WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/04 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Medical certificates.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, document, incapacity for work, medical diagnosis, proof, social security legislation, social-security harmonisation

C 84 E/840

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0933)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0683/04

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Medical certificates

Could the Commission confirm that medical certificates issued by the Department of Work and Pensions
in the United Kingdom should be valid as evidence in court cases in all Member States?

Does the Commission believe that refusal to accept these documents by a Member State would be a breach
of EU laws? If so, which EU laws are applicable?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2004)

The Commission does not possess all the information required to answer the Honourable Member’s
question in greater detail. The question did not state for which purposes medical certificates issued by the
British authorities were submitted to a court in another Member State.

Within the framework of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 (1), on the coordination
of Member States’ social security schemes and of its implementing rules (Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/
72 of 21 March 1972 (2)), the matter of the validity of medical certificates issued in another Member State
has been submitted to the Court of Justice on several occasions: Cases C-22/86 Rindone (judgment of
12 March 1987), C-45/90 Paletta I (judgment of 3 June 1992), Case C-206/94 Paletta II (judgment of
2 May 1996). Accordingly, for the purpose of providing cash benefits or benefits in kind (Article 18 of
Regulation (EEC) No 574/72), the competent institution is bound de facto and de jure by the medical
findings of the institution at the place of domicile or residence on the commencement and duration of
incapacity in cases where the interested party is not examined by a doctor of its own choice, as authorised
by Article 18(5) (Paletta). However, this does not imply that employers are not allowed to submit evidence
pursuant to which the national courts decide that abuse or fraudulent conduct took place because the
employee in question was not sick even though he/she claimed incapacity to work under aforementioned
Article 18. It should also be noted that doctors based in other Member States must be regarded as
providing guarantees equivalent to those provided by doctors based on the national territory (Case C-156/
96 Kohll, judgment of 28 April 1998).

In order to give a more precise answer to the Honourable Member, the Commission would need further
details.

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.

(2004/C 84 E/0934)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/04

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 March 2004)

Subject: Contrast between a common foreign policy and the varying treatment of EU Member States by

countries such as America and Russia

1. What is the Commission’s view of the repeated indications that the US Administration does not
regard the EU as a federation of states with which to make uniform agreements on international relations,
trade and aviation but as a loose collection of individual states that are to be treated differently according
to the extent to which they agree with American views and interests, as shown not least by America’s
attempts to make agreements with individual current and future Member States over a boycott of the