WRITTEN QUESTION P-0799/04 by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission. UK implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC.
Date: 2004-03-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, application of EU law, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, employment policy, equal treatment, social policy

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/449

Proper administration entails adopting sound legislation and regularly evaluating and where necessary
adjusting it. In this specific instance, problems have arisen even before the transposed provisions have been
published or, in certain Member States, have entered into force. It may perhaps be that the consequences
of the decision on indicating percentages on labels of compound feedingstuffs were misjudged.

In the light of the problems which have already arisen in a number of Member States: Does the
Commission envisage submitting a proposal
to amend Directive 2002/2/EC in order to drop the
compulsory indication of percentages on labels? Or does the Commission still stand fully behind the
Directive, and does it intend to put forward a proposal for amendment only if legally obliged to do so as a
consequence of the ruling of the Court and in the meantime to allow the implementation of the relevant
measure, which is leading to distortion of competition, to continue?

(1) OJ C 78 E, 27.3.2004.
(2) OJ L 63, 6.3.2002, p. 23.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 March 2004)

As already stated in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question P-4074/03, the Commission
still supports the legitimacy of the provisions laid down in Directive 2002/2/EC of the Parliament and of
the Council of 28 January 2002 amending Council Directive 79/373/EEC on the circulation of compound
feeding stuffs and repealing Commission Directive 91/357/EEC. It is waiting for the preliminary ruling to
be given by the European Court of Justice on this issue.

Without prejudice to the Commission’s intention to propose, in the medium-term, a recast of the feed
labelling legislation, the Commission does not intend to propose an amendment to Directive 2002/2/EC in
view of the current situation.

(2004/C 84 E/0524)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0799/04

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: UK implementation of Directive 2000/78/EC

(5 March 2004)

Are UK regulations ‘The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003’, with particular
regard to section 7(3), in full compliance with Directive 2000/78/EC (1), in particular Article 4(2)?

If the regulations do not fully comply with the Directive, what action does the Commission intend to take?

(1) OJ L 303, 2.12.2000, p. 16.

Answer given by Mr Dimas on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 2004)

The Commission is reviewing the legislation submitted to it by Member States and which implements
Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment
in employment and occupation,
including The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations
2003 submitted by the United Kingdom.

The Commission expects all Member State legislation to fully and properly implement the Directive.
The Commission will pay particular attention to the way in which the Member States use any of the

C 84 E/450

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

legitimate and justified
derogations set out in the Directive including Article 4(2) regarding genuine,
occupational requirements. As with any exception to the principle of equal treatment, the provisions of
this Article are to be interpreted strictly.

The first paragraph of Article 4(2) allows Member States to maintain provisions in their legislation which
are in force at the date of the adoption of the Directive and which provide that differences of treatment
based on a person’s religion or belief shall not constitute discrimination when the religion or belief, by the
nature of the activities or the context in which they are carried out, constitutes a genuine, legitimate and
justified occupational requirement having regard to the organisation’s ethos. This is also the case when
Member States adopt new legislation, but only, if at the time of the adoption of the Directive, national
practices pursuing this aim were already in existence.

It is also important that this paragraph refers only to differences of treatment based on a person’s religion
or belief. Differences of treatment on other grounds are not mentioned. Furthermore, the paragraph
stipulates that this difference of treatment ‘should not justify discrimination on another ground’. Therefore,
differences of treatment which are not based on a person’s religion or belief are not permissible under
Article 4(2).

As already mentioned, the Commission is reviewing Member States’ legislation. Where Member States
choose to take advantage of the derogations from the principle of equal treatment set out in the Directive
and the Commission concludes that
the
derogations within the Directive,
including Article 4(2), then the Commission will take all necessary
actions under the EC Treaty to ensure Member State compliance.

their legislation does not meet

the strict requirements of

(2004/C 84 E/0525)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0823/04

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Recognition of degrees and denial of employment

(8 March 2004)

A Greek citizen obtained a degree in air traffic control in Scotland in 1981. His diploma was recognised
by the Greek Education Ministry in 1983. Since that date, the Civil Aviation Authority has systematically
refused to allow him to take part in competitions to appoint employees on the grounds that he does not
fulfil the qualifications criteria, which call for diplomas with no connection with the field in question.
It should be pointed out that air traffic control degrees are not awarded at any institution in Greece.

Could the Commission therefore say whether the Civil Aviation Authority’s conduct is contrary to
Community law? If so, what steps can this citizen take to ensure that he can freely practise his profession?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(30 March 2004)

Unfortunately, the information provided by the Honourable Member is not detailed enough to allow the
Commission to decide whether any infringement of Community law by the Greek Authorities has taken
place.

However, the Commission would reiterate the following principles.

Under Articles 149 and 150 of the EC Treaty, each Member State is responsible for the content of its
teaching and the organisation of
is the
responsibility of Member States to regulate the conditions governing access to, and the practice of an
occupation on their territory. However, Community law does not allow migrants to be put at an unfair
disadvantage in relation to holders of national diplomas simply because their qualifications were obtained
in another Member State.

In the absence of harmonisation,

its education system.

it