WRITTEN QUESTION E-0519/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons.
Date: 2004-02-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU national, Switzerland, agreement (EU), disability insurance, free movement of persons, pension scheme, retired person, revision of an agreement, social security legislation

C 84 E/610

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

As regards the areas covered by, and the funding for, those projects, the Honourable Member and
Parliament’s Secretariat will be receiving under separate cover full information on each of the five projects.

The only requirements regarding project partnerships are that (a) they must be set up by at least two
organisations (public or private) in two different Member States and (b) they must play an active part in
combating and preventing violence. The partnership may, therefore, consist either in a combination of
public authorities and ONGs or in only one of those categories.

(2004/C 84 E/0685)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0519/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Subject: Agreement between the EC and the Swiss Confederation on the free movement of persons

Under Decision No 2/2003 of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee of 15 July 2003 amending Annex II (Social
Security) to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and
the Swiss Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons (1), Portuguese citizens who
had emigrated to Switzerland but are now retired or receiving an invalidity pension and have returned to
Portugal no longer enjoy the option of requesting exemption from compulsory Swiss sickness insurance as
from 1 June 2003.

Around 6 000 Portuguese workers, who had not been informed of this change in advance, are now
receiving forms from Switzerland on which they must name the insurer of their choice, to which they
must immediately pay the corresponding contribution, even though they will not be prohibited from
access to health care in Portugal.

Can the Commission explain why Portuguese immigrants to Switzerland are being treated differently from
immigrants from other Member States under this decision?

(1) OJ L 187, 26.7.2003, p. 55.

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(7 April 2004)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that under the Agreement on Free Movement
of Persons with Switzerland (1), it does not depend on the nationality of a pensioner with a Swiss pension
but on the Member State where he resides whether he is insured against sickness in Switzerland or in the
Member State where he resides. In fact, under this Agreement, pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in
certain Member States may ask to be exempt from Swiss sickness insurance and be insured in the Member
State of residence, while such pensioners residing in other Member States must be insured in Switzerland.

The possibility to ask not to be insured against sickness in the country which pays a pension does not exist
under EU legislation (2): between Member States, a pensioner with a pension from one Member State who
resides in another Member State must be insured in the sickness scheme of the Member State which pays
him the pension. Annex II (coordination of social security) of the Agreement with Switzerland actually
provides that the same rule also applies in the relations between Switzerland and most Member States. But
as an exception to this rule, pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Germany, Italy, Austria, Portugal
or Finland could initially ask not to be insured in Switzerland.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/611

Nevertheless, Portugal requested at a later stage that such pensioners residing in Portugal could no longer
ask to be exempt from the Swiss sickness insurance and be insured in Portugal instead. This required that
Annex II of the Agreement be amended by decision of a Joint Committee. As the request meant that
Portugal would apply the same rules as most other Member States in relation to Switzerland, which
moreover are the same rules as apply amongst Member States, the Joint Committee, consisting of the
representatives from the contracting parties in Switzerland, the Member States and the Community agreed
to the Portuguese request. Annex II of the Agreement was therefore amended accordingly (3).

Therefore, from 1 June 2003 pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Portugal must be insured against
sickness in Switzerland; only pensioners with a Swiss pension residing in Germany, France, Italy and
Austria may ask not to be insured against sickness in Switzerland.

(1) OJ L 114, 30.4.2002.
(2) Regulations (EEC) No 1408/71 and (EEC) No 574/72, 1st consolidated version: Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97
of 2 December 1996 amending and updating Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security
schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to members of their families moving within the
Community and Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 laying down the procedure for
implementing Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71, OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(3) 2003/554/EC: Decision No 2/2003 of the EU-Swiss Joint Committee of 15 July 2003 amending Annex II (Social
Security) to the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss
Confederation, of the other part, on the free movement of persons.

(2004/C 84 E/0686)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0520/04

by Giovanni Fava (PSE) to the Commission

(17 February 2004)

Subject: Proposal for a regulation on technical measures regarding fisheries in the Mediterranean

Knowing that:

(cid:1) European fisheries associations are united in opposition to the proposal for new technical measures

for fisheries in the Mediterranean (1).

(cid:1) The proposal would lead to the creation of an unbridgeable gap between Member States and third

countries and would permanently hinder the harmonious development of the Mediterranean.

(cid:1) It also ignores the social and economic impact of legislation and the inconsistency of the socio-

economic measures contained in structural policy.

Does the Commission intend to withdraw the proposal at the appropriate time and to rewrite the text
following genuine, sincere and in-depth consultations with representatives of the industry?

(1) COM(2003) 746 final.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2004)

The Commission has no intention of withdrawing this proposal.

The Commission is not aware that fishermen’s associations were opposed to the temporary technical
measures in the Mediterranean in the document referred to in the written question. These measures have
been adopted by the Council as part of Council Regulation (EC) No 2287/2003 of 19 December 2003
fixing, for 2004, the fishing opportunities and associated conditions for certain fish stocks and groups of
fish stocks, applicable in Community waters and, for Community vessels, in waters where catch limitations
are required (1).