WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/02 by Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission. Rights of officials at EU institutions irrespective of sexual orientation.
Date: 2002-02-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, LGBTIQ persons, civil status, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, family benefit, marital status, matrimonial law, social-security benefit

C 229 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.9.2002

(2002/C 229 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/02

by Joke Swiebel (PSE) to the Commission

(28 February 2002)

Subject: Rights of officials at EU institutions irrespective of sexual orientation

It is a welcome development that, as part of the reform, the Commission has made proposals for giving
officials at EU institutions equal rights irrespective of their sexual orientation or the nature of their
partnership. On 13 December 2001, Commissioner Kinnock spoke about these proposals at the EP in
response to an oral question (B5-0533/2001 . 0-0086/01).

The Commission considers that family allowances and social benefits should be made available to EU
officials who are currently not entitled to them because they are either unable or do not wish to marry in
the conventional manner under national law, although they do have a permanent partner. Accordingly, the
Commission wishes to accord full
four
conditions are met, one being possession of a legally valid EU document acknowledging the status of the
relationship and another being that it is not possible for the partners to marry legally in a Member State.

legal recognition to long-term relationships provided that

Is the Commission aware that in some Member States no legally valid document can be obtained to certify
the status of unmarried partners (a long-term relationship between people of the same sex or different
sexes)?

Is the Commission aware that these conditions for recognition of long-term relationships will
lead to
discrimination on grounds of nationality? A few examples may clarify this: a Dutch EU official with a
registered partner of the same sex will not enjoy the same rights, as they could get married; a Swedish or
Danish EU official with a registered partner of the same sex, on the other hand, will enjoy the same rights,
as they could not get married; a Greek or Italian EU official in a long-term relationship (irrespective of the
partner’s sex) will not enjoy the same rights, as they cannot register. What will the Commission do to
combat this discrimination and maintain the freedom not to get married but to live in a different type of
partnership without forfeiting rights in the process?

Does the Commission intend to submit a proposal
relationships within the EU which will apply to all citizens within the EU and not just to EU officials?

in the near future for recognition of non-marital

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 May 2002)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question E-3211/01 by
Mrs Buitenweg (1) and to the reply given to oral question O-86/01 by Mr Blak and others during question
time at the December 2001 part-session of Parliament (2).

In addition, to assist the Honourable Member, the Commission offers the following information:

. As the Honourable Member will know, homosexual couples in the European Union do not have
access to legal marriage except in one Member State. Homosexual officials are otherwise consequently
excluded from all Statutory benefits which are granted only to officials who are in legally recognised
marriage. This applies even if homosexual officials live within a partnership which is comparable to
marriage. The reform package proposes that, subject to certain conditions, the full range of statutory
benefits would be extended to couples who are living in a stable partnership but do not have access to
legal marriage.

. One of the conditions to be fulfilled by an official seeking such benefits is that the partnership is
formally recognised by a Member State’s national authority. This condition is necessary because the
Commission has no competence in the attribution of a civil status to an official, and is not able or
willing to accord to itself a status that would be analogous to that of an ‘officier de l’état civil’. As in
the case of a conventional marriage between persons of different gender, national law will continue to

26.9.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 229 E/99

be the authority which determines the legal beginning of such a partnership and, potentially (for
administrative reasons this is particularly important) the legal end of such a partnership, as well as the
detailed conditions of the termination.

. It will be clear from the above that the requirements for recognition of a partnership under national
law can lead to a situation where access to family benefits is not identical for officials of different
nationalities who are living in a stable partnership. For the reasons of competence and legal authority
set out above, however, such situations appear to be unavoidable. It should be noted, of course, that
such reference to national
in relevant parts of the Staff Regulations. The
divergence of status and treatment which the Honourable Member uses in his question as illustrations
are a product of the diversity of legal provisions in Member States and not of discriminatory provision
or intention by the Commission.

legislation is normal

. No proposal is at present envisaged on the issue of recognition of non-marital partnerships by one
Member State where such recognition is established under the national law in another Member State.

(1) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002, p. 73.
(2) Oral reply, 13.12.2001.

(2002/C 229 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0546/02

by Ilka Schröder (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(4 March 2002)

Subject: Raid by the Netherlands Police on the ‘Vrankrijk’ Building in Amsterdam

At about 3.30 a.m. on 17 January 2002, some 200 officers from the Amsterdam Police Force stormed the
internationally famous ‘Vrankrijk’ Building, located at 216 Spuistraat in the city centre, and, according to
inhabitants of the building, hit a neighbour so hard with a truncheon that he required hospital treatment.
They then searched all 14 apartments (see report at www.statewatch.org). During the raid, several books,
mobile telephones and a collection of water pistols were confiscated. According to statements by the
inhabitants of the building, the police also searched apartments for which they did not hold a search
warrant. (see report at http://www.indymedia.de/2002/01/13697/html).

1. What information does the Council have about the raid on the ‘Vrankrijk’ Building? On what legal
basis was it carried out?

2. What measures will the Council take in the future in order to prevent raids on buildings or parts of
buildings in the Member States?

3. What information does the Council have about any of its own proposals or Commission proposals
designed to afford better protection from arbitrary police action of fundamental rights in the EU, especially
the fundamental right of inviolability of the home?

Reply

(25 June 2002)

The Honourable Member of the European Parliament is informed that Article 33 TEU excludes national
measures aimed at protection of public order in the Member States from the competence of the Council.