WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/00 by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission. Amendment of the Bosman ruling.
Date: 2000-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: free movement of workers, judgment of the Court (EU), professional sport

C 46 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.2.2001

(2001/C 46 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1560/00

by Brigitte Wenzel-Perillo (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 May 2000)

Subject: Duty of the Member States to submit reports

Given the entirely unsatisfactory answer to my question concerning the Member States(cid:146) current duties to
report to the European Union (Written Question P-0222/00 (1)), could the Commission make another
attempt at providing an answer, particularly in view of the substantial reporting requirements imposed by
the conclusions of the Lisbon European Council?

Otherwise the Commission might create the impression that it has lost track of the reporting requirements
imposed on the Member States over the years.

Could the Commission break down the various reporting requirements,
provisions, policy fields and legal bases and the frequency with which reports should be submitted?

indicating the relevant legal

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 201.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 June 2000)

As the Commission has already indicated in its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written Question
P-0222/00 (1),
the compiling of a list of Member States(cid:146) reporting obligations, specifying the legal
provision, policy field, legal basis and required frequency, would necessitate lengthy and costly research
which the Commission does not intend to carry out at the moment, as it has other priorities. Research of
this type should in fact be carried out within all the Directorates-General or departments which are
responsible for Community legislation or programmes and monitor the Member States(cid:146) reporting obliga-
tions in their respective fields. Thus there is no question of the Commission having lost track of these
obligations.

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 201.

(2001/C 46 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1561/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(18 May 2000)

Subject: Amendment of the Bosman ruling

Can the Commission suggest, were the Bosman ruling to be amended, how it would propose to deal with
the issue of grandfather rights for registered footballers from foreign countries already in the EU? Would
the transitional period be longer than 20 years? Or would the Commission attempt to buy out such rights
and, if so, what level of compensation would be paid, and what would be the estimated total cost?

13.2.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 46 E/203

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2000)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that its position on the Bosman ruling (1) was set
out in the Helsinki Report on sport (2). The Commission draws to the attention of the Honourable Member
that the Bosman judgement was confirmed recently by the Court in the Lehtonen case on 13 April 2000.
It is therefore very unlikely that it will be amended in the foreseeable future.

(1) Case C-415/93 ECR 1995, p. I-4921.
(2) Report from the Commission to the European Council with a view to safeguarding current sports structures and

maintaining the social function of sport within the Community framework (cid:129) COM(1999) 644 final.

(2001/C 46 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1577/00

by William Newton Dunn (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Pensions for part-time lecturers in the UK

(19 May 2000)

More than five years ago, on 28 September 1994, the European Court of Justice ruled that hourly-paid
part-time lecturers were entitled to have their service as lecturers after 8 April 1976 regarded as
pensionable.

Despite the considerable passage of time since the ruling, successive governments in the United Kingdom
have not ensured that eligible persons are being paid their due pensions. Some eligible pensioners even
suspect that the Treasury in London is deliberately dragging its feet in order to save money as their
numbers dwindle through death.

Will the Commission urge the British Government to comply, albeit belatedly with the law, in order to
provide both justice and pensions to its deserving citizens?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2000)

According to the case law of the Court of justice (Barber judgement (1) and subsequent judgements (2)), the
exclusion of part-time workers from access to such schemes could constitute indirect discrimination,
contrary to Article 141 (ex Article 119) of the EC Treaty, if the exclusion affects a much greater number of
women than men, unless the employer shows that it might be explained by objectively justified factors
unrelated to any discrimination on the grounds of sex.

By its recent judgement of 16 May 2000 in case C-78/98 Preston, Fletcher and others (3), the Court
confirms its previous case law, that the right of part-time workers to join an occupational pension scheme
does not fall within the time limits of the Barber judgement and Protocol No 2 to Article 141 of the EC
Treaty (Barber Protocol). Part-time workers could claim a retroactive affiliation to an occupational pension
as of 8 April 1976 (date of direct effect of Article 141 of the EC Treaty). However, this retroactive
affiliation is subject to the time limits under domestic law for presentation of a claim and one would have
to pay contributions retroactively to the pension scheme in question.

According to settled case-law, in the absence of relevant Community rules, it is for the national legal order
of each Member State to designate the competent courts and to lay down the procedural rules for
proceedings designed to ensure the protection of the rights which individuals acquire through the direct
effect of Community law, provided that such rules are not less favourable than those governing similar
domestic actions and are not framed in such a way as to render impossible, in practice, the exercise of
rights conferred by Community law.