WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/01 by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council. Recognition of marriage and steps towards equal treatment.
Date: 2001-06-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: LGBTIQ persons, equal treatment, marriage, regulations for civil servants, servant (EU)

C 115 E/16

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

The conclusion of the Finnish authorities is that the exposure of children and young adults to phthalates
from orthodontic apparatus is lower than the maximum allowable exposure levels (Total Daily Intake, TDI)
identified in the CSTEE opinion on phthalates in soft PVC toys. This conclusion formed the basis for the
decision by the Finnish Medical Agency not to ban the use of phthalates in orthodontic applications.

Complementary information obtained from Eucomed also supports the Finnish Medical Agency’s
conclusions.

Given that the Finnish assessment of phthalates in orthodontic applications followed extensively the
opinion of the CSTEE on phthalates in soft PVC toys, and based on Commission’s own analysis of the
Finnish report and in the absence of new evidence, there appears no reason at present to seek further
scientific advice on this matter. The Commission will continue to follow developments concerning the use
of phthalates in orthodontic and other medical applications with a view to revisiting the matter if new
evidence to that effect becomes available.

(1) OJ C 203 E, 18.7.2000.

(2002/C 115 E/015)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1830/01

by Lousewies van der Laan (ELDR) to the Council

(27 June 2001)

Subject: Recognition of marriage and steps towards equal treatment

In a recent ruling on registered partnerships, the European Court of Justice stated that marriage is generally
defined as being between two heterosexuals. As you will be aware, the Netherlands has recently opened
civil marriage to homosexual citizens. At this time, the Netherlands is the only country in the world to
have done so.

The ruling on registered partnerships caused some confusion on what the Council’s interpretation will be.
Can the Council confirm that all its married employees will be treated equally, regardless of their sexual
orientation or the gender of their partner? Moreover, I would like to know what steps are being taken to
ensure equal treatment of married and non-married employees, including those with a registered, but non-
matrimonial, partnership.

Reply

(17 December 2001)

In its Judgment of 31 May 2001 in Joined Cases C-122/99 P and C-125/99 P, D and Kingdom of Sweden
v. Council, the Court of Justice decided that the term ‘marriage’ as used in the Staff Regulations was to be
construed according to an independent Community definition.

The Court held in paragraph 34 of its judgment that ‘it is not in question that, according to the definition
generally accepted by the Member States, the term’marriage‘means a union between two persons of the
opposite sex’, confirming thereby the Court of First Instance Judgment (Case T-264/97 of 28 January
1999) that the Community concepts of marriage and spouse related ‘exclusively to a relationship based on
civil marriage in the traditional meaning of the term’ (paragraph 26 of that Judgment).

The Council does not believe that that definition of marriage in the Staff Regulations, determined by
reference to the current state of national laws as a whole, is called into question by the Netherlands’
adoption of a law authorising civil marriage between persons of the same sex, since the Netherlands ? as
the Honourable Member points out ? is the only Member State to have taken that decision.

The Council notes that the current Staff Regulations lay down provisions for married persons and that the
possible extension of those provisions to non-married persons is also to be examined at interinstitutional
level as part of the reform of the Staff Regulations.