WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/01

by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Decision to discontinue medals for twenty years' service

It is extremely irritating for a Member of Parliament to be faced with a situation where the Commission hardly ever replies to questions submitted to it in accordance with a right defined in the Treaties. In the case of my Written Question E-2056/01(1), the Commission's arrogance is particularly unacceptable and, quite frankly, confirms even the worst criticisms made about it.

- Will the Commission explain the underlying reasons for the utter contempt it is showing for Parliament's role by sending replies such as the one to the above question, which was presumably written by a stagiaire?

- Why does it avoid replying to questions as simple as that regarding medals for twenty years' service?

- Will it answer the three questions contained in Written Question E-2056/01?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 54.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

In response to Question E-3622/01 the Commission feels that the public and parliamentary interest in accurate and comprehensive record is best served by repeating the Honourable Member's Question E-2056/01 and the answer given by the Commission on 22 November 2001.

In Question E-2056/01 the Honourable Member asked:

The Commission would appear to have decided to put an end to the practice of awarding medals to officials after twenty years' service and to replace it with a European civil servant's diploma, to be awarded after twenty-five years' service. The decision was apparently taken in response to a report produced by the Peer Group, which deemed the awarding of medals after twenty years' service in the European institutions to be a negative priority.

1. Would the Commission state exactly why, in spite of the fact that in its current staff reform proposals it continues to claim that European civil servants are the life blood of the European institutions, it intends to do away with this traditional means of acknowledging the work carried out by officials in these institutions, on the grounds that it is a negative priority?

2. Would it not agree that the European civil service could do without another small but significant gesture of this kind, which is clearly unhelpful and quite frankly incomprehensible?

3. Would it not agree that it would be wise for it to reverse the decision?

The Commission replied on 22 November 2001:

The award of medals for 20 years of service was originally introduced to mark the first 20 years of the European Institutions and subsequently adopted as a way of recognising the contribution made by officials working in the Institutions.

This year, the Commission will be following its usual custom of awarding 20-year service medals. The awards will be made at Directorates General and services and a reception in honour of all recipients will take place at each Commission location. In Brussels the President of the Commission will attend the occasion.

The Commission recognises the significance of acknowledging good service and has recently proposed a number of measures which will reflect that, not only near the time of retirement, but also during the career of a civil servant.

These proposed measures are currently being discussed with the Staff Representatives in the joint committees for social issues and they will be implemented as soon as a final decision has been reached in 2002.

The answer shows very clearly:

1. That active consideration is being given to Awards policy through the appropriate representative channels; that the assumption on which question E-2056/01 was based signified an apparent lack of awareness of that fact; that by providing such accurate and up-to-date report on policy consideration the Commission gave a complete answer to the Honourable Member's question 1 and, therefore, to his questions 2 and 3.

2. That the Commission manifestly did not show utter contempt or disrespect of any sort in the tone or the content of its reply to the Honourable Member.

3. That the Commission has certainly not avoided replying to the Honourable Member's question or shown arrogance in any form whatsoever.

When all of this is self evident, the Commission is puzzled by the uncharacteristically intemperate tone of the Honourable Member's question and feels that he may be acting on the basis of inaccurate or misleading information.

The Honourable Member claims that the Commission hardly ever replies to questions submitted to it (by MEP's). The Commission would be obliged if the Honourable Member would either provide evidence to support that claim or withdraw it forthwith.

As he will understand, the claim infers that the Commission consciously and repeatedly transgresses against Article 197 (ex Article 140) of the Treaty, and that is demonstrably not the truth.