WRITTEN QUESTION E-2665/02

by Robert Goebbels (PSE) to the Commission

(23 September 2002)

Subject: The Commission's services in Luxembourg

In reply to my question E-1226/02(1) on the location of the Commission's public health departments, Commissioner Kinnock stated on 9 July 2002 that it has proved to be difficult to attract suitably qualified staff to vacant permanent posts in the public health directorate in Luxembourg.

In the wake of this answer, which I do not find satisfactory, I now feel obliged to ask the following additional questions:

1. How does the Commission explain the fact that other EU institutions based in Luxembourg pursuant to the same Treaty and to the protocols thereto (the European Court of Justice, the Court of Auditors, the European Investment Bank, etc) have no difficulty in recruiting suitably qualified staff?

2. Does it not have to be concluded that the Commission and its hierarchy at the highest level are deliberately operating a strategy aimed at undermining the Commission's services in Luxembourg? Can there be any other interpretation of, for instance, the letter sent on 26 July 2002 to the Director of Directorate C by Director-General Jean-Paul Mingasson calling for a freeze on further recruitment and adding that until further notice derogations will only be accepted if candidates give their agreement in writing to the possibility of being transferred to Brussels?

3. Is this freeze on recruitment in Luxembourg, for all except those willing to move to Brussels, not in contradiction with the statement by the Commission in its answer to my earlier question to the effect that the review of the Commission's services in Luxembourg is not motivated by centralising purposes [the reference being to Brussels], but is related to trying to secure the most rational and efficient use of resources, taking account of the professional interests of staff now based in Luxembourg?

4. Can the Commission supply examples of what it means by most rational and efficient use of its services in Luxembourg? How does the proposed transfer of Units C1 (Innovation Policy) and C3 (Relay Centres) to DG Enterprise in Brussels square with the Commission's commitment to the Member States' decisions of 8 April 1965 and the undertakings made at the 29 October 1993 Intergovernmental Conference and confirmed in the Treaty of Amsterdam?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 98.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 November 2002)

In replying to Written Question E-1226/02 by the Honourable Member, and on other occasions, the Commission has repeatedly emphasised the great attention which it pays to the matter of location of departments in Luxembourg.

That reply also pointed out that the personnel being sought in the instance referred to by the Honourable Member in Written Question E-1226/02 were specialists in public health who have qualifications which are evidently different from those that are normally sought by the Institutions mentioned by the Honourable Member in his Written Question.

As previously announced, the Commission is undertaking in depth examination of the way in which it is organised and those reflections naturally relate to departments located in Luxembourg and all other sites.

In this context, the Director General for Enterprise was seeking to exercise care and transparency in human resource management and that was the motivation for the internal note to which the Honourable Member refers. Neither that note nor any other action has been prompted by any strategy aimed at undermining the Commission's services in Luxembourg. No such strategy exists in any form.

Since the time that the 26 July note was written the course being considered has, for objective reasons, been suspended and replaced by an approach which emphasises and operates better communication for candidates seeking recruitment inside the Innovation Directorate.

In any case, the Commission again underlines the fact that the measures are completely without prejudice to any action the Commission may decide on after consulting the Luxembourg Government and the staff concerned, consistent with the guidelines set out in the policy paper Future of the Luxembourg Site adopted by the Commission in January 2001.

On the other points of his question the Commission refers the Honourable Member to the reply to Written Question E-2525/02 by Mrs Flesch(1).

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 65.