WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Language discrimination by the Commission

In its answer to Written Question E-0779/01(1), the Commission points out that use of the native speaker criterion is discriminatory in the context of recruitment. According to Commissioner Palacio, the native speaker criterion could be regarded as discriminatory and incompatible with the rules on the freedom of movement of workers.

Laurette Onkelinx, a Belgian government minister, had previously acknowledged that issuing vacancy notices which specify English-speakers violates the principle of non-discrimination and freedom of movement of workers, and referred, with regard to recruitment in the federal state of Belgium, to collective labour agreement no 38, the Vandezande decree and the decree of the French Community on social relations between employers and employees.

The Commission's TACIS programme is looking for a native speaker of English for its Information Centre. This manifestly runs counter to the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the European Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO's Discrimination Convention, and in Belgian legislation on recruitment, as set out in collective labour agreement no 38, the Vandezande decree and the decree of the French Community on social relations between employers and employees.

Does the Commission acknowledge that the above-mentioned recruitment procedure manifestly runs counter to the principle of non-discrimination and is therefore incompatible with the rules on the freedom of movement of workers, as stated in the answer to Question E-0779/01?

If so, what legal action will it take in respect of the above violation of the principle of non-discrimination, laid down in the European Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO's Discrimination Convention, and in Belgian legislation on recruitment, as set out in collective labour agreement no 38, the Vandezande decree and the decree of the French Community on social relations between employers and employees?

If not, what arguments can it advance for violating the principle of non-discrimination and the rules on the freedom of movement of workers when recruiting a communications officer for the TACIS programme?

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

Joint answerto Written Questions E-2901/01 and E-2944/01given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The vacancy notice the Honourable Member is referring to was issued by the PHARE & TACIS Information Centre on Enlargement, managed by a company called East West Consulting. The notice did indeed

make reference to the recruitment of a native speaker of English. The Commission readily agrees that such a wording was inadequate, as the aim of the advertisement was simply to recruit someone with a good enough level of English to be able to deal with the written and oral enquiries addressed to the Centre in English, given that it was proving impossible to deal fast enough with the sheer number of such enquiries.

This apparently discriminatory wording should have been formulated differently in order to make clear that considering the nature of the vacancy to be filled, a high standard of knowledge of a particular language was required. In that situation, as the Commission stated in its answer to written question E-0779/01, such a requirement is not considered discriminatory.

Nevertheless, the recruitment procedure was carried out openly through interviews with candidates, many of whom had a good knowledge of English without English necessarily being their mother tongue. Even though the person recruited is in fact a native English speaker, he also has many other qualities, including language abilities, in that he has a very good knowledge of another EU official language.

In any case, the Commission has notified East West Consulting that the wording of the notice was inappropriate and has asked the company to take all necessary measures to prevent such an incident from reoccurring.