WRITTEN QUESTION E-0398/03

by Karl von Wogau (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 February 2003)

Subject: Work opportunities for non-Greek diving teachers and diving centres run by non-Greek EU citizens in Greece

Is the Commission aware of attempts made by Greece, by means of various regulations, to limit the work opportunities for non-Greek diving teachers and diving centres run by non-Greek EU citizens, and is the Commission of the opinion that this is compatible with freedom of movement in the European Union?

Is it compatible with freedom of movement that boats with a maximum length of 10 metres can only be used commercially (for diving) in Greece by non-Greeks if the company responsible for them is at least 51 % owned by a Greek citizen?

Is it compatible with freedom of movement that work permits are only issued to people who have passed a Greek-language test at a specific address and at a specified time in the spring?

Is the Commission aware that internationally awarded PADI diving teacher diplomas are not recognised, although this is in principle possible in law?

Is it compatible with freedom of movement that Greece does not recognise internationally recognised diplomas for marine motor boat licences gained in other countries?

These are the questions that arise whenever a non-Greek EU citizen wants to run a diving centre as a diving teacher in Greece. This is demonstrated by the case of a German diving centre manager who has worked in Greece for 30 years. He is constantly encountering new obstacles that make it difficult for him to continue with his established business. He states that working conditions have worsened, particularly since Greece's accession to the EU.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 April 2003)

As far as the free movement of workers in other Member States is concerned (Article 39 of the EC Treaty) the Commission would first of all like to point out that nationals of other Member States do not need a work permit. Community law provides only that the Member States must grant migrant workers a residence permit as proof of the right of residence which goes hand in hand with the right to work in another Member State.

The ability to communicate effectively is obviously important for migrant workers, and a certain level of language may therefore be required for a job, but the Court of Justice has held that any language requirement must be reasonable and necessary for the job in question, and must not be used as an excuse to exclude workers from other Member States(1). The employer has to justify the need for any language requirement.

In any event, while employers (whether public or private) can require a job applicant to have a certain level of linguistic ability according to specific situations, they cannot demand only a specific qualification as proof. The Court has held, that if in a Member State it is impossible to submit proof of the required linguistic knowledge by any other means, in particular by equivalent qualifications obtained in other Member States, this constitutes a discrimination on grounds of nationality contrary to Article 39 of the EC Treaty which foresees the right to free movement of workers(2). The Commission is therefore of the opinion that a Greek employer may not require a potential employee to pass a specific language test in Greece in order to be hired.

As far as the freedom to establish (Article 43 of the EC Treaty) and the freedom to provide services (Article 49 of the EC Treaty) are concerned, the question of proof of linguistic knowledge in the case of non-Greek diving instructors and non-Greek managers of diving centres in Greece is the subject of an infringement procedure currently at the stage of a complementary letter of formal notice.

In the context of this procedure the Commission is continuing to examine with the Greek authorities the issues of the objectivity and proportionality of all aspects of language requirements, including those referring to the number of opportunities in time and location of linguistic tests to be made available in Greece.

The Commission is obviously ready and willing to examine those issues on the basis of any further information which the Honourable Member might provide.

In accordance with Court of Justice case-law(3), a condition which stipulates that where a vessel is owned or chartered by natural persons they must be of a particular nationality and, in the case of a company, the shareholders and directors must be of that nationality is contrary to Article 43 of the EC Treaty.

The Commission would also point out that Greece has already been found guilty by the Court of Justice(4) of having maintained in force legislative provisions which restrict the right to registration in the Greek shipping registers to vessels more than half the shares in which are owned by Greek nationals or owned by Greek legal persons more than half of whose capital is held by Greek nationals.

The Commission has recently received some complaints concerning the recognition of diving diplomas in Greece. As far as PADI is specifically concerned, since this is an international organisation based in the United States, the qualifications it delivers are third country diplomas whose recognition falls within the exclusive competence of the Greek authorities. However, if PADI diplomas have been recognised in another Member State, the general system of recognition (Directive 92/51/EEC)(5) amended by Directive 2001/19/EC(6) is to be applied provided that its EU-holders have the experience within the Union required by this Directive.

The same principles would also apply for internationally recognised diplomas for marine motor boat licences where such diplomas are third country diplomas. However, the Commission is currently not aware of any specific problem in this area in Greece.

(1) Case 379/87, Groener ECR [1989] 3967.

(2) Case C-281/98, Angonese ECR [2000] I-04139.

(3) CJEC, judgment of 25 July 1991, C-221/89, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others, paragraph 30.

(4) CJEC, judgment of 27 November 1997, C-62/96, Commission v. Hellenic Republic.

(5) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(6) Council Directive 2001/19/EC of 14 May 2001 amending Council Directives 89/48/EEC and 92/51/EEC on the general system for the recognition of professional qualifications and Council Directives 77/452/EEC, 77/453/EEC, 78/686/EEC, 78/687/EEC, 78/1026/EEC, 78/1027/EEC, 80/154/EEC, 80/155/EEC, 85/384/EEC, 85/432/EEC, 85/433/EEC and 93/16/EEC concerning the professions of nurse responsible for general care, dental practitioner, veterinary surgeon, midwife, architect, pharmacist and doctor.