WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3860/97 by Kirsi PIHA to the Commission. Practice with regard to MEPs' travel allowances
Date: 1997-12-05
Institutions: European Parliament, PIHA
Subjects: Member of the European Parliament, abuse of power, administrative sanction, allowances and expenses, parliamentary allowance, redemption

17. 7. 98

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 223/27

The conditions for a judicial appeal are the same for all decisions: Article 173 of the EC Treaty gives everyone
the right to appeal to the Court of Justice against Commission decisions addressed to them, within two months of
that decision. Cases brought by private individuals are heard by the Court of First Instance. In addition, Article
179  of  the  EC  Treaty  gives  the  Court  of  Justice  jurisdiction  in  any  dispute  between  the  Community  and  its
servants within the limits and under the conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations. This provision also applies
to candidates taking part in recruitment competitions. Article 92(2) of the Staff Regulations states that the appeal
must be lodged within three months (2).

(1)  See Articles 1, 2 and 11 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure of 17 February 1993 (OJ L 230, 11.9.1993), amended by Commission

Decision 95/148 of 8 March 1995 (OJ L 97, 29.4.1995).

(2)  The Court has consistently held that the normal legal remedy against a decision by a selection board is a direct application to the Court, but
if the person concerned has made a complaint to the appointing authority, the time-limit for bringing an action runs from the day of the
express or implied reply to that complaint (Order of the Court of 8 November 1988, Case 264/88 M. Valle Fernandez v Commission of the
European Communities [1988] ECR 6341, para. 11).

(98/C 223/28)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3860/97

by Kirsi Piha (PPE) to the Commission

(5 December 1997)

Subject: Practice with regard to MEPs(cid:146) travel allowances

The European Parliament has fallen into disrepute partly as a result of the abuse of travel, expense and daily
subsistence allowances. However, Members who are caught committing such abuses are not subject to any real
penalties for their behaviour, being merely required to pay back the amounts unduly paid.

Does  the  Commission  have  any  means  of  incorporating  into  EU  legislation  some  penalties  for  such  abuses?
Particularly in view of the fact that Article 138(4) of the Treaty of Amsterdam now provides a legal basis for a
comprehensive examination of the MEPs(cid:146) benefits, the Commission must now make some kind of proposal to
the Council on this matter.

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(14 January 1998)

Such matters do not fall within the competence of the Commission. They are a matter for the Parliament itself.

(98/C 223/29)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3862/97

by Luciano Vecchi (PSE) to the Commission

(5 December 1997)

Subject: Support for measures promoting fair and ethical trading and consumption

The promotion of fair and ethical trading and consumption has in recent years become an important instrument
both  for  educating  the  European  public  in  development  and  for  supporting  independent  producers  and  local
authorities in the developing countries.

Will the Commission state:

1.  how many projects have been supported for this purpose in recent years;

2.  whether it intends to boost support for such measures?

3.  whether it intends to take measures to promote fair and ethical trading (e.g. with derogations from and the

reorganization of import quotas, tax relief, etc.)?