Littlelemon, first of all, you're asking a totally different question in Link 6.
But to answer your original question--not to worry! You are perfectly fine...not just norm-al, but actually in the majority. The foreskins of most intact men do not automatically retract on erection (or only partially so to varying degrees)...period. There are exceptions, of course...but those are usually naturally short ones (I'll PM you the address of a site showing an unusual exception). From your photos, it appears that you and I may have foreskins of about the same length (at least when soft)--mine has an overhang of about an inch at my most flaccid and a good quarter inch at maximum erection. Just to cite my own (pretty extensive!) experience as additional substantiation, I have noticed only a minute number of men whose 'skins retracted without manual assistance...both in the United States and your own foreskin-rich Europe.
It's not surprising that you've received the erroneous impression that erection always automatically brings about retraction. Most of the widely available sources on male genital physiology and sexuality contain numbers of egregious boo-boos--i.e., just out-and-out inaccuracies and/or highly questionable, easily misinterpretable statements. Often, I suspect, much vagueness is intentional in order to keep the "experts" from being put on the dotted line when they are not too certain of their data. Even the layman can easily see that much mis(leading)information stems from a too-small or skewed sampling of test subjects and/or highly unreliable or sometimes even completely faulty test methods.
Masters and Johnson, to take one source that's sadly too often accepted and quoted as gospel, are not only frequently wildly incorrect. They are too often (though one hopes unintentionally) a malevolent influence, fueling the vicious flames of American circ culture (due, doubtless, to Masters' quite obviously being circumcised himself). In none of their reported tests do they seriously consider the foreskin at all, and certainly not as the major contributor to a man's sexual sensitivity and pleasure that it in actuality is. No wonder, then, that because of this and other obviously faulty methods, they come up with the ignorant assertion (found in many other sources!) that there exists no difference in sensitivity and pleasure receptors between a circumcised and an intact penis.
Moral of the story: Take everything you read with a few grains of salt...especially if it's undermining your sense of obvious well-being. The "experts" can be, and not infrequently are, very, very wrong. (Except [big grin!] this one, of course!)