WRITTEN QUESTION P-1600/01 by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission. Court of Justice open competition - discrimination on the ground of age.
Date: 2001-05-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: age discrimination, competition (EU), equal treatment, job access, personnel administration

C 364 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.12.2001

That answer prompts the following additional questions:

1. Does the European Commission share the view of the Netherlands Government that the section of the
(cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146) railway line located on Netherlands territory falls within the scope of Council Directive
92/43/EEC (2) and of Council Directive 79/409/EEC (3)?

2. What is the Commission(cid:146)s view of the applicability of Directives 92/43/EEC and 79/409/EEC to the

German section of the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146) railway line?

3. Does the European Commission share the view that,

if such an extensive long-distance freight
transport route is reopened, the German section of the route also requires an environmental impact
assessment in accordance with the relevant European Union law?

(1) OJ C 261 E, 18.9.2001, p. 60.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.

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

(25 July 2001)

The section of the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146) railway line located on Netherlands territory partly falls within the scope of
Directive 79/409/EEC (1) and Directive 92/43/EEC (2), since it may affect the (cid:145)Meinweg(cid:146) and the (cid:145)Weerter en
Budelerbergen(cid:146). Those areas have been designated as special protection areas in accordance with Directive
79/409/EEC and the Netherlands has also proposed them as sites of Community importance in accordance
with Directive 92/43/EEC.

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-496/01 by Mr de
Roo (3).

As the Commission noted in the above-mentioned reply, the reopening of the (cid:145)Iron Rhine(cid:146) is currently
under consideration, but no decision has been taken yet. In the absence of information about the concrete
characteristics of this project, the Commission is not in a position to determine whether or not in its view
Germany will be under an obligation to conduct an impact assessment under Council Directive 85/337/
EEC (4), as amended by Council Directive 97/11/EC (5). For further information on the legal background in
this context, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its reply to Written Question E-496/
01.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds.
(2) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.
(3) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 67.
(4) Council Directive 85/337/EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private

projects on the environment (OJ L 175, 5.7.1985).

(5) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 (OJ L 73, 14.3.1997).

(2001/C 364 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1600/01

by Toine Manders (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 May 2001)

Subject: Court of Justice open competition (cid:129) discrimination on the ground of age

In recent years, provisions governing human rights protection have been incorporated into various
sections of the treaties. Long before that, respect for human rights constituted a fundamental principle of
European Community law. Article 6 of the EU Treaty includes a general reference to the protection of
human rights, whilst Articles 12 and 13 of
the EC Treaty refer specifically to the prohibition of
discrimination.

20.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 364 E/157

Given the above, I was deeply shocked by a letter which I recently received from a Mrs Vermijs, writing
from Breda in the Netherlands, a copy of which I have also forwarded to Commissioner Bolkestein. In
a Dutch newspaper, she saw a notice of open competition for the recruitment of lawyer-linguists at the
European Court of Justice and decided to apply.

She fulfilled every requirement for participation bar one. The notice clearly stated that persons aged 40
and over could not apply.

To say the least, I find it amazing that an EU institution which, long before human rights appeared on the
EU(cid:146)s political agenda or in the treaties, handed down judgments on the basis of which human rights were
declared to be fundamental principles of European law (1), is itself now laying down requirements in its
recruitment procedure which result in a direct violation thereof, namely discrimination (on the ground of
age).

Can the European Commission, as guardian of the treaties, tolerate the breach by an EU institution of
a fundamental principle of European law, namely the prohibition of discrimination?

If the European Commission deems such discrimination on the ground of age to be admissible, can it
indicate the basis for that admissibility criterion?

If the European Commission deems such discrimination on the ground of age to be inadmissible, and if
that criterion is found to be in breach of European law, will the European Commission immediately admit
Mrs Vermijs to the open competition or impose other compensatory measures on the competent
authorities?

(1) See, for example, the Ruteli Case, 36/75[1975].

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

The Commission is fully aware of the provisions of Council Directive 2000/78/CE of 27 November 2000
establishing a general framework for equal treatment, employment and occupation (1). This Directive falls
within the framework of the initiatives proposed by the Commission on 25 November 1999 with a view
to exercising the new powers conferred on the Community under Article 13 of the EC Treaty.

The Directive does establish a general principle of prohibition of any direct or indirect discrimination
based, inter alia, on age. However, Article 6 allows for differences of treatment on grounds of age where
they are objectively and reasonably justified. For instance, the Directive justifies the fixing of a maximum
age for recruitment which is based on the training requirements of the post in question or the need for
a reasonable period of employment before retirement as one of the examples of differences of treatment
on grounds of age (Article 6.1.c).

Taking full account of these legal provisions, the Commission does not therefore consider age limits for
recruitment to European Institutions to be incompatible with the provisions of the EC Treaty.

The specific case referred to by the Honourable Member concerns an open competition organised by the
Court of Justice. Since each European Institution is responsible for the organisation of its own open
competitions as well as for setting the specific requirements for participation in its competitions, the
Commission considers that questions on this specific case are more appropriately addressed to the Court of
Justice.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that, in accordance with actions 27, 29 and 50 of
the White Paper on Reforming the Commission (2) of 1 March 2000, the Commission has proposed closer
inter-Institutional co-operation on recruitment. The establishment of an inter-Institutional selection office
and the question of age limits for recruitment by open competitions are issues that are currently being
discussed within the framework of inter-Institutional negotiations.

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
(2) COM(2000) 200 final.