AnswergivenbyMrProdionbehalfoftheCommission
(12August2003)
Thecurrentfinancialrulesongrantsestablishtheprinciplethat,beforeeligibilitycanbesettled,acallfor
proposalsmustnormallybepublished.Thisshouldsetoutthespecificconditionsonwhichgrantsmaybemadeandtheexactprocedureforsubmittingapplications.ApplicationsaresubmittedtotheindividualDirectorate-General,whichwillthenhavetocheckthatalltheconditionsformakingthegrantaremet.
EachDirectorate-Generalprovidesinformation,onitsownsiteontheEuropaserver,aboutthetypesof
grantadministered,grantsmadeinpreviousyears,itsgrantsworkprogrammeforthecurrentyear,andopencallsforproposals.
Nevertheless,awebsitecontaininginformationonfundingimplementedbytheUnionismadeavailableto
thepublicontheEuropaserver(
1).Itiscurrentlybeingcompletelyreorganisedandupdated.
ThesiteanditsproposedreorganisationareevidenceoftheCommission’scommitmenttotransparency
anditsdesiretoprovidecitizenswithclear,completeandpracticalinformationabouttheprojectfunding
possibilitiesopentothemthroughtheCommunitybudgetandtheconditionsthathavetobemet.
(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/index_en.htm
(2004/C58E/163) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2253/03
byEnricoFerri(PPE-DE)totheCommission
(8July2003)
Subject:CompetitionsCOM/B/2/01andCOM/A/6/01
RegardingthecompetitionsCOM/B/2/01,andCOM/A/6/01publishedintheOfficialJournal(1)andinthe
lightofArticle255oftheTreatyestablishingtheEC,implementedbyRegulation1049/2001(2)of30May
2001 concerning access to Commission documents, could the Commission provide the following
information:
/dash Among the candidates admitted to the oral exam, how many were already or previously under
contractandworkingfortheEuropeanCommission(asauxiliaries,temporarystaff,officials,etc.)?
/dash WhywasthenumberofsuccessfulcandidatesintheoralexamlowerthanlaiddownintheOJ?(Can
thejuryexplainthereasonsforthischoiceespeciallyinviewofthefactthatthisisoneofthelastcompetitionsbeforetheenlargementoftheEU)?
/dash Wasalistofquestionstobeputtothecandidatesduringtheoralexamdrawnupinadvance,inorder
toguaranteenon-discriminatorytreatment?
(1) OJC167A,12.6.2001.
(2) OJL145,31.5.2001,p.43.
AnswergivenbyMrKinnockonbehalfoftheCommission
(29September2003)
ConcerningcompetitionCOM/B/2/01Amongthe candidatesadmittedtothe oralexam, 73were already orpreviously under contractand
workingfortheCommissionasauxiliaries,temporarystafforofficials.C58E/148 EN6.3.2004 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion
ThereasonthatthenumberofsuccessfulcandidateswaslowerthanthatlaiddownintheOfficialJournal
wasthatfollowingcorrectionofthewrittentestonly125candidatesobtainedthepassmark.Thenoticeofcompetitionstipulatedthatinordertobeadmittedtotheoraltestthecandidatesmusthavethe150highestmarksandatleastthepassmark.Attheearlierstageofthecompetitiononly277candidatescompletedthewrittentestsoutofatotalof300whowereinvited.
ConcerningcompetitionCOM/A/6/01Amongthecandidatesadmittedtotheoralexamination,forfield1:16andforfield2:86werealreadyor
previouslyundercontractandworkingfortheCommissionasauxiliaries,temporarystafforofficials.
ForthiscompetitionthenumberofsuccessfulcandidatesaslaiddownintheOfficialJournalwasreached.
Withregardtothe3rdquestionputtotheCommissionbytheHonourableMember,itshouldfirstofall
benotedthatSelectionBoardsmayexercisetheirdiscretion,notonlyintheywaytheyorganiseinterviews,butalsoindeterminingthenumberandnatureofquestionstobeputtothecandidates.AsindicatedbytheHonourableMember,SelectionBoardsmustensureequalityoftreatmentbetweencandidates.However,theyarenotrequired todrawupafixedlistofquestions.Theymustsimplyensurecommonalityofstandardsbypreparingtheirquestionsinadvancetoreflectthesamelevelofdifficulty.Thisrequirementwas met in full by the Selection Boards for the two competitions in questionCOM/B/2/01 andCOM/A/6/01.
Clearlytheuseofalistofquestionswouldnot,initself,guaranteeequalityoftreatment,sinceoralsare
veryoftenheldoverseveraldaysandcommunicationbetweencandidatescannotbeprevented.
(2004/C58E/164) WRITTENQUESTIONE-2264/03
byErikMeijer(GUE/NGL)totheCommission
(9July2003)
Subject:Contaminationoffrozenchickenintendedforexportbyaddingwaterandporcineandbovine
proteinandbyhandlingthemeatwithbarehands
1. IstheCommissionawarethattheproteinplantProwicoinNordhorn,Germany,whichisnearthe
Dutch border, producesa powdercalled‘Surplus601’which consistsofrelatively cheaply obtainablebovineorporcineproteinsfromwhichtheDNAcodehasbeenremovedsothatitisnolongerpossibletoascertainfromwhatanimalstheproteinshavebeenderived?
2. IstheCommissionawarethatatleasttwelvebusinessesareusingthesespecialuntraceableproteins,
including the Dutch chickenmeat plant Slegtenhorst in the village of Zevenhuizen, which add theseproteins to chickenmeat by injecting it or rinsing the meat for 90 minutes in tumblers (large metalcontainers),inordertomakethemeatretainmorewater,thussubstantiallyincreasingitsweightandaccordinglyraisingitsprice?
3. Is the Commission aware that this work is often performed by people who do not speak the
languageofthecountryconcerned,arecompelledtoworkextremelylongdaysandarepermittedtocutawaybone,blood,fatandtendonsfromchickenbreastwithoutwearingplasticgloves,therebymaximisingopportunitiesforcontaminationofthemeat?
4. ArethepracticesdescribedinthepreviousthreeparagraphsnotyetillegalintheEUprovidedat
leastthatalabelinconspicuouslyindicatesthatwaterandsomeformofproteinmayhavebeenadded?
5. IstheCommissionawareofothercasesofsuchpractices,includinginotherMemberStates?6.3.2004EN C58E/149 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanUnion