You are on page 1of 2


2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/155

Social security schemes for officials of the institutions are not included in the Community provisions for
the co-ordination of Member States’ social security systems under Regulations (EEC) no 1408/71 of the
Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their
families moving within the Community (1) and no 574/72 of the Council of 21 March 1972 fixing the
procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) no 1408/71 (2) (3). There are, however, several transitional
arrangements for officials who stop working. A distinction has to be made between officials, temporary
staff and auxiliary staff.

In case of resignation, officials will not receive any unemployment benefit or family allowances and their
accident insurance will stop. They may continue enjoying sickness insurance for a maximum of six months
after resignation in order to be entitled to a national sickness insurance scheme. They benefit from their
acquired pension rights from the age of 50 (or 60) or receive a lump sum at departure in the case of less
than ten years’ service in the European institutions. The official has also the possibility to transfer pension
rights to the pension scheme of an administration or an organisation if an agreement has been concluded
with the Community. Temporary staff have the opportunity, in certain circumstances and in most Member
States, to maintain part of their national social security schemes while in service and while covered by the
social security schemes for officials of the Institutions. At the end of their contract, if they have no
immediate further employment, they will benefit, for a maximum period of two years, from unemploy-
ment and family allowances as well as from sickness cover. In the case of resignation during their contract
the same rules apply as for officials.

Auxiliary staff are not covered by the social security schemes for officials of the European Institutions but
affiliated to the compulsory national social security system of the Member State to whose system they were
last affiliated or that of their Member State of origin. As such they take full benefit of the Community
provisions for the co-ordination mentioned above.

The Commission considers that the rules for Community officials outlined above do not impede their free

(1) OJ L 149, 5.7.1971.
(2) OJ L 74, 27.3.1972.
(3) Last consolidated version: Council Regulation No 118/97  OJ L 28, 30.1.1997.

(2001/C 26 E/192) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1097/00
by Malcolm Harbour (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Disposal of Rover Cars by BMW

The Commission will be well aware of the sudden decision by BMW, on Thursday, 16 March 2000, to
dispose of its Rover Cars operation, which will be restructured into a new MG car company and employ
much fewer people.

Could the Commission advise:

1. whether the provision of aid by the UK Government for this restructuring will be deemed to fall under
the Commission’s state aid provisions and therefore be subject to extended review, and

2. whether the sudden withdrawal of supply to contracted Rover dealers constitutes a breach of contract
under the Commission’s block exemption rules?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(10 May 2000)

1. The United Kingdom has notified to the Commission a detailed aid package linked to the planned
investment of BMW in the Longbridge plant. At the time being the Commission investigation of the
C 26 E/156 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26.1.2001

notified aid package is still pending. It is up to the United Kingdom authorities to inform the Commission
whether the changed situation as regards the future ownership of Rover has an impact on the notified aid
package. After having received this information from the United Kingdom, the Commission will act

2. The provisions of Commission Regulation (EC) No1475/95 of 28 June 1995 on the application of
Article 85 (3) of the Treaty to certain categories of motor vehicle distribution and servicing agreements (1)
(the block exemption regulation) with regard to dealers’ rights and obligations essentially apply to dealers’
sales targets, dealers’ stock requirements, cross-selling between dealers within the network, and the
duration and termination of the dealer’s agreement. The obligation of the carmaker to supply his dealers
with cars is a matter of contractual law which would not fall within the scope of the block exemption.

(1) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995.

(2001/C 26 E/193) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1112/00
by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Reimbursement of non-business expenditure under the 1994 UK VAT Act

Could the Commission confirm that the arrangements under the 1994 UK VAT Act for reimbursing bodies
such as local authorities for their non-business expenditure do not contravene Commission rules?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2000)

The reimbursement of VAT paid on the expenditure of a body governed by public law which is not a
taxable person under the terms of Article 4(5) of the sixth Council Directive of 17 May 1977 on the
harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes  Common system of value
added tax: uniform basis of assessment (77/388/EEC) (1) is not incompatible with the said Directive.

(1) OJ L 145, 13.6.1977.

(2001/C 26 E/194) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/00
by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 April 2000)

Subject: Imprisonment of Arkin Birdal and the judgment against Necmettin Erkaban in Turkey

On Tuesday 28 March 200 the Public Prosecutor in Ankara refused to suspend the prison sentence against
Arkin Birdal, a renowned and courageous defender of civil rights in Turkey accused of making ‘subversive
speeches’. His lawyers had requested a six months’ suspension of the sentence because he needs intensive
medical treatment for injuries sustained as a result of an attempt made on his life.

At the beginning of March the former Prime Minister Necmettin Erkaban was sentenced to a year’s
imprisonment for similar offences, because of a speech he made in 1994.

1. Does the Commission not consider that these blatant violations of freedom of expression and human
rights are at odds with the commitments entered into by the Turkish Government with a view to EU
membership and the basic conditions for the accession of new States, such as respect for the founding
principles of the Union, sanctioned in Article 6(1) of the TEU, and the political criteria laid down by the
Copenhagen European Council in June 1993?