This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 92003E002188
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against pregnant women in grants made by the Ministry of Labour in Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against pregnant women in grants made by the Ministry of Labour in Spain.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/03 by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE)and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission. Discrimination against pregnant women in grants made by the Ministry of Labour in Spain.
OJ C 33E, 6.2.2004, p. 232–232
(ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)
|
6.2.2004 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
CE 33/232 |
(2004/C 33 E/237)
WRITTEN QUESTION E-2188/03
by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) and María Valenciano Martínez-Orozco (PSE) to the Commission
(2 July 2003)
Subject: Discrimination against pregnant women in grants made by the Ministry of Labour in Spain
The Institute for Women, which is a subsidiary organisation of the Spanish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, has recently called for applications for training placement grants whose application regulations include a clause suspending the placement and salary if participants give birth and decide to look after the baby for the subsequent 16 weeks (Regulation TAS/939/2003 published in BOE [Official State Journal] 93 on 18 April 2003).
Does the Commission consider that this condition in the regulations governing the award of these grants complies with Directive 92/85/EEC (1)?
Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission
(4 August 2003)
With regard to the matter brought to its attention by the Honourable Members, the Commission intends to contact the Spanish authorities to find out how these grants are awarded.
At first glance, it would appear that the possibility of an infringement of the Community legislation governing the equal treatment of men and women cannot be ruled out in this case.
(1) OJ L 348, 28.11.1992, p. 1.