WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/03 by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE)and Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission. Language discrimination in notices of vacancy.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: job access, job description, job vacancy, linguistic discrimination, mother tongue, recruitment

C 33 E/236

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

As regards the recognition of professional qualifications, the professions of translator and interpreter are
covered, depending on the level of training required, either by Directive 89/48/EEC (1) or by Directive 92/
51/EEC (2). The Directives apply only when the profession concerned is regulated in the Member State in
which the person wishes to exercise it and that person acquired his or her qualifications in another
Member State. These Directives, the principles of which have been included in the proposal for a directive
on the recognition of professional qualifications (3), are based on a system of mutual recognition and not
on the coordination of minimum training conditions or the conditions of access to a profession.

1. When a profession is not regulated in a Member State, there is no legal barrier to the free movement
of workers, who are subject only to market rules. In the absence of Community competence in this matter,
the Commission has not carried out any studies on the subject.

In principle it is up to the Member States to regulate the professions in their territory. Any
2.
coordination of the conditions of access to the professions which would involve an amendment to the
legislative principles in a Member State requires,
in accordance with Article 47(2) of the EC Treaty, a
Directive adopted unanimously by the Council. The Commission is not aware of initiatives either by the
profession or by the Member States which are likely to receive this level of support.

The Commission is not competent

3.
to recognise professional associations. However, under the
proposal for a directive on the recognition of professional qualifications currently being negotiated by
Parliament and the Council, associations would have the possibility of presenting common platforms at
European level and defining qualification criteria able to meet the requirements of each Member State.
Once included in a decision adopted in accordance with the comitology procedure (‘regulation’), these
criteria would facilitate the free movement of workers that meet them.

The Community is not competent

4. and 5.
in matters regarding professional recognition or the
suitability of regulating a profession in accordance with Community law. The Commission is responsible
for applying Community rules on the recognition of professional qualifications to professions which are
already regulated in a Member State.

(1) Council Directive 89/48/EEC of 21 December 1988 on a general system for the recognition of higher-education
diplomas awarded on completion of professional education and training of at least three years’ duration, OJ L 19,
24.1.1989.

(2) Council Directive 92/51/EEC of 18 June 1992 on a second general system for the recognition of professional

education and training to supplement Directive 89/48/EEC, OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(3) COM(2002) 119 final.

(2004/C 33 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2226/03

by Paul Rübig (PPE-DE)
and Harald Ettl (PSE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Language discrimination in notices of vacancy

In the last twelve months technical support offices, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and private
firms financed by the Commission have notified over 500 vacancies at European level that were reserved
exclusively for applicants of ‘English mother tongue’ and ‘native English speakers’ (www.lingvo.org/eo/2/
15). In these notices, applications are invited, not from candidates with ‘excellent’ or ‘very good’ knowledge
of English, but explicitly and exclusively from those of English mother tongue.

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/237

Is the Commission aware that the Intrasoft and Ogilvy undertakings, with which the Commission has
already worked, recently sought to recruit an applicant of English mother tongue exclusively? Did the
Commission oppose that action? If so, how? If not, why not?

Does the Commission intend to continue to work with organisations that discriminate against non-native
English speakers?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(26 August 2003)

The Commission explained its position concerning the problem in general in numerous replies to written
questions. The Honourable Members are therefore referred to the replies of the Commission given to
Written Questions: No E-4100/00 by Mr Staes (1), E-0779/01 by Mr Staes (2), E-1356/01 by Mr Gemelli (3),
E-1681/01 by Mr Staes (4), E-1682/01 by Mr Staes (4), E-2331/01 by Mr Ferrer (4), E-2900/01 by
Mr Staes (5), E-2901/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-2944/01 by Mr Staes (5), E-3189/01 by Mr Rothley (5), E-3572/
01 by Mr Staes (6), E-0941/02 by Mr Staes (7), E-2764/02 by Mr Staes (8), E-1733/03 by Mr Leinen (9) and
E-2018/03 by Mr Staes (10).

All Commission services have been made aware of possible discriminatory job advertisements and asked to
take the necessary steps as regards their contractors. The Commission tries to avoid co-operation with
organisations which publish job advertisements with a ‘native speaker’ criterion. The Commission was not
aware of the cases referred to by the Honourable Members. Contact is being taken with the undertakings
involved in this respect.

The Commission would also like to reiterate its intention to use its legal powers to fight against the use of
a ‘native speaker’ criterion in job advertisements.

(1) OJ C 174 E, 19.6.2001.
(2) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.
(3) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.
(4) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002.
(5) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002.
(6) OJ C 160 E, 4.7.2002.
(7) OJ C 229 E, 26.9.2002.
(8) OJ C 92 E, 17.4.2002.
(9) OJ C 11 E, 15.1.2004, p. 221.
(10) See page 201.

(2004/C 33 E/243)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2228/03

by Jules Maaten (ELDR) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Problems with transfrontier working

Is the European Commission aware of the problems that continue to exist with transfrontier working

1.
despite virtual completion of the internal market?

2.
Is the European Commission aware that Netherlands legislation only allows pension rights built up
abroad to be transferred to a Netherlands insurance company if the country of origin of the pension
applies the same rules as the Netherlands?

3.
Is the Commission also aware that in general the Member States have very different rules on
pensions and that in practice it is therefore virtually impossible for workers to take their pension rights
with them to another Member State?

Does the Commission share my view that practices of this kind are a serious obstacle to the mobility

4.
of labour in Europe?

5.

Does the Commission intend to do anything to tackle these problems?