# CE2004070EN.01011001.xml

| 20.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 70/110 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 70/110

---

(2004/C 70 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(29 July 2003)

Subject:   Extra income for members of the European Court of Justice

Subject:

Members of the European Court of Justice have for years been receiving extra income by having part of their salary transferred not to bank accounts in their place of employment, Luxembourg, but to accounts in other EU countries, with weightings being applied to the amounts transferred. In the 2003 budgetary procedure the Council deleted remarks from the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Court of Justice (budgetary item A-1090) which provided for this weighting to apply to Members of the Court of Justice ‘by analogy to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities’.

| 1. | Will the Council say why did it delete these remarks from the Budget of the Court of Justice? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Will the Council say why did it delete these remarks from the Budget of the Court of Justice?

| 2. | How does it view the fact that, according to the Commission (see the answer to my Written Question P-1508/03 (1)), members of the Court of Justice are still transferring their salaries in the current financial year to benefit from the weighting? Does it endorse the continuation of this practice? |
| --- | --- |

2.

How does it view the fact that, according to the Commission (see the answer to my Written Question P-1508/03 (1)), members of the Court of Justice are still transferring their salaries in the current financial year to benefit from the weighting? Does it endorse the continuation of this practice?

1

1

| 3. | How does it evaluate the statement by Vice-President Kinnock in the answer to the above Written Question ‘that the remark on the budget item in question had no effect on the legality of the matter, and the deletion of the remark had no effect on it either’? |
| --- | --- |

3.

How does it evaluate the statement by Vice-President Kinnock in the answer to the above Written Question ‘that the remark on the budget item in question had no effect on the legality of the matter, and the deletion of the remark had no effect on it either’?

| 4. | Does it share Mr Kinnock's view expressed in the answer that the remarks by the Council and Parliament on the implementation of the expenditure have no effect on the legality of the matter? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Does it share Mr Kinnock's view expressed in the answer that the remarks by the Council and Parliament on the implementation of the expenditure have no effect on the legality of the matter?

| 5. | Can it confirm that no provision is made for the possiblity of such transfers of salaries in application of the weightings and that this is not mentioned anywhere in the relevant regualtions on the emoluments of members of the institutions? |
| --- | --- |

5.

Can it confirm that no provision is made for the possiblity of such transfers of salaries in application of the weightings and that this is not mentioned anywhere in the relevant regualtions on the emoluments of members of the institutions?

Reply

(5 December 2003)

(5 December 2003)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member is currently being considered by the Council's preparatory bodies in order to find an appropriate solution.

---

(1)  OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 83.

1

---