Senior EU Commission official questions Maltese language requirement for teachers

The Public Service Commission’s annual report reveals that a senior official of the EU Commission questioned the requirement that applicants for teaching posts in the public sector should be able to communicate in both Maltese and English.

But the PSC, which oversees selection boards for employment in the public sector, subsequently ruled that this requirement does not infringe EU regulations on freedom of movement.

The report refers to an enquiry made by an unspecified Member of Parliament who questioned the requirement after receiving a communication from “a senior official of the EU Commission”, stating that the Maltese language requirement was “not allowed at all” and “against the rules of the free circulation of workers,” as a result of which “Malta could be called at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg and pay a lot of money.”

Another complaint related to the same issue was raised by an applicant for the post of Supply Teacher, whose application had not been accepted on account of her inability to communicate in Maltese.

Since Malta joined the EU, applications for regular teachers in the Public Service have included among the eligibility requirements the ability to communicate in Maltese and English.

After investigating this issue, the PSC Commission concluded that requirements relating to linguistic proficiency in calls for applications were included on a case-by-case basis where this was reasonably necessary for the proper fulfillment of the duties of the post in question.

According to the PSC, this was in line with European Union legislation, since article 3(1) of Regulation 1612/68 on the free movement of workers within the EU permitted the application of ‘conditions relating to linguistic knowledge required by reasons of the nature of the post to be filled’.

According to the EU, the Court of Justice confirmed this principle, while specifying also that any language requirement had to be reasonable and necessary for the job in question.

The PSC said that the requirement to understand Maltese has become even more justified as a result of educational reforms, through which children of mixed abilities are being taught in the same class.

“This makes it increasingly probable that children who could not communicate in English would be present in class.”

Moreover, parental involvement in education could be impeded if parents who were unable to speak English needed to communicate with teachers.

It also referred to the possibility of emergency situations in which a child has to express a  “critical need” to a teacher who could not understand that child.

It also justified the inclusion of the linguistic requirement in the call for applications for supply teachers because it followed the same rules applying to regular teachers.

The PSC also noted that applicants’ ability to communicate in Maltese and English was generally tested not through possession of any particular qualification (except in the case of teachers of Maltese or English), but through an oral assessment by the Selection Board.