WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1591/98 by Klaus LUKAS to the Commission. Neutrality of Commission officials
Date: 1998-05-25
Institutions: European Parliament, LUKAS
Subjects: Austria, European Commission, European official, administrative responsibility, advertising, dissemination of EU information, duties of civil servants, newspaper

C 96/8

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.4.1999

The decision to withdraw the (cid:145)method(cid:146) was taken by the United Kingdom in the November 1996 budget for a
number of reasons. Firstly, the rationale behind the introduction of the scheme in 1978, which was to alleviate the
bad debt problem faced by retailers who financed their own credit, had largely disappeared since the introduction
in the United Kingdom of specific relief for VAT on bad debts. In addition, there was concern over the use of the
(cid:145)method(cid:146) for tax avoidance purposes.

The situation in the United Kingdom since the withdrawal of the (cid:145)method(cid:146) marks a reversion to the application of
the general principle of the first paragraph of Article 10(2), i.e. chargeability at the time of the supply.

(1999/C 96/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1591/98

by Klaus Lukas (NI) to the Commission

(25 May 1998)

Subject: Neutrality of Commission officials

On 11 March 1998 the head of the Commission representation in Vienna, Mr Wolfgang Streitenberger, made a
statement in a commercial advertisement in which he promoted the (cid:145)Wirtschaftsblatt(cid:146) newspaper, referring to its
competence in reporting European policy in the following words: (cid:145)More and more economic decisions are being
taken in Brussels. Comprehensive and rapid information on these decisions is becoming ever more important.
With the Wirtschaftsblatt you can build up your store of information on a daily basis.(cid:146)

1.

In the highly competitive Austrian media world, how can this promotional commitment by the Commission
be reconciled with the principle of neutrality of Commission officials?

2. Was Mr Streitenberger, who was clearly acting in his official capacity, committing himself on the

Commission(cid:146)s behalf?

3. What measures does the Commission propose to take in this connection?

4. How does the Commission reconcile this action by its representative with its new code of conduct?

5. Does the Commission consider that, after this unilateral commitment, its representative in Vienna can still

continue to represent its interests in other competing printed media?

6. Will the Commission also promote other Austrian printed media which provide intensive reporting of EU

matters?

7. When, for example, will the head of the Commission representation in Vienna, Mr Wolfgang Streitenberger,
also promote subscription to the (cid:145)Neue Freie Zeitung(cid:146), whose reporting on European issues can also be
highly recommended?

Answer given by Mr Oreja on behalf of the Commission

(4 August 1998)

The head of the Commission(cid:146)s Representation in Austria did not give a statement in the non-party-aligned,
independent Austrian daily Wirtschaftsblatt on his own initiative but on invitation. Since 15 January 1997,
207 Austrian opinion leaders have given statements in similar vein.

The same kind of statements would be given on invitation via any other media which are correctly and objectively
reporting on European integration and Commission policies.

The attitude of the Director of the Commission(cid:146)s representative office in Austria is in no way at odds with the
public service ethic of the code of conduct for Commission officials or the terms of the Staff Regulations which
the code is designed to reflect.