WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/04 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Restrictive measures planned by some EU Member States contrary to the right of equal treatment granted by the EU.
Date: 2004-03-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Hungary, accession to the European Union, equal treatment, free movement of workers, job access, migrant worker, social security legislation, social-security benefit, social-security harmonisation, transitional period (EU)

C 88 E/266

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

In the Commission’s view it is up to the authorities of the participating countries, in collaboration with the
National Agencies, to take the necessary steps to ensure the protection of minors,
in line with the
legislation in force and with national cultural sensitivities.

In general, the Commission will ensure, in view of the criteria set out in the calls for proposals, that the
projects selected are of unquestionable educational value,
the interests of
participants, and in particular of minors.

taking full account of

(1) COM(2004) 154 final and COM(2004) 156 final.
(2) Council Directive 94/33/EC of 22 June 1994 on the protection of young people at work, OJ L 216, 20.8.1994.
(3) Council Recommendation 98/560/EC of 24 September 1998, OJ L 270, 7.10.1998.
(4) OJ L 162, 1.7.2003.

(2004/C 88 E/0271)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0995/04

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 March 2004)

Subject: Restrictive measures planned by some EU Member States contrary to the right of equal treatment

granted by the EU

According to the press releases of several EU Member States (United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark) the social
rights of migrants from the new Member States are going to be restricted in various ways. Regulation
(EEC) No 1408/71 (1) on social security coordination lays down the principle that employed and self-
employed persons are per se entitled to the benefits set out in the Regulation without any residence period
requirement. In my view, the condition of two years’ continuous residence for entitlement to benefits
granted under Regulation 1408/71 is incompatible with EC law.

1. What will be the reaction of the Commission to such measures, which are clearly contrary to EC
law?

The most recent studies published forecast a migration rate of no more than 1 % from the new Member
States after 1 May 2004.

2.
Does the Commission consider that Hungary really represents a threat to the labour market of the
current Member States and that the restrictive measures planned by several governments with the clear
objective of preventing Hungarian nationals from having access to the European labour market are
therefore well-founded?

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971, p. 2.

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

1.
The transitional arrangements set out in the Accession Treaty provide that current Member States
may maintain restrictions on access to their labour markets by workers from new Member States under
certain conditions for a maximum period of seven years. These restrictions only apply to access to the
labour market, and not to access to social security benefits or entitlement to social advantages. The
Commission has reminded Member States of these principles in its regular and recent contacts with
Member States’ representatives at technical level. Most Member States have informed the Commission that
they are at this moment still finalizing their legislative measures pertaining to the first two years of the
transitional period. The Commission will also send a letter to all Member States concerned, in which it will
recall the obligations under Community law and ask Member States to provide the final text of all the
legislative measures relating to the first two years of the transitional period as soon as possible. The
Commission will continue to follow up this matter and take appropriate action,
including requesting
clarification of legislative measures, where necessary.

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/267

In accordance with the terms of the Accession Treaty, there is no need for the current Member States
2.
to provide proof of disturbance to their labour market (or a threat thereof) in the case that they wish to
maintain restrictions for the first five years of the transitional period. The Accession Treaty provides only
that for the last two years of the transitional period, that is, after 2009, restrictions on access to the labour
market can only be maintained by a current Member State if there is evidence of serious disturbances or a
threat thereof to the labour market. However, the Accession Treaty also provides that a current Member
State may at any time decide to fully or partially liberalise access to its labour market during the
transitional period. A Member State which has lifted restrictions during this seven year period can invoke a
‘safeguard clause’ and re-impose restrictions if there is evidence of serious disturbances (or a threat thereof)
of the labour market. The Commission expects that most restrictions on access to the labour market could
be lifted by the end of the first five years following accession, that is from 2009 onwards. From 2011
onwards- seven years after accession (cid:1) there will be complete freedom of movement for workers from
new Member States.

(2004/C 88 E/0272)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0999/04

by Daniel Hannan (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 March 2004)

Subject: Connection of high tension pylon lines in the Municipality of Civitella Paganico

The Municipality of Civitella Paganico is allowing the Italian electricity company Terna SpA to continue
with a project to connect the two existing lines of high tension pylons between Speranza-Valmontone and
Suvereto-Montalto. The area in question is the site of a hitherto unexcavated Roman settlement and is,
therefore, currently being evaluated by the Italian Ministry of Cultural Assets and Activities with a view to
its being designated as a cultural heritage site. Despite that evaluation and the fact that the Municipal
Council has already delivered a negative opinion, the project is still going ahead.

Does the Commission consider that the actions of the Municipality of Civitella Paganico are compatible
with the Union’s stated commitment to the protection of public health and of Europe’s cultural heritage?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

Projects such as the construction of overhead electrical power lines fall within the scope of Council
Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment (1) (EIA Directive) as amended by Council Directive 97/11/ECof 3 March
1997 (2). It provides that Member States must ensure that, before development consent is given, projects
likely to have significant effects on the environment by virtue, ‘inter alia’ , of their nature, size or location
are made subject to an assessment of the environmental effects. The environmental impact assessment
must identify, describe and assess the direct and indirect effects of a project on human beings, fauna, flora,
soil, water, air, climate and the landscape, material assets and the cultural heritage.

These projects are defined in Article 4 that refers to Annex I and II of the Directive. Construction of
overhead electrical power lines with a voltage of 220 kilovolts (kV) or more and a length of more than
15 kilometres (km) falls into Annex I whereas transmission of electrical energy by overhead cables below
the above mentioned thresholds is found in Annex II. For projects found in Annex I, an EIA is mandatory,
while for projects found in Annex II, national authorities have to determine, either through a case by case
examination or according to thresholds or criteria, whether the project is to be made subject to an
assessment because of its likely significant effects on the environment taking into account the relevant
selection criteria set out in Annex III of the Directive.

In this specific case, on the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is
not in a position to take a view on the subject matter. In light of the above, the Honourable Member is
kindly requested to give more information on the matter in order to enable the Commission to assess the
case according to the relevant Community law.