WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/04 by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission. Transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC — competence of Member States to define occupational retirement provision.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: financial institution, financial legislation, interpretation of the law, labour law, pension scheme, right of establishment, social security legislation, supplementary pension

C 84 E/842

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

The Commission is encouraged that the European Convention has included in the draft Constitution
a variety of elements that will enhance the Union’s capacities. Streamlined decision-making procedures,
a more powerful role for the Parliament, the appointment of a double-hatted ‘Foreign Ministers’/Vice-
President of the Commission in charge of external relations and the creation of a Union legal personality
arena. It will also help improve internal coordination. The Commission hopes that the Constitution will be
adopted and enter into force as soon as possible.

As with trade, competition and the implementation of the European Monetary Union (EMU) and the
introduction of the Euro this will have a strong effect on the EU’s visibility and its ability to act as a
worldwide player. Internally, the fact that the Foreign Minister will chair the Council of Ministers for
Foreign Affairs will make coordination easier to organise. This said, the Constitution will not constitute a
panacea. In legal terms it still leaves room for Member States to follow a differentiated approach on
Common foreign and security policy (CFSP) matters, as does Common Position 03/444/CFSP of 16 June
2003 on the ICC. Much will therefore depend on the ability of the Foreign Minister and the willingness of
Member States to implement not only the letter but also the spirit of the draft Constitution, and in
particular Article III-206 (1):

international
Member States shall coordinate their action in international organisations and at
conferences. They shall uphold the Union’s positions in such fora. The Union Minister for Foreign
Affairs shall organise this coordination.

A single ‘Minister’ who is able to coordinate both the input into CFSP of Community external action and
the contributions of Member States, supported by a single Joint External Action Service will contribute to
the capacity of the Union, its Member States and its institutions to formulate and implement solid and
united foreign policy positions more coherently and consistently.

(1) COM(2002) 247 final.

(2004/C 84 E/0935)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0689/04

by Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Transposition of Directive 2003/41/EC (cid:1) competence of Member States to define occupational

retirement provision

In my opinion the above Directive is unclear with regard to the definition of benefits and the issue of
biometric risk coverage.

Under Article 9(2) of Directive 2003/41/EC (1), Member States may provide that institutions can cover
biometric risks and offer the option of repayment of contributions if employers and employees, or their
respective representatives, so agree.

Article 20 of the same Directive (cross-border activities) states that institutions offering services in a host
Member State must comply with its labour and social law requirements.

If the labour and social law requirements in a Member State currently provide for payment of lifelong
pensions and biometric risk coverage by institutions for occupational retirement provision, does this mean
that the same must apply to all
i.e. also
institutions from other home Member States?

institutions offering services in this (host) Member State,

(1) OJ L 235, 23.9.2003, p. 10.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/843

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 2004)

The Commission informs the Honourable Member that Article 9.2 of Directive 2003/41/EC (1) provides
that:
in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity and taking due account of the scale of pension
benefits offered by the social-security regimes, Member States may provide that the option of longevity and
disability cover, provision for surviving dependants and a guarantee of repayment of contributions as
additional benefits be offered to members, if employers and employees, or their respective representatives
so agree.

In the case where a Member State would require this option to be offered in accordance with the principle
of subsidiarity and taking due account of the scale of pension benefits offered by the social-security
regimes, an institution for occupational retirement provision may provide services in that Member State in
accordance with Article 20 of Directive 2003/41/EC, provided it respects this provision.

(1) Directive 2003/41/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 3 June 2003 on the activities and supervision of

institutions for occupational retirement provision, OJ L 235, 23.9.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0936)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0690/04

by Stavros Xarchakos (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Complaints about the infringement of the property rights of building cooperatives in Greece

The right to property is guaranteed under Community law. However, according to repeated complaints by
many Greek building cooperatives and the Panhellenic Union of Building Cooperatives (representing
500 000 members) the Greek authorities are continuing to obstruct the development of the property of
these cooperatives, despite the fact that they are officially recognised by the Greek State and that the Greek
courts have repeatedly ruled in their favour.

for instance,

The machinations of Mrs Papandreou, the Minister for the Environment, Regional Planning and Public
Works, have been the subject of particularly vigorous protests (petitions have even been submitted to the
European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions on this subject): she even drew up a presidential decree in
February 2003 which essentially ties down the property of many officially recognised building
the
cooperatives,
healthcare cooperative ‘Health’ with 4 050 members, etc. These cooperatives complain that, although their
property is clearly outside woodland and the surrounding plots have been (cid:1) legally or otherwise (cid:1)
subjected to very intensive development (as evidenced by aerial photographs in the possession of the Greek
State), the Ministry of the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works is unjustifiably obstructing
the development of their property in a way which (cid:1) according to their complaints (cid:1) is selective and is
targeting them only.

the Association of Bank of Greece Employees with 3 500 members,

It should be pointed out that these cooperatives have been officially recognised by the State for almost
their members have already died having paid enormous amounts in
40 years and that many of
contributions for years, but because of the obstructionism of the Greek authorities none of the members of
these cooperatives have yet acquired the share of land to which they are entitled.

How can the thousands of citizens concerned be protected from these machinations of the Greek
authorities? How can the Commission intervene effectively without delay so as to make the Ministry for
the Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works and the Greek authorities aware that they are
harassing thousands of Greeks unfairly and without any justification? What sanctions can be imposed on a
Member State which continuously obstructs the development of
legitimate
property of thousands of European citizens?

the officially recognised,