WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Language discrimination by the Commission.
Date: 2001-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community body, EU statistics, administrative competition, job access, linguistic discrimination, mother tongue, official language

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/141

13. How many of the applicants interviewed had studied for more than one year at a French-language

university?

14. How many of the applicants interviewed had studied for more than one year at neither an English-

nor a French-language university?

15. Of what mother tongues are the members of staff recruited?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 18.
(2)

’The Brussels based Socrates, Leonardo and Youth Technical Assistance Office, assists the European Commission …
At present the following opportunities (m/f) exist: Assistants … The major requirements are language knowledge
(English mother tongue, excellent French and German and another union language … Administrative Officer …
English mother tongue, excellent command of French and another union language.’ 9 Bulletin, 7/12/00, p. 66.
’Socrates, Leonardo & Youth Technical Assistance Office … assists the European Commission … has a vacant post
for a (m/f) Communications Officer … Excellent command of spoken English and French … mother tongue a plus.’
9 Bulletin 01/03/01, p. 59.

Answer given by Ms Reding on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

Further to the joint answer given to Written Questions E-1681/01 and E-1682/01 on the same subject, the
Commission would point out that the Socrates, Leonardo and Youth Technical Assistance office is a
private-law body which, naturally, must comply with the national and/or Community rules applicable in
this area, but which conducts its recruitment policy under its own responsibility depending on language
needs, which can sometimes be very specific.

As far as the organisation of the recruitment procedure for the two job vacancies in question is concerned,
the Technical Assistance Office has informed the Commission that these vacancies:

9 gave rise to 88 applications from 21 English-speakers, 25 French-speakers and 42 people whose

mother tongue is neither English nor French;

9 led to the recruitment of five people: one English-speaker, one French-speaker and three people whose

mother tongue is neither English nor French.

These figures suggest that the expressions in question in the notifications of a vacancy did not have any
significant discriminatory effect. Moreover, the Technical Assistance Office has made it clear that it will
ensure that the forthcoming employment vacancies contain no expressions that may be considered to be
discriminatory.

More detailed statistics on these two recruitment procedures will be sent directly to the Honourable
Member and to the Secretariat of the Parliament.

(2002/C 134 E/140)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2901/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(22 October 2001)

Subject: Language discrimination by the Commission

In its answer to Written Question E-0779/01 (1), the Commission points out that use of the native speaker
criterion is discriminatory in the context of recruitment. According to Commissioner Palacio, the native
speaker criterion could be regarded as discriminatory and incompatible with the rules on the freedom of
movement of workers.

Laurette Onkelinx, a Belgian government minister, had previously acknowledged that issuing vacancy
notices which specify English-speakers violates the principle of non-discrimination and freedom of
movement of workers, and referred, with regard to recruitment in the federal state of Belgium, to collective
labour agreement no 38, the Vandezande decree and the decree of the French Community on social
relations between employers and employees.

C 134 E/142

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

The Commission’s TACIS programme is looking for a native speaker of English for its Information Centre.
This manifestly runs counter to the principle of non-discrimination laid down in the European Declaration
of Human Rights and the ILO’s Discrimination Convention, and in Belgian legislation on recruitment, as
set out in collective labour agreement no 38, the Vandezande decree and the decree of the French
Community on social relations between employers and employees.

Does the Commission acknowledge that the above-mentioned recruitment procedure manifestly runs
counter to the principle of non-discrimination and is therefore incompatible with the rules on the freedom
of movement of workers, as stated in the answer to Question E-0779/01?

If so, what legal action will it take in respect of the above violation of the principle of non-discrimination,
laid down in the European Declaration of Human Rights and the ILO’s Discrimination Convention, and in
Belgian legislation on recruitment, as set out in collective labour agreement no 38, the Vandezande decree
and the decree of the French Community on social relations between employers and employees?

If not, what arguments can it advance for violating the principle of non-discrimination and the rules on
the freedom of movement of workers when recruiting a communications officer
for the TACIS
programme?

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 245.

(2002/C 134 E/141)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2944/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 October 2001)

Subject: Language discrimination in the recruitment of TACIS staff

The European Commission’s TACIS and PHARE communications centre is looking for an English-speaking
member of staff. This recruitment process deliberately discriminates against non-English speakers. They are
excluded from the selection procedure in advance, even if they have more than a good command of
English. Speakers of other languages are obviously not eligible for these posts. It is inconceivable that the
European Commission’s TACIS and PHARE programmes should be guilty of discrimination of this kind.

Is the Commission prepared to suspend the current discriminatory procedure immediately and to publish a
new non-discriminatory notice of vacancy? If not, why is the Commission maintaining this procedure
which is in flagrant breach of Community law on free movement of workers (E-0779/01 (1), E-1681/01
and E-1682/01 (2), E-1356/01 (3) and E-4100/00 (4))?
the Commission publish a non-
discriminatory notice of vacancy?

If so, will

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001, p. 245.
(2) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 19.
(3) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 132.
(4) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001, p. 233.

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-2901/01 and E-2944/01
given by Mr Verheugen on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

The vacancy notice the Honourable Member is referring to was issued by the PHARE & TACIS Information
Centre on Enlargement, managed by a company called East West Consulting. The notice did indeed make