WRITTEN QUESTION E-0685/04 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Contrast between a common foreign policy and the varying treatment of EU Member States by countries such as America and Russia.
Date: 2004-03-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU Member State, EU relations, European Constitution, European Union membership, International Criminal Court, Russia, United States, bilateral relations, common foreign and security policy, the EU's international role

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

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/841

International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague, and by the varying status awarded to individual EU
Member States when public works contracts in Iraq are granted to companies located in EU Member States
(see ‘inter alia’ the reply to my Written Question E-3948/03 (1))?

2. What is the Commission’s view of the fact that it would appear that the example set by the USA is
now being followed by Russia, as evidenced by Russia’s refusal to extend the 1997 Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement with the EU to cover the ten new Member States joining the EU on 1 May 2004
because of the economic disadvantages that Russia perceives would result from its treating all EU Member
States equally?

3.
To what extent does the fact that certain EU Member States are permanent members of the UN
Security Council, are nuclear powers and include in their territory areas geographically not part of the
continent of Europe, play a role in the conduct of third countries towards the EU?

4.
Under what conditions does the Commission expect states outside the EU, including large countries
such as the USA, Russia, China, India and Brazil, to take more seriously the EU’s efforts to adopt a
common position on international affairs?

Does the Commission consider that, under such conditions, efforts towards the establishment of a
5.
common EU foreign policy and the securing of recognition by others of the EU as a major power in world
politics are still realistic?

Source: The Netherlands newspaper De Volkskrant, edition dated 21 February 2004.

(1) See page 744.

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(26 April 2004)

The Commission shares the view that the EU can only make progress when it takes united positions and
defends them consistently in its dealings with its partners in the world. This conviction was already at the
basis of
the Commission’s various contributions to the European Convention, and in particular its
Communication ‘A project for the European Union’ of 22 May 2002 (1). In its opinion, the Community
method certainly is the best way to propose, shape and finally make united decisions, and to represent
them in international fora. This is already the case in the trade field where the Commission’s role as
spokesman for the Member States has greatly reinforced the EU as a negotiating partner (cid:1) even when
major trading partners seek to play off the Commission against the Member States.

However, even outside the sole competence of the Community the EU has adopted clear and consistent
positions on a number of important matters, including the question of the ICC and the Partnership and
Cooperation Agreement with Russia. As of today, the EU has not modified its position on any of these
issues. It will speak even more authoritatively on these matters when enlargement has taken place.

Inevitably, the military strength of some Member States is a major factor in international affairs. So is the
role of those Member States who are permanent members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council and
of the group of eight most industrialised countries (G8). But these Member States are also among those
who are most ready to construct, for the first time, a European Security and Defence Policy. All Members
States share the view that the ongoing work in this field, and on security matters generally, is central if the
EU as such is to play a role in world affairs, to reinforce the rule of law on an international level, and to
play its full role in conflict prevention and crisis management.

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.