WRITTEN QUESTION P-3102/03 by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against women in the Commission's new assessment system.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: equal treatment, professional career, regulations for civil servants, sexual discrimination, staff assessment, unpaid leave

C 78 E/780

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0830)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3101/03

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(20 October 2003)

Subject: EMU referendum and location of agencies

One of the arguments deployed in Sweden’s EMU debate was that, if the Swedish people voted no in the
referendum, Sweden’s chances of being considered as a location for EU agencies, e.g. for the management
of chemicals, would be diminished.

Now that the Swedish people have voted no to the single currency of the euro, does the Council consider
that Sweden’s chances of being considered as a location for an EU agency have worsened?

Reply

(4 March 2004)

The Council has not discussed the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

(2004/C 78 E/0831)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3102/03

by Lissy Gröner (PSE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Discrimination against women in the Commission’s new assessment system

The Commission has introduced a new assessment system. It appears that, under this system, women are
being ‘punished’ with the deduction of points if they take a few months’ extra leave after their maternity
leave to care for their babies.

According to my information, a female Commission official had three ‘merit points’ retroactively deducted
during her annual assessment for three months’ parental
in contrast to the one point which is
deducted for one year (= 12 months) seniority in grade.

leave,

In this context, the deduction of one point for each month of CCP is out of all proportion. The effects of
this disproportionate downgrading will last for years (‘système sac à dos’) and it is all but impossible for
the women concerned to catch up again.

Such a deduction indicates that women and mothers are being penalised and discriminated against, since
the deduction of points on the grounds of CCP affects a disproportionate number of women who have
taken parental leave.

The women concerned had merit points deducted retroactively, without any advance warning, and
deductions were also made in the case of women who had applied for CCP before the relevant decision of
26 April 2002 had even been adopted.

How can this point deduction be explained in the light of European directives on equal

1.
opportunities?

In these conditions, how can the reconciliation of job and family propagated by the Commission be

2.
made a reality?

3. What is the connection between CCP on the one hand and merit on the other?

Is the Commission aware of the ‘Mum’s CV’ model introduced by Unilever, which rewards applicants

4.
who have spent time bringing up children with plus points on their applications?

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/781

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2004)

The deduction of merit points in cases of leave on personal grounds (‘CCP’) stems from Article 4(4) of the
Commission Decision of 26 April 2002 on general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff
Regulations. The Article in question currently stipulates that the global mark for the reporting period is to
be calculated on a pro rata basis (in relation to the number of months covered by the report) if the said
report covers part of the year only. Footnote 6 states that such a situation would occur e.g.
‘when the
jobholder has taken leave on personal grounds during part of the year’.

In answer to the Honourable Member’s questions:

1. Although the Directives referred to by the Honourable Member are addressed to the Member States,
not to the European Institutions, Article 40 of the Staff Regulations makes provision for the same type
of case. It already provides that a year’s leave on personal grounds, renewable annually up to four
times, may be granted to an official to raise a child under five years of age. Once the period of leave
on personal grounds has expired, the officials concerned must be reinstated in a post in their category
or service which corresponds to their grade.

In future, if the Commission proposal amending the Staff Regulations of officials of the European
Communities (1), is adopted (it is currently being scrutinised by Parliament and the Council), two new
types of leave would be introduced: parental leave of up to six months in respect of each child, and
family leave the total duration of which may not exceed nine months over the official’s entire career.
During these periods of
to
advancement to a higher step and their eligibility for promotion to a higher grade, and will receive a
flat-rate allowance.

leave, officials will retain their

to employment,

right

right

their

2. The policy developments outlined above confirm the importance which the Commission attaches to
improving provision for reconciling professional and family life. In this context, the Staff Regulations
allow women to take maternity leave of at least 16 weeks, with an addition of up to four weeks’
special leave for breast-feeding mothers. These periods of leave are treated as if the jobholder was in
active employment and are therefore not subject to a pro rata deduction of merit points.

