WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/02 by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission. The Commission's services in Luxembourg.
Date: 2002-09-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Luxembourg, administration of the Institutions, administrative structures, operation of the Institutions, provision of services, public health, workplace

C 137 E/104

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

there is now regular consular access. As it is normal in such cases, the matter is being handled bilaterally
by the British authorities. The Commission Delegation in Cairo and other Member State embassies are kept
fully informed.

(2003/C 137 E/117)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2663/02

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: Discrimination by French authorities

Is the Commission aware of the discrimination against Sikhs in France, whereby identification photographs
are not accepted should a Sikh be wearing a turban on his head? Does this Commission find this practice
by the French authorities acceptable?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(25 October 2002)

The rules concerning the way in which identification photographs must be taken are a matter of national
competence of each Member State. Although Community law provides for the issue of residence cards to
Union nationals and to the members of their families whichever their nationality, it does not refer to
identification photographs which are regulated by national measures.

However, the Commission remarks that the purpose of identification photographs is to permit a quick and
clear identification of the person in question. This may require on the part of Member States the
application of specific guidelines on the use of items such as the turbans worn by the Sikhs to which the
honourable Member refers to.

When laying down such guidelines Member States should ensure the balance between legitimate public
order and public safety requirements and the right to freedom of religion. This right is enshrined in the
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and in the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR), wich has been ratified by all Member States. Any limitations thereto should respect article 9(2) of
the Convention which reads as follows:

Freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief shall be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by
law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of
public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Should the Sikhs consider that the French administrative instructions concerning identification photo-
graphs are in violation of the ECHR, they should appeal to the European Court of Human Rights once all
possibilities of domestic appeal have been exhausted and within six months of the final ruling by a
national court.

(2003/C 137 E/118)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: The Commission’s services in Luxembourg

In reply to my question E-1226/02 (1) on the location of the Commission’s public health departments,
Commissioner Kinnock stated on 9 July 2002 that ‘it has proved to be difficult to attract suitably qualified
staff to vacant permanent posts in the public health directorate in Luxembourg’.

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/105

In the wake of this answer, which I do not find satisfactory, I now feel obliged to ask the following
additional questions:

1. How does the Commission explain the fact that other EU institutions based in Luxembourg pursuant
to the same Treaty and to the protocols thereto (the European Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors,
the European Investment Bank, etc) have no difficulty in recruiting ‘suitably qualified staff’?

2. Does it not have to be concluded that the Commission and its hierarchy at the highest level are
deliberately operating a strategy aimed at undermining the Commission’s services in Luxembourg?
Can there be any other interpretation of, for instance, the letter sent on 26 July 2002 to the Director
of Directorate C by Director-General Jean-Paul Mingasson calling for a freeze on further recruitment
and adding that until
further notice derogations will only be accepted if candidates give their
agreement in writing to the possibility of being transferred to Brussels?

3.

‘the review of

Is this freeze on recruitment in Luxembourg, for all except those ‘willing’ to move to Brussels, not in
contradiction with the statement by the Commission in its answer to my earlier question to the effect
that
the Commission’s services in Luxembourg is not motivated by centralising
purposes’ [the reference being to Brussels], but is related to ‘trying to secure the most rational and
efficient use of resources’,
interests’ of staff now based in
Luxembourg?

taking account of

the ‘professional

4. Can the Commission supply examples of what it means by ‘most rational and efficient’ use of its
services in Luxembourg? How does the proposed transfer of Units C1 (Innovation Policy) and C3
(Relay Centres) to DG Enterprise in Brussels square with the Commission’s commitment to the
Member States’ decisions of 8 April 1965 and the undertakings made at the 29 October 1993
Intergovernmental Conference and confirmed in the Treaty of Amsterdam?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 98.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

In replying to Written Question E-1226/02 by the Honourable Member, and on other occasions,
the Commission has repeatedly emphasised the great attention which it pays to the matter of location of
departments in Luxembourg.

That reply also pointed out that the personnel being sought in the instance referred to by the Honourable
Member in Written Question E-1226/02 were specialists in public health who have qualifications which
are evidently different
from those that are normally sought by the Institutions mentioned by the
Honourable Member in his Written Question.

As previously announced, the Commission is undertaking in depth examination of the way in which it is
organised and those reflections naturally relate to departments located in Luxembourg and all other sites.

In this context, the Director General for Enterprise was seeking to exercise care and transparency in human
resource management and that was the motivation for the internal note to which the Honourable Member
refers. Neither that note nor any other action has been prompted by any ‘strategy aimed at undermining
the Commission’s services in Luxembourg’. No such strategy exists in any form.

Since the time that the 26 July note was written the course being considered has, for objective reasons,
been suspended and replaced by an approach which emphasises and operates better communication for
candidates seeking recruitment inside the Innovation Directorate.

In any case, the Commission again underlines the fact that the measures are completely without prejudice
to any action the Commission may decide on after consulting the Luxembourg Government and the staff
concerned, consistent with the guidelines set out in the policy paper ‘Future of the Luxembourg Site’
adopted by the Commission in January 2001.

On the other points of his question the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the reply to Written
Question E-2525/02 by Mrs Flesch (1).

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 65.