WRITTEN QUESTION E-4099/00 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council. Linguistic discrimination in the European Union.
Date: 2001-01-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, job access, linguistic discrimination, official language

C 235 E/68

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

21.8.2001

Answer given by Mrs Wallstr(cid:246)m on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2001)

It is primarily the province of the national authorities to implement texts requiring environmental action.
The Commission notes that the traffic at Linate airport has fallen over the last two years owing to the
restrictions placed upon it by the Italian authorities, who wish to promote Malpensa airport.

As regards Community environmental law and, in particular, the possible application of Council Directive
85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985, on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the
environment (1), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (2), the question put by the
Honourable Member does not provide sufficient information to establish its relevance to the facts outlined.

Article 2 of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, states that Member States are obliged to ensure that, before
consent is given, projects likely to have significant effects on the environment are made subject to an
impact assessment (EIA). The Directive concerns (cid:145)projects(cid:146) and its aim is to prevent
environmental
pollution or nuisances at source by having the development consent
take into consideration the
environmental effects of the projects, rather than subsequently trying to counteract these effects. The
kinds of projects which are covered by the Directive are defined in Article 4, which refers to a list of
classes of projects included in Annexes I and II to the Directive.

On the basis of the information given by the Honourable Member, the Commission is neither in a position
to assess the nature of the enlargement works mentioned nor to consider whether they were relevant to
any class of the projects listed in Annex I or II to the Directive.

In addition, on the basis of the information given the above mentioned works appear to have been carried
out between 1992 and 1994. Of course, if a project, relevant to Annex I or II to the Directive, is granted
a development consent without complying with the EIA Directive an infringement is committed. However,
as mentioned above, it should be stressed that the purpose of Directive 85/337/EEC, as amended, is to
address situations in which works have not yet been carried out in order to prevent pollution or nuisances
at source. Therefore, the Directive contains no provisions to address situations in which the works have
been carried out and it does not provide any means of bringing such situations back into compliance with
its objectives.

As regards a possible future increase in air traffic, this is not, as such, a project which falls under Directive
impact
85/337/EEC and, consequently,
assessment.

it does not need to be made the subject of an environmental

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2001/C 235 E/073)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4099/00

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(10 January 2001)

Subject: Linguistic discrimination in the European Union

As we move into the European Year of Languages, European organisations are increasingly uninhibited in
demanding that their candidates must be English mother-tongue. In this way they are openly discriminat-
ing against jobseekers with other languages. English is (cid:129) wrongfully (cid:129) acquiring the status of a dominant
language (and culture).

A flagrant example of discrimination against non-English speakers is the vacancy at the Council of
European Municipalities and Regions. This umbrella organisation is advertising for a (cid:145)native English-
speaker(cid:146) to head its information office in Brussels. As other job advertisements unfortunately make clear,
this is not an isolated case. The news weeklies European Voice and The Bulletin regularly feature vacancies
for non-governmental organisations and companies requiring (cid:145)English mother tongue(cid:146) as a qualification.

21.8.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 235 E/69

The mother tongue criterion infringes the principle of non-discrimination in the recruitment of staff in
European Union countries. Non-English speakers are tending to be excluded from selection procedures,
even if they have a more than adequate command of the English language. Speakers of other languages are
clearly no longer being considered for certain jobs, and this is happening on the eve of the European Year
of Languages.

Does the Council agree that requiring (cid:145)native English-speakers(cid:146) when recruiting staff in European Union
countries is a violation of the principle of non-discrimination? If it does, what steps will it be taking to put
a stop to linguistic discrimination of this kind? If it doesn(cid:146)t, what arguments can it put forward to reconcile
this requirement with the non-discrimination principle?

Reply

(14 May 2001)

The Council remains attached to the fundamental principle of equality of the official languages of the EU,
as enshrined in Council Regulation No 1 (1) (last modified by the accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden)
and applies this principle, as do the other institutions of the Union, in its own recruitment policy. It has
no competence to pronounce on the recruitment policies of organisations and bodies.

(1) OJ 17, 6.10.1958, p. 401.

(2001/C 235 E/074)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4101/00

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(10 January 2001)

Subject: The EIB and the ¯rhus Convention

Does the Council consider that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is covered by the obligations contained
in the ¯rhus Convention?

Reply

(7 May 2001)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that his question is not a matter for the Council.

(2001/C 235 E/075)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4110/00

by Elisabeth Schroedter (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(11 January 2001)

Subject: Road improvement project being undertaken without an environmental impact assessment (EIA) in

a wetland area in Brandenburg

The improvement of main road 189 between Retzin and Rohlsdorf in Brandenburg (Germany) is being
carried out under the Brandenburg Land road construction law. I consider that the criteria set out in
Annex III section 2, according to which an EIA is essential, have not been implemented in line with EU
legislation. The section of road concerned crosses a wetland area which is extremely vulnerable and
valuable in ecological terms and has plant communities which should be protected. The groundwater is
only two metres below the surface and is extremely vulnerable to discharges of pollutants.