3. The aim of the new evaluation and promotion system is to provide the Commission with objective
means of assessing the merits of every official each year on the basis of their efficiency, ability and
conduct in the service. These three elements can clearly be best assessed while officials are in active
service with one of the Institutions or seconded to another body.

A deduction of merit points applies to every official or servant of the Communities, male or female,
who has taken leave on personal grounds, whether it is related to raising children or other justified
reasons.

4. The Commission is aware that different organisations in the public and private sectors have various
provisions for childbearing and childrearing employees. In adopting the policy improvements set out
above the Commission has striven to ensure equity, and is aware that the new provisions now bear
comparison with satisfactory standards achieved for public sector employees in Member States.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that, in addition to these specific responses, the
promotion committees set up pursuant to the general provisions for implementing Article 45 of the Staff
Regulations have looked into the issues referred to by the Honourable Member and proposed that a certain
number of points should be awarded to those officials who suffered from the deduction of merit points
following a period of leave on personal grounds. They have noted, in particular, that (cid:1) in the normal
course of events (cid:1) some officials had applied for leave on personal grounds before the Commission
adopted the general provisions for implementing Article 43 of the Staff Regulations. Accordingly, the
promotion committees’ deliberations may well, in the context of this transitional year, result in a proposal

C 78 E/782

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

for offsetting part of the reduction. In addition, the promotion committees have noted that the effect (cid:1) in
terms of promotion (cid:1) of the deduction of merit points in 2003 was too strong in the context of a
transition period based on increasing promotion thresholds (i.e. the ratio ‘lost points due to leave on
personal grounds/promotion threshold’ is currently higher than it would be in a ‘stable’ system).

The Commission has taken all these observations into account and consequently proposes to correct
retroactively all the deductions made in order to bring them in line with the estimated ratio in a stable
system. This proposal
is included in an annex to the new draft general provisions for implementing
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations that were adopted on 21 January 2004 and are now subject to statutory
consultations before final approval.

Once adopted, this decision would have the effect of significantly lowering the impact of leave on personal
grounds on promotion possibilities. For example, the loss of 7 points (absence of an official with a mark of
14/20 during half the reference period) would be reduced to a loss of only 2,5 points (based on the
hypothesis that the official in question’s seniority in grade is 4 years and the average seniority in grade is 5
years).

(1) OJ C 291 E, 26.11.2002.

(2004/C 78 E/0832)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3120/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(22 October 2003)

Subject: Noise pollution

Does the Commission intend to make available funding opportunities for local projects that will tackle the
adverse effects of noise pollution in rural areas, for example, noise reduction barriers on motorways that
run close to residential areas?

Can the Commission state how the Environmental Noise Directive will assist people living in rural areas
but who suffer from the adverse effects (a reduced quality of life, stress) of persistent noise from nearby
motorways?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

The Commission is not planning to establish an EU funding instrument specifically for tackling noise
pollution. However, projects in this field could be given financial support under existing mechanisms,
including the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE).

Under Directive 2002/49/CE (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 June 2002 relating to
the assessment and management of environmental noise, which entered into force on 18 July 2002, the
authorities in the Member States are required to draw up strategic noise maps in the vicinity of major
transport infrastructure, including roads, and within the major conglomerations, on the basis of common
indicators, to inform the public about exposure to noise and its effects, and to develop action plans to
reduce noise, where necessary, and to preserve the quality of the acoustic environment where it is good.

With regard more especially to road infrastructure, noise maps and action plans have to be drawn up in
2007 and 2008, respectively, for major routes which have more than six million passenger vehicles a year.
As a second stage, in 2012 and 2013, maps and action plans will have to be drawn up for major roads
with more than three million passenger vehicles a year.

These maps and action plans will concern noise pollution generated by road infrastructure in urban areas
as well as in rural areas.

(1) OJ L 189, 18.7.2002.