WRITTEN QUESTION E-0198/02 by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission. Age limit for dentists.
Date: 2002-02-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, age discrimination, anti-discriminatory measure, application of EU law, dentist, free movement of workers, infringement of EU law, right of establishment

C 160 E/196

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

These ‘Euroclasses’ are established as Commission Decisions, taken in the framework of the implemen-
tation of the Construction Products Directive (CPD), Council Directive 89/106/EEC of 21 December 1988
on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States relating to
construction products (3), and represent
instruments for Member States to harmonise fire
performance requirements on construction products. The reaction to fire Euroclasses are underpinned by a
brand new European test method, the ‘single burning item’ or SBI test. This test was partly funded by the
Commission and provides a harmonised means of assessing the reaction to fire performance of
construction products. The SBI test standard was published on the 13 February 2002. Therefore the
classification ‘Euroclasses for reaction to fire’ is now operational, and a common framework is available to
the Member States. The Commission is convinced that the new Euroclasses system will provide an
important contribution to increasing the safety in case of fire in buildings.

important

(1) OJ L 384, 31.12.1986.
(2) COM(2001) 348 final.
(3) OJ L 40, 11.2.1989.

(2002/C 160 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0198/02

by Bernd Lange (PSE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Age limit for dentists

The Gesundheitsstrukturgesetz, (German health law) stipulates an age limit for practising as a dentist.

A question was put to me regarding the extent to which this restriction is consistent with Article 12 of the
EC Treaty (ex-Article 6: prohibition of discrimination), Article 40 and Article 44 (freedom of movement for
workers, freedom of establishment), in the event of a dental practitioner having already exceeded the age
limit allowed by the German law.

Does it constitute a breach of the aforementioned Articles of the EC Treaty if a dentist is no longer
authorised to work because of his age? Is the Commission aware of this problem? Have there already been
similar cases where complaints have been made? Where the complaints proved legitimate, has the
Commission already taken steps to remedy the situation and what action does it plan to take?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2002)

Article 12 of the EC Treaty prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, i.e. between nationals
of the Member States. The same principle is repeated in the treaty provisions concerning the free
movement of workers, Article 39 of the EC Treaty. The information provided in the written question does
not indicate any discrimination on grounds of nationality.

The Right of Establishment and the Right to provide Services > Articles 43 and 49 of the EC Treaty > are,
where no harmonisation measures have been taken by the Union, subject to national rules in the Member
States. In order to be compatible with the Treaty restrictions to these rights must be justified.

According to the jurisprudence on the right of establishment of the Court of Justice, restrictions which
hinder or make less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the EC Treaty must
fulfil four conditions: they must be applied in a non-discriminatory manner; they must be justified by
imperative requirements in the general interest; they must be suitable for securing the attainment of the
objective which they pursue; and they must not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it.

In the light of the information provided by the Honourable Member, the German law or its application
does not appear to be disproportionate or otherwise be incompatible with the above listed requirements.
To the knowledge the Commission, complaints concerning age limits to practice the dental profession
have not been received before.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/197

At this stage the Commission does not intend to take further action on the matter due to the reported
German regulation.

As to the wider context of age discrimination, Article 13 of the EC Treaty foresees that the appropriate
legislative action may be taken to combat discrimination based on sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or
belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 provides
that discrimination based on, inter alia, age is prohibited in employment and occupation. Member States
must introduce the national measures to give effect to this directive by 2 December 2003 though they
may, if necessary to take account of particular conditions, have an additional period of three years from
that date to implement the provisions on age and disability discrimination. Moreover, Member States may
provide that differences of treatment on grounds of age shall not constitute discrimination if, within the
context of national law, they are reasonably justified by a legitimate aim, including legitimate employment
policy,
labour market and vocational training objectives, and if the means of achieving that aim are
appropriate and necessary.

The Commission is therefore unable to intervene in this case to ensure the application of the principle of
equal treatment in relation to age in advance of the date of transposition of the Directive.

(2002/C 160 E/244)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0200/02

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE), Per-Arne Arvidsson (PPE-DE)
and Antonios Trakatellis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Asbestos regulations in the European Union

(6 February 2002)

Following studies by Professor Julian Peto of the Institute of Cancer Research in the 1980s which suggested
that ‘white’ asbestos was just as dangerous as ‘blue’ and ‘brown’ asbestos (which had been identified in the
1950s by Professor Richard Doll as being extremely hazardous to human health),
the European
Commission introduced directives lumping the two together.

Is the Commission aware that subsequent reports commissioned by the UK Health and Safety Executive
carried-out by Dr Alan Gibbs and Professor F. Pooley suggested that Professor Peto may have misread the
data, that further internal Health and Safety Executive studies, including a paper by John Hodgson and
Andrew Darnton, concluded in the year 2000 that the risk from ‘white’ asbestos (which confusingly shares
the same name as ‘blue’ and ‘brown’ asbestos despite having an entirely different chemical structure) is
‘virtually zero’, that in 1992 a senior US court declared that more people are likely to ‘die from inhalation
of toothpicks than from white asbestos fibres’ and that, following the release of 40 tonnes of ‘white’
asbestos as a result of the collapse of the World Trade Center last September, the US Environmental
Protection Agency declared that this posed no danger?

Will the Commission undertake to request information from the US and New York health authorities over
the coming months as to the environmental impact of this enormous release of ‘white’ asbestos into the
atmosphere and, without in any way questioning the need for measures to protect humans from the effects
of ‘blue’ and ‘brown’ asbestos, will the Commission ask its own scientific advisory body to look into the
conflicting scientific evidence over ‘white’ asbestos and produce its own report on the matter to ensure
that all asbestos legislation is appropriately targeted and that industry is not required to bear huge and
unnecessary costs to protect against non-dangerous substances?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 March 2002)

Via Commission Directive 1999/77/EC of 26 July 1999 adapting to technical progress for the sixth time
Annex I to Council Directive 76/769/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative