WRITTEN QUESTION E-0195/04 by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Access to medical treatment in Member States.
Date: 2004-01-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, health care, health expenditure, health legislation, right to health, social security

C 84 E/172

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

law does not currently recognise the concept of ‘reasonable accom-
example, the fact that national
modation’, the possible effect on retirement age and occupational pensions, etc. The Member States which
take advantage of the extra time period are obliged to inform the Commission on an annual basis what
steps they are taking to tackle discrimination and the progress they are making towards full transposition
of the Directive.

All other provisions of this Directive had to be transposed into national law by 2 December 2003. The
Commission has already launched the first stage of infringement procedures against those Member States
which have not yet notified their national legislation, or have not adopted all the legislation necessary
(Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Finland and the
United Kingdom).

(2004/C 84 E/0211)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0192/04

by Philip Bradbourn (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(22 January 2004)

Subject: Repayments under n+2 rule

Will the European Commission please supply its best estimate of what the United Kingdom, under the n+2
rule, will have to pay back by region for the financial year 2003?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2004)

The application of Article 31(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999 of 21 June 1999 laying down
general provisions on the Structural Funds (1) requires that the Commission shall automatically decommit
any part of a commitment which has not been settled by the payment on account or for which it has not
received an acceptable payment application by the end of
the second year following the year of
commitment. There are certain exceptions in the case of judicial procedure and administrative appeals.

At the present time, the Commision has not completed the processing of payment declarations relating to
2001 and it is not therefore in a position to provide the information requested by the Honourable Member
at this stage. The Commission has undertaken to inform the Member States by end-February 2004 on any
possible automatic decommitments resulting from the application of the ‘n+2’ rule for the period ending
on 31 December 2003.

(1) OJ L 161, 26.6.1999.

(2004/C 84 E/0212)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0195/04

by Avril Doyle (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Access to medical treatment in Member States

Can the Commission confirm that it is the case that under a ruling of the EU courts, patients who cannot
access essential medical treatment within a reasonable timeframe in their own State have the right to
access such treatment in other EU Member States and that their own State will meet the bill for such
treatment?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/173

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(11 March 2004)

The Commission confirms that in its judgments in the Smits and Peerbooms (1) and Müller-Fauré/van
Riet (2) cases, the Court of Justice stated that, pursuant to Article 49 of the EC Treaty, authorisation to
undergo hospital treatment in another Member State cannot be refused in the event that the same or
equally effective treatment for the patient cannot be obtained without undue delay within the national
territory.

The Court of Justice specified that ‘in order to determine whether treatment which is equally effective for
the patient can be obtained without undue delay in an establishment having an agreement with the insured
person’s fund, the national authorities are required to have regard to all the circumstances of each specific
case and to take due account not only of the patient’s medical condition at the time when authorisation is
sought and, where appropriate, of the degree of pain or the nature of the patient’s disability which might,
for example, make it impossible or extremely difficult for him to carry out a professional activity, but also
of his medical history’ (Müller-Fauré/van Riet judgment, paragraph 90).

The Court of Justice also specified that such authorisation could not be refused solely on the grounds that
there were waiting lists on national territory for the hospital treatment concerned, without account being
taken of the specific circumstances attaching to the patient’s medical condition.

Under Article 22 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (3), the competent institution in the Member State where
the individual is insured is responsible for reimbursing the medical costs incurred in another Member State
by patients with an authorisation. Responsibility for these costs is borne according to the principles of that
Regulation (application of the conditions of the country where benefits are provided), and Article 36 of the
Regulation determines the practical conditions for taking responsibility between social security institutions.
It should be noted that in the Vanbraekel judgment (4), the Court of Justice considered that this Regulation
‘does not in any way prevent the reimbursement by Member States, at the tariffs in force in the competent
State, of costs incurred in connection with treatment provided in another Member State (see Case C-158/
96 Kohll [1998] ECR I-1931, paragraph 27) where the legislation of the Member State in which the person
concerned is insured makes provision for such reimbursement and the tariffs applied under that legislation
are more beneficial than those applied by the Member State in which the treatment was provided.’

(1)
(2)

Judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-157/99 Smits and Peerbooms [12.07.01], ECR 2001, p. I-05473.
Judgment of 13 May 2003 in Case C-385/99 V.G. Müller-Fauré v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij
O.Z. Zorkverzekeringen UA and E.E. M. Van Riet v. Onderlinge Waarborgmaatschappij ZAO Zorkverzekeringen,
ECR 2003, p. I-04509.

(3) 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, as updated by Regulation
118/97, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.
Judgment of 12 July 2001 in Case C-368/98 Vanbraekel, ECR 2001, p. I-05363.

(4)

(2004/C 84 E/0213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0196/04

by Ward Beysen (NI) to the Commission

(29 January 2004)

Subject: Temporary agency workers directive

Does the definition of ‘pay’ exclude pensions, other financial benefits and overtime? If so, does the
Commission intend to expressly exclude these items in the proposed directive?

If the aforementioned items are not expressly excluded from the proposed Directive, is it intended that
their application (or exclusion) should be determined by Member States or by collective agreements? If so,
does the Commission intend to expressly state this intention in the proposed directive?