WRITTEN QUESTION E-3572/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Language discrimination in recruitment within the EU

The Commission's answer to my questions E-2901/01 and E-2944/01(1) indicates that it has reprimanded East West Consulting (EWC), which was contracted to select candidates for recruitment to work on the Commission's TACIS programme, for using an inappropriate formulation in its advertisement for the post. This consisted of a stipulation that candidates must be native speakers of English. This clearly discriminatory formulation should have been put in a better way so as to indicate that, in view of the nature of the post to be filled, a good knowledge of a particular language was required.

In a reply to an interested party, the Council of European Municipalities and Regions (CEMR) has indicated that in future it will use the phrase native speaker or person with an equivalent knowledge in its advertisements.

Walter Schwimmer, the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, has stated in an e-mail message that he has inquired into how other international organisations communicate when seeking candidates for native speaker posts. Most other international organisations explicitly use the term mother tongue for posts where this is required. In future, however, the Council of Europe will use the following description: mother tongue or principal language of education.

1. Does the Commission agree that the change of formulation is mere window-dressing and does little to remedy the problem at issue?

2. Is the Commission aware that every year such newspapers as The Bulletin and European Voice publish hundreds of advertisements concerning vacancies which explicitly (!) ask for English native speakers?

3. Is the Commission aware that, among others, Videowatch the producer of audiovisual products which operates in the Commission's radio and TV studios in Brussels recently recruited an English mother tongue member to its secretariat? Did it take action against this? If so, what action? If not, why not?

4. Does the Commission recognise that businesses which wish to recruit English native speakers are discriminating against would-be applicants from 13 Member States of the European Union? If not, does not the Commission's view conflict with European legislation? If so, what will the Commission do to eliminate this discrimination?

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 142.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2002)

The Honourable Member is in general referred to the replies of the Commission given to his previous written questions on this topic, especially to E-4100/00(1), E-779/01(2) and E-1356/01 by Mr Gemelli(3).

1. In view of the information already given in these replies, the Commission is of the opinion that the change of formulation from native speaker to native speaker or person with an equivalent knowledge is acceptable under Community-law, provided that a very high level of knowledge of a specific language is necessary for the specific post. It is up to the national courts to evaluate individual cases of possible discrimination of migrant workers on the basis of the concrete facts.

2. The Commission is aware of this fact.

3. In relation to Videowatch the contractor supplying broadcast services to the Commission the company placed an advertisement in the Bulletin which included the wording referred to. The Commission has since drawn the attention of its contractor to the importance of not repeating this wording in future advertisements.

4. Individual cases have to be evaluated by the national courts on the basis of the information contained in the replies to written questions E-4100/00 and E-779/01. The Commission is not competent to start proceedings against private companies and non-governmental organisations (NGO's) in relation to Community-law on free movement of workers. Therefore, it is up to the migrant workers who feel discriminated to start proceedings against the relevant companies or NGO's.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.

(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(3) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.