
welfare systems. Transitional rules are not an acceptable measure to prevent
this as it would be
discriminatory.

As these issues are currently the subject of intensive debate in most Member States, will the Commission
say whether it intends to introduce general measures, applying to all EU citizens, in order to combat abuse
and whether it will take the initiative to redefine the term ‘employed’ in order to prevent abuse of the
Member States’ welfare systems?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

During the preparations for enlargement, specific attention was paid to the issue of free movement of
people following enlargement. In particular, it was studied in detail the issue of the likely size and impact
of mobility in the post-enlargement period.

The overall conclusion from the analyses indicates that mobility from the new Member States to the
current 15 Member States is estimated to remain rather limited. These conclusions are in line with
previous enlargement experiences, in particular when Spain and Portugal joined the European Community.
Also at that time, it was observed that the improvement in expectations as well as the better opportunities
available to improve one’s standard of living and quality of life encourages people to remain in their home
country.

Free movement of persons and non-discrimination on the basis of nationality are fundamental rights for
community nationals within the European Union. Furthermore,
labour mobility is facilitated to better
match demand and supply on the European labour markets.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/875

To facilitate the transition at the moment of enlargement, a number of specific measures have been
foreseen to accompany the principle of free movement.

The following has been agreed for all Acceding Countries, except Malta and Cyprus. It should be stressed
that these measures will only apply to free movement of salaried workers and that in relation to other
categories of citizens (self-employed, students, inactive or retired people) Community provisions regarding
the right to free movement and residence will apply from the day of accession.

For the first two years after accession, the current Member States will admit workers from the future
Member States under national rules. Current Member States may completely liberalise access to their
labour markets during these two years, but through national measures.

Two years after accession, the Commission will report on the situation and the current Member States will
have to announce whether they intend to continue with national measures for a maximum three years
after the initial two-year transitional period, or whether they intend to apply Community rules on the free
movement of workers.

It is only if a current Member State can show serious disturbances in the labour market, or a threat of such
disturbances, that they will be able to say that they continue to restrict access to their labour markets for
an additional two years.

Germany and Austria have the right to apply flanking national measures to address serious disturbances or
the threat thereof, in specific sensitive service sectors (such as construction or industrial cleaning) on their
labour markets, which could arise in certain regions from cross-border provision of services, involving the
movement of workers.

(2004/C 78 E/0928)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3916/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI), Marco Pannella (NI),
Marco Cappato (NI), Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI),
Benedetto Della Vedova (NI)
and Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(17 December 2003)

Subject: Unsatisfactory standards in Italy for checking that medical staff have the necessary professional

qualifications

Knowing that:

(cid:1) on 5 September 2003 Mr Fabio Gaetano Arcuri suffered an accident resulting in a fracture and
dislocation of the left shoulder and went to the accident and emergency department of the San
Giacomo hospital in Rome for treatment;

(cid:1) he was seen by the so-called Dr Robert

Ingravalle a consultant

in the hospital’s orthopaedic

department;

(cid:1) as Dr Ingravalle considered that emergency surgery was required, he referred Mr Arcuri to the Pio XI
private clinic in Rome where, the day after his discharge from the San Giacomo hospital, he underwent
the planned surgery which was carried out by Dr Ingravalle himself;

(cid:1) the operation was unsuccessful and Mr Arcuri not only had to undergo further surgery but also
lengthy and expensive rehabilitation; he subsequently made inquiries about the consultant from the
orthopaedic department of the San Giacomo hospital and, to great surprise, he soon found that the
Dr Ingravalle had never obtained a degree in medicine and that his name had never appeared on the
professional register of surgeons;