WRITTEN QUESTION E-1682/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(14 June 2001)

Subject: Language discrimination in the European Commission's Socrates Technical Assistance Office

According to Commission Member Ms Diamantopoulou, the native speaker criterion could be considered to be discriminatory and therefore incompatible with Community rules on the freedom of movement of workers in the Community. That was stated in her answer to Written Question E-0779/01(1) on vacancies in non-governmental organisations, companies and European Institutions stipulating English mother tongue as a prior requirement. Belgian Minister Laurette Onkelinx had also on a previous occasion acknowledged that the principle of non-discrimination and free movement of workers was being violated by the posting of vacancies for native English speakers. She based that view on the European Declaration of Human Rights and the International Labour Organisation Convention on Discrimination. In the matter of recruitment in the Belgian Federation, she drew attention to Collective Labour Convention No 38, the Vandezande decree and the French Community decree on social relations between employers and employees.

Job advertisements of this kind turn up regularly in the weeklies European Voice and The Bulletin. During the European Year of Languages, European organisations and institutions are clearly becoming every more explicit in requiring job applicants to be English mother-tongue speakers. They are thereby discriminating openly against job-seeking speakers of other languages. English is thus quite unjustifiably being given the status of (culturally) dominant language. Non-native English speakers are being excluded in advance from selection procedures even when their command of English or French is more than adequate. Other language speakers manifestly no longer come in for consideration for certain duties.

It is astonishing that Socrates, a technical assistance office of the European Commission, should have been guilty of this kind of discrimination (The Bulletin, 07/12/00, p. 66).

I therefore ask the Commission the following:

- Does the Commission acknowledge that the Socrates Technical Assistance Office discriminates against non-English speakers by posting such vacancy notices?

- If not, how does the Commission reconcile the prior requirement that applicants be of English mother tongue with the non-discrimination principle?

- If so, what action will the Commission take to call a halt to such discriminatory practices?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 245.

Joint answerto Written Questions E-1681/01 and E-1682/01given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(2 October 2001)

The Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the Commission's answers to the Honourable Member's Written Questions E-4100/00(1), E-0779/01(2) and E-1356/01 by Mr Gemelli(3) on this same subject.

Organisations performing services under contract for the Commission, such as the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth Technical Assistance Office, are required to operate in a wide range of languages and the staff recruited by such organisations is composed of a wide range of nationalities and mother tongues. They may from time to time require to recruit staff with a very high level of knowledge of a specific language or languages. In so doing, they are bound to comply with all legal and administrative provisions applicable in Belgium, including Community regulations on the free movement of workers.

The Commission has drawn the attention of the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth Technical Assistance Office to the fact that the use of expressions such as mother tongue or native speaker in recruitment advertisements might be considered as discriminatory and, thus, incompatible with Community law. The organisation's management has informed the Commission that it will ensure such terms do not appear in future vacancy notices.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 233.

(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 245.

(3) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 132.