WRITTEN QUESTION E-2502/98

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(30 July 1998)

Subject: Corrupt administrative practices at the Commission

In its judgment of 17 February 1998 in the case T-56/96, Alberto Maccaferri v the European Commission, the Court of First Instance (CFI) overturned the Commission's decision not to appoint the applicant as a temporary staff member in category A4/5 in the Directorate-General for Enterprise Policy, Trade, Tourism and Social Economy following competition 62T/XXIII/93.

1. Is it true that the services of the European Commission have withdrawn the budgetary support for the post of a temporary staff member, category A4/5, for which the selection was made?

2. Why would the services of the Commission have committed an unlawful act of this nature?

3. Will the Commission say what action was taken following this CFI judgment?

4. Can the Commission say at what level administrative and financial responsibility lies (within the Directorate-General concerned and the Directorate-General for Administration and Personnel) and what disciplinary measures have so far been taken against these corrupt practices which do enormous harm to citizens' image of the European Union?

5. Can the Commission say what the direct (e.g. reimbursement of candidates' expenses, publication of advertisements in national newspapers, etc.) and indirect costs (e.g. the number of man-hours worked by the members of the selection board) of the two selections in categories A and B were?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(21 October 1998)

The judgment cited by the Honorable Member required the Commission to annul the decision not to appoint the applicant as a temporary staff member in category A4/5 in DG XXIII following competition 62T/XXIII/93 because insufficient grounds were given. It should be noted that the Court of First Instance (CFI) in no way stated that the appointing authority was under the obligation, once a recruitment procedure had been set in motion, to follow it up by appointing one of the successful candidates to fill the vacant post. On the contrary, the ruling, based on consistent case law, recognised that the appointing authority was under no obligation to do so where it had serious reasons for not being able to appoint the successful candidates, as long as it justified its decision clearly and appropriately.

The CFI overturned the decision taken because it found that the Commission had not provided any explanation to the applicant on the transfer of the post which could have been used for the recruitment following selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93, neither at the time of the action, nor at the complaint stage. However, while the applicant was not notified of these reasons before his appeal, i.e. neither at the time when the various decisions were taken, nor at the time of his complaint, it emerges from the oral and written exchanges which took place during the CFI proceedings that these explanations were provided to him at that stage. Furthermore, the Commission informed the applicant of the above by a letter addressed to his lawyer.

The Commission can confirm that the vacant A4/5 post in DG XXIII which selection procedure 62T/XXIII/93 was intended to fill has been cancelled. While it is aware of the importance of evaluating the impact of Community legislation on businesses and of the need to ensure that Community legislation is simplified, which remains one of the Commission's priorities, the Commission felt that the work of collecting information and the management and technical monitoring of legislative changes could perfectly well be done by a category B official, under supervision. In order to save money and make the best use of the Commission's resources, therefore, a new selection procedure for this B post was organised according to the rules and a category B temporary member of staff was recruited.

In the light of the above and of the conclusions of the CFI's decision, the Commission considers that it has fulfilled its obligations as regards the action to be taken on the judgment in question, and confirms that no further measures will be taken in this matter.

The costs involved in the category A selection tests break down into advertising costs (ECU 10 384) and travel expenses (ECU 1 500). There were 11 applicants for the selection, two of whom withdrew before the interviews. The time worked by one secretary is estimated at four days and that worked by the three members of the selection committee is 1,5 days per person.

The category B selection was part of a call for expressions of interest covering 11 fields of activity. The overall costs for this call for expressions of interest break down into advertising costs (ECU 29 178) and travel expenses (ECU 2 250). There were 71 applicants for the selection. Six applicants were called for interview and one withdrew. The time worked by one secretary is estimated at three days and that worked by the three members of the committee is 1,5 days per person.