WRITTEN QUESTION P-3345/02

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Criteria for the selection of directors-general and other senior staff in the Commission

The Commission's answers to Written Questions E-1268/02(1) and E-0268/02(2) call for further clarification. If the situation is as described by the Commission, we must conclude that the criticisms repeatedly expressed by the R & D union were unfounded. However, in that case, it is surprising that the Commission did not feel obliged to intervene in order to defend the honour of the persons mentioned in the R & D notes and letters. Moreover, the details provided in such documents are sufficiently explicit to identify the cases of nepotism in question. What is needed, therefore, is not to establish how R & D succeeded in obtaining advance knowledge of the names of successful candidates, but to reassure the general public that appointments have not been made according to a country quota system, as recently noted by the Court of First Instance when it ruled against the appointment of a Deputy Director-General partly on the grounds that senior posts in DG Agriculture had been shared out among five large countries since 1973. Another example may be found in the procedure set in motion to fill the post of Director of Security, which is likely to result in the appointment of a candidate who is currently a temporary staff member and who was employed by a Member State's intelligence service from 1980 to 1996.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not consider that the current selection procedures do not ensure that there are no grounds whatsoever for questioning the transparency of appointments among its senior staff?

Does it not feel that the rulings delivered by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in this area constitute an outright rejection of these procedures as far as an objective assessment of the candidates' managerial qualifications and professional skills is concerned? Will it state how many appointments of A1, A2 and A3 officials have been annulled following rulings by the Court of First Instance and Court of Justice in the last three years?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 173.

(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 107.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

The tracts of the trade union referred to did not, in fact, name any individual person so it would be difficult if not impossible for the Commission to act in such circumstances.

Meanwhile, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials and other servants at the Communities allows the Commission to respond to requests from officials for assistance in proceedings against any person who is alleged to have perpetrated insulting or defamatory acts or utterances.

With regard to the assertion about a country quota system the Honourable Member should note that at its first meeting held on 18 September 1999 the present Commission emphasised that the nationality of the outgoing post holder should not be a factor in the appointment of the new occupant of the post, thus re-affirming the provisions of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in that no posts are to be reserved for nationals of any specific Member State.

Since the current Commission came into office a number of mobility exercises have taken place amongst the A1 (Directors General or equivalent) and A2 (Directors or equivalent) cohort, the most recent of which was in November 2002. Indeed, over the past three years some 60 appointments at A1 level (including transfers) have been made. These movements took place in the context of a total A1 population at the Commission of 62 posts. Similarly some 117 A2 appointments (including transfers) have been made, from a population comprising 223 posts. Within the context of such widespread changes, the nationality of successive post holders has rarely remained the same. The various decisions on appointments (including those taken in the context of mobility exercises) clearly demonstrate the Commission's effective implementation of its stated policy and also its respect of the terms of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Whilst the Commission does strive to fulfil its policy of maintaining merit in appointments whilst sustaining reasonable geographic balance in appointments (as required by the Staff Regulations and by the multinational and multilingual character of the Institution), the Commission does not have or operate a country quota system of any kind.

The Honourable Member cites two individual cases. With regard to the first, he is factually incorrect when he asserts that the Court of First Instance ruled against the appointment of a Deputy Director General partly on the grounds that senior posts in DG Agriculture had been shared out among five large countries since 1973. The Court of First Instance did not make any judgement whatsoever on the validity or otherwise of the plaintiff's claims on this point. The Honourable Member should also note that the post in question was published some eight months before the Commission's new rules on the appraisal, selection and appointment of senior Commission officials came into effect. The Court's ruling does not call into question any of the new measures put into effect by the Commission since December 2000. However, the Commission is not at all complacent in this or other areas. Recruitment methods are under a process of continued review and are constantly being refined. In particular, the appointment of a Permanent Rapporteur to the Consultative Committee on (Senior) Appointments (the CCA) has significantly improved the provision of feedback to candidates, which not only increases transparency but also helps such candidates to better prepare for future career opportunities which may arise.

With regard to the second case quoted in the question, the Commission is unaware on what basis the Honourable Member makes his claim, given that the recruitment procedure referred to is barely underway.

In answer to the Honourable Member's final question, apart from the case which he refers to, only one other appointment decision has been annulled by the Courts during the last three years. It should be noted that in that other case, the recruitment procedure was actually undertaken during the term of office of the previous Commission. Meanwhile, the annulment of two appointment decisions over the last three years should be seen in the context of more than 360 appointment decisions relating to senior officials taken during the same period.