WRITTEN QUESTION E-3411/01 by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission. Compatibility of compulsory pension schemes with Articles 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty.
Date: 2001-12-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, dentist, equal treatment, free movement of workers, right of establishment, social policy, social-security benefit

C 134 E/230

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

burners have now come on the market which are intended for the heating of small premises and which
use waste oil as fuel. These have been shown after careful testing to keep well within the existing emissions
standards and to burn waste oil much more cleanly than ordinary burners using light heating oil.

In the light of the above, will the Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/EC (1) adopted on 4 December
2000, which enters into force in 2005, apply to these high-technology oil burners with an output of
30-50 kW, which have been developed for the heating of small premises, which were planned from the
outset with waste oil in mind, and which burn no more than 5 litres of waste oil per hour?

(1) OJ L 332, 28.12.2000, p. 91.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(28 January 2002)

The Waste Incineration Directive 2000/76/ EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 4 December 2000,
applies in the case of the waste oil where it is used as regular or additional fuel in burners. There is no
capacity threshold below which the use of waste oil as fuel for heating in waste oil burners would be
exempt from the scope of the directive. Therefore burners with a capacity of 30 to 50 kilowatt (kW) used
for the generation of heat or energy and fired with waste oil as a regular or additional fuel fall within the
scope of the directive and would be treated as ‘co-incineration plants’ as defined in Article 3, paragraph.5,
in the context of Directive 2000/76/EC.

According to Article 20, Directive 2000/76/EC shall apply in the case of new plants from 28 December
2002 and in the case of existing plants from 28 December 2005.

(2002/C 134 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3411/01

by Anne Jensen (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: Compatibility of compulsory pension schemes with Articles 39 and 43 of the EC Treaty

the Schleswig-Holstein Dentists‘ association
Is the compulsory membership (‘Pflichtmitgliedschaft’) of
(Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein’)
the ‘Satzung für das Vorsorgungswerk der
Zahnärztekammer Schleswig-Holstein’ and the associated pension scheme compatible with the rules on
the freedom of establishment laid down in Article 43 and the free movement of workers laid down in
Article 39 of the EC Treaty?

in respect of

Freedom of establishment and the free movement of workers are two of the fundamental freedoms on
which the European Union’s legal system is based. Rules such as those mentioned above affect access to
the labour market in Germany. Any arrangements which obstruct or restrict access must be removed and
the Member States have undertaken to do so in Article 10 of the EC Treaty.

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(7 February 2002)

Nationals of a Member State who carry out their professional activities, either as employees or self-
employed workers, in another Member State are obliged to comply with the rules governing the practice
of the profession in question in that Member State. However, if the effect of an obligation such as that

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/231

described by the Honourable Member is to restrict the free movement of workers and the freedom of
establishment within the European Union, this is only compatible with the rules of the EC Treaty if it
applies equally to nationals of the host Member State and those from other Member States, satisfies
overriding reasons relating to the public interest, is a suitable means of achieving the objective pursued,
and does not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective.

As such, the requirement for compulsory membership of a professional dentists’ association and the
associated pension scheme is not therefore contrary, in principle, to the free movement of workers laid
down in Article 39 of the EC Treaty and the freedom of establishment set out in Article 43 of the EC
Treaty.

In the case of a national who is already established as a dentist in a Member State and who wishes to open
a second practice in another Member State, the host Member State should, of course, take into account the
obligations he/she has already fulfilled in the country in which he/she was first established, including
affiliation to a pension scheme in that Member State.

(2002/C 134 E/245)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3421/01

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 December 2001)

Subject: The application of the Commission’s discrimination directives

Will the European Commission be subject to Council Directive 2000/43/EC (1) implementing the principle
of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and Council Directive 2000/78/
EC (2) establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, and, if so, who
will have responsibility for setting-up the relevant tribunals?

Is it correct that following the incorporation of the concept of ‘indirect discrimination’ into the directives
an employer may be found guilty of discrimination even if the employer is able to demonstrate that
employment was given on the basis of results or scores achieved in public examinations (such as the
concours) or on the basis of skills that are manifestly necessary for the job, such as the ability of a combat
soldier to demonstrate sufficient strength to carry a wounded comrade to safety?

In the case of Council Directive 200/78/EC will the concept of ‘indirect discrimination’ be applied on the
basis of the numbers of men and women of working age or will it be sufficiently flexible to take account
of the fact that large numbers of women choose for certain periods of their lives to leave work so that they
can bring up children and are accordingly unavailable for work?

Finally, if an employer discovers that the selection procedures instituted in the employment of staff has led
to a situation in which that employer is liable to be taken before a tribunal on grounds of ‘indirect
discrimination’, how can the employer protect himself from prosecution without resorting to clear and
direct discrimination on grounds of race or gender which is contrary to the provisions of the European
Treaties and which Member States are obliged by treaty to prevent?

(1) OJ L 180, 19.7.2000, p. 22.
(2) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(30 January 2002)

Both Council Directives 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment
between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing
a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation are addressed to the Member
States and not to the Community institutions (1). However, the Commission is committed to the principles
of equal treatment for all its officials and has taken steps, in the reform process, to further ensure the equal
treatment of its staff. Article 1a of the Staff Regulations already entitles officials to equal treatment without