WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/04 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Application of age limits to recruitment of workers already having fixed-term contracts over a number of years in the public sector in Greece.
Date: 2004-01-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Greece, age discrimination, older worker, public service, recruitment, temporary employment, work contract

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/165

as there is an effect on trade between Member States, football clubs are to be treated as any other
undertaking under the State aid rules There are well-established rules on the granting of State aid, e.g. the
guidelines on rescue and restructuring aid, that would apply. Member States need notify any aid to the
Commission before aid is granted. Any aid which would be found incompatible with the common market
would have to be reimbursed, with interest.

The Commission has actually recently opened a formal
intervention by the Italian Government vis-à-vis professional football clubs.

investigation procedure with regard to an

The Commission follows with interest the situation of professional football and will take action, where
necessary, in areas falling under its responsibility. There are different ways to try to address the issue of
financial difficulties that some football clubs are faced with. The national and international sport
organisations also have a particular responsibility in taking care that
football grows in a healthy
environment. The Commission is aware that the Union of the European Football Associations (UEFA), for
example, has plans to introduce clubs licensing system, in order to improve the accountability in this
sector.

The Commission does not envisage setting up a European football competition.

(2004/C 84 E/0203)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0128/04

by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Application of age limits to recruitment of workers already having fixed-term contracts over a

number of years in the public sector in Greece

Directive 2000/78/EC (1) prohibits discrimination in employment on grounds of age but allows different
treatment if it serves to promote employment or for other objective reasons relating to the nature of the
work. In the public sector in Greece, there are employees on contract who have been working for the
same employer in the same job for decades. These workers, who are comparatively old, cannot compete
for permanent posts or jobs for an indefinite period which are advertised by the employer for whom they
have worked for numerous years because they are over the age limit stipulated in the conditions of
employment.

A typical example is the case of a number of specialist doctors who had been working on contract for
more than 10 years with the Greek Public Power Corporation (DEI) and were excluded from the procedure
to recruit permanent staff specialising in the same disciplines because, at the time the posts were
advertised, they were over the stipulated age limit.

Is this practice of denying workers who have already had fixed-term contracts over a number of years the
opportunity of permanent employment with the same employer, on the pretext of there being an age
limit, consistent with Directive 2000/78/EC and Directive 1999/70/EC (2)?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.
(2) OJ L 175, 10.7.1999, p. 43.

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation puts in place a framework for equal treatment in employment and
occupation, and prohibits discrimination on grounds of age, disability, religion or belief or sexual
orientation. The Directive covers access to employment, pay, working conditions, dismissal, training etc,

C 84 E/166

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

and both direct and indirect discrimination are covered. The Member States had to transpose the Directive
by 2 December 2003, and once it is transposed people must take their case before the national courts
under national law.

Article 6 of the Directive allows for the justification of differences of treatment on the grounds of age in
certain circumstances, as long as this is objectively justified by a legitimate aim, and the means of
achieving that aim are proportionate and necessary. This could include the setting of special conditions on
access to employment and vocational training for young people and older workers, the fixing of minimum
conditions for age, professional experience or seniority for access to employment or to certain advantages
linked to employment and the fixing of a maximum age for recruitment based on the training.

The Honourable Member does not mention the upper age limit used by the Greek Power Corporation for
recruitment purposes. It is not clear from the information provided whether the differences of treatment
based on age described by the Honourable Member could be justified under Article 6 of Directive 2000/78/
EC.

Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999 concerning the framework agreement on fixed-term work
concluded by the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC), the Union of Industrial and Employers’
Confederations of Europe (UNICE) and the Centre of Enterprises with Public Participation (CEEP) stipulates
that employers must inform fixed-term workers about vacancies to ensure that they have the same
opportunity to secure permanent positions as other workers. The introduction of an age limit for
employment in the vacant posts is not, however, contrary to Directive 1999/70/EC. Another issue is that
this Directive would not allow for successive fixed-term contracts which continue for years. The
Commission has contacted the Greek authorities in order to solve the problems arising from the use of
successive fixed-term contracts.

(2004/C 84 E/0204)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0138/04

by Kathalijne Buitenweg (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Use of passenger data for CAPPS II testing

(26 January 2004)

The agreement on transferring PNR data to the American authorities, presented to the European
Parliament by Commissioner Bolkestein on 16 December 2003, allows European citizens’ personal data to
be used in the testing of the controversial CAPPS II system. The Americans have apparently undertaken
not to use the data in operational situations, to delete it as soon as the test phase is over and not to pass it
on to third parties.

On 12 January 2004, the Washington Post reported that the American authorities had not succeeded in
finding an American airline willing to take part in CAPPS II testing. In 2003, two American airlines
withdrew their cooperation after protests from civil rights groups and the threat of a consumer boycott.

1.
Is it true that the agreement allows European citizens’ personal data to be used in the testing of
CAPPS II? How can the Commission guarantee that the American authorities will not, in fact, use this data
in operational situations, that they will delete it as soon as the test phase is over and that they will not pass
it on to third parties?

2.
Does the Commission share the view that pledging cooperation with the testing of a system that is at
odds with European principles and rules on privacy protection and that, in principle, could have remained
totally outside the agreement is an ominous step?

3.
The report in the Washington Post indicates that the Americans have been searching for passenger
data to test CAPPS II as a matter of urgency. Was the commitment given by the Commission a condition
for the discreet concessions made by the Americans in other areas of the agreement that facilitated the
conclusion of this agreement?