EN Official Journal of the European Union C 8/1

OPINION No 5/2008

of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities on a proposal for a Council Regulation amending the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Communities

(2009/C 8/01)

THE COURT OF AUDITORS OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community, and in particular Article 283 thereof,

Having regard to the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities, and in particular Article 13 thereof,

Having regard to the Commission proposal of 14 November 2008 (1),

Having regard to the Council’s request for an opinion on this proposal, received at the Court on 19 November 2008,

Whereas the purpose of the Commission proposal is to amend the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Communities (CEOS) in order to include a new category of servants called ‘parliamentary assistants’, to be chosen by Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) and to be engaged under contract by Parliament to work within its premises in Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg (2),

HAS ADOPTED THE FOLLOWING OPINION:

1. The Court welcomes the proposal, which aims at ensuring transparency, non-discrimination and legal certainty through common rules for parliamentary assistants. The proposal is in line with the Court’s Opinion No 6/98 (3) on a previous proposal on the same subject, in which the Court suggested that parliamentary assistants could constitute a completely new category of staff employed on the basis of contracts with the Communities and provided with their own regulation. The proposal also addresses certain aspects of criticism expressed on several occasions by the Court (4), which pointed out weaknesses in the applicable regulatory framework, highlighting in particular the need to adopt rules that ensure the proper justification and documentation of the services delivered.

2. The Court notes that the Commission proposal provides for the adoption, by internal decisions of Parliament, of provisions governing the employment of parliamentary assistants, and of practical implementing measures for the application by analogy of Articles 11 to 26a of the Staff Regulations, which will determine the assistants’ rights and obligations. For the adoption of such internal decisions, it should be borne in mind that implementing rules may lay down criteria capable of guiding the administration in the exercise of its discretionary power or explain more fully the scope of provisions of the Staff Regulations which are not wholly clear. However, they cannot reduce the scope of the Staff Regulations by further explaining a clear term of those regulations (5).

3. The system proposed, if adopted, will generate an increased workload for the Parliament’s services within a short period of time. This generates risks which may negatively impact on the legality and regularity of the operations undertaken and the reliability of management and financial information. The Court therefore recommends that the relevant services of the Parliament take the appropriate measures to ensure that reliable and effective procedures and systems are designed, tested and implemented in a timely manner and that the resources necessary to the timely, reliable and efficient management of the new scheme are made available.

This opinion was adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at its meeting of 11 December 2008. For the Court of Auditors Vítor Manuel DA SILVA CALDEIRA President

(1) COM(2008) 786 final of 14 November 2008.

(2) The proposal does not apply to persons who are to assist MEPs in their Member States of election. However, the Court notes that Parliament has further developed the regulatory framework for such local assistants to address its weaknesses and adopted rules which will enter into force on the first day of the European Parliament parliamentary term beginning in 2009.

(3) Adopted by the Court of Auditors in Luxembourg at the Court meeting of 23 September 1998 and not published in the Official Journal.

(4) See paragraph 10.12 of the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2006 and Annex 11.2 to the Annual Report concerning the financial year 2007.

(5) Case T-75/89 Anita Brems v Council of the European Communities [1990] ECR II-899, point 29.