# CE2004084EN.01051601.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/516 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/516

---

(2004/C 84 E/0593)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3999/03

by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject:   Internal control standard 5 — ‘Sensitive functions’: Modalities relating to the implementation of compulsory mobility

Subject:

According to the note of 8 May 2003 from the European Commission's Secretary-General, Director-General for Personnel and Administration and Director-General for the Budget, which followed the guidelines set out in the Commission Communication from Mrs Schreyer and Vice-President Kinnock (1), mobility for persons in ‘sensitive’ posts will enter into effect as from 1 January 2006.

1

If the aim of this measure is to prevent ‘clientelisation’ as well as offering a change of post, it must be ensured that the transferee does not, in his new position (if this is also sensitive), deal with companies, private individuals or organisations with whom he has had working relations in his previous position. Since clientelism has its basis in personal preference relationships and is not limited to specific professional fields, will this be taken into account?

If the persons concerned have preference in appointments to new posts, this status could impact on the career of other officials who not only have been planning a change in career for longer but also have priority in terms of qualifications, merit, knowledge and experience and have chosen the same post. Would this not be a form of discrimination that could be contested before the European Court of Justice?

What are the arguments leading to the belief that the unproven efficacy of this measure can offset the proven loss that arises whenever anyone with specialised experience relinquishes their duties?

Will this measure affect those officials who, despite not being responsible for payments, are still responsible for providing payment authorising officers with advice and assessments as regards the awarding of contracts and grants? If the objective is to prevent fraud, why is the same measure not envisaged for those posts where forms of internal preferential treatment can be granted (promotions, competitions) from which profit can also be derived?

Has the possibility of two officials alternating between the same two posts with fraudulent intent been taken into account?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

(4 February 2004)

The Commission welcomes the interest of the Honourable Member regarding implementation of Internal Control Standard No 5 on sensitive posts.

The note of 8 May 2003 from the Commission's Secretary-General, Director-General for Personnel and Administration and Director-General for the Budget, was clarified and complemented by a note from the Secretariat-General of 30 September 2003. That note confirms that mobility should be applied by 31 December 2003 for persons who have occupied an inherently sensitive post (2) for more than seven years, and that the rule of mobility will be applied every five years to all sensitive posts from 31 December 2004. The note also emphasises that mobility may be implemented by transferring the sensitive function to another post when the function in question concerns only a small part of the jobholder's tasks.

2

All Services were required to identify and draw up an inventory of all sensitive posts by 31 December 2003. Above and beyond the inherently sensitive posts, the categorising of a post as ‘sensitive’ takes a number of criteria into account that allow for the associated risks (such as ‘clientelism’ or the alternating of officials between the same two posts) to be assessed. Mitigating control measures are also defined. The capacity to influence or to take decisions, for example in the area of recruitment and staff management, is considered to be a condition which presents potential risks that could contribute to the sensitivity of a post or function.

The Commission initiative aims to avoid situations such as those that could arise where a person is dealing with the same procedures and interlocutors for a long time without appropriate mitigating control measures. Mobility does not mean that the expertise and knowledge are lost to the Institution. On the contrary, it means that the professional backgrounds of the persons concerned are broadened and can also benefit other Departments. Moreover, Internal Control Standard No 19 on ‘continuity of operations’ specifies that, in the case of officials who hand over their work to another official, a written handover file must be established.

In accordance with the rules in place, persons who have to move from a sensitive post do not enjoy any privilege or preferential treatment when they apply for another post. Their appointment to the new post is determined by the appropriateness of their expertise, profile and level of responsibility. Of course, those persons who encounter difficulties in finding another post can benefit from the career guidance support developed within the Commission through Reform.

The first wave of compulsory mobility for sensitive posts is currently underway. The exercise is being conducted within a framework which ensures the proper implementation of Internal Control Standard No 5 with minimum disruption to the Services, and it takes into account the needs of the individual staff members concerned.

---

(1)  SEC(2000)2203.

1

(2)  The inherently sensitive posts are defined as those relating to financial management and the so-called AIPN (appointing authority) and AHCC (authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment).

2

---