WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3391/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. CEDEFOP
Date: 1998-11-17
Institutions: European Parliament, KAKLAMANIS
Subjects: Cedefop, Greece, administrative transparency, personnel administration, recruitment

21.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 207/63

(1999/C 207/079)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3391/98

by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission

(17 November 1998)

Subject: Cedefop

In his answer of 19.10.1998 to my Question E-2549/98 (1) Commissioner Liikanen stated that, as far as
Cedefop personnel policy was concerned, ‘the Commission exercises controls only insofar as it is represented
on the governing board of the Centre.’ To this he added the interesting rider that ‘in the sphere of personnel
management, relations between the Commission and (outside) bodies are more informal’. Despite this the
Commission promotes funding requests by the decentralised bodies (including Cedefop, of course) before the
European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets and argues in favour of supporting them. It is therefore curious
that the highly sensitive ‘function’ (as Commissioner Liikanen himself states in his answer) of appointing
personnel ‘has been delegated to the Director of the Centre for all categories and grades of staff’, as the
Commissioner adds. The delegation of wholesale responsibility in this area to the Director of the Centre is
incompatible with Mr Liikanen’s admission that Cedefop has not brought its practices into line with those of
the institutions of the Union as regards the implementation of the ‘Staff Regulations of officials of the EC and
the conditions of employment of other servants’: for this reason advice is being given to the above Centre to
help it come into line. The whole matter is highly sensitive and has been repeatedly discussed in the Greek
press. One thing is certain: the recruitment practices of the Centre show no sign of coming into line with those
of the other Community institutions.

Will the Commission say whether it has considered the full ramifications of the problem of Cedefop
recruitment, what conclusions it has reached concerning the allegations made by the press about machinations
involving recruitment, and how it intends to react to ensure that transparent and unimpeachable staff
recruitment procedures are adopted at the Centre, which will serve to protect both the Centre itself and the
reputation of Thessaloniki, the host City?

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 January 1999)

The Commission has nothing to add to its previous answer to Written Question E-2549/98 (1) asked by the
Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 118, 29.4.1999, p. 92.

(1999/C 207/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/98

by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission

(9 November 1998)

Subject: Justification for the minimum landing size for swordfish in the Mediterranean

Annex IV of Council Regulation 1626/94 (1) sets the minimum landing size for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in
the Mediterranean at 120 cm. This size corresponds with the ICCAT recommendation for the Atlantic.
However, the ICCAT has made no recommendations regarding minimum landing sizes for swordfish in the
Mediterranean and there is a great body of opinion within scientific circles, which is backed up the experiences
of the fisheries sector, that this minimum size is excessive for the Mediterranean. In fact, it is proven that the
Mediterranean swordfish stock is completely different to that in the Atlantic. This difference is reflected inter
alia in the fact that the Mediterranean swordfish constitutes a stock of smaller fish reaching sexual maturity at a
much earlier age.

For this reason and with a view to maintaining the coherence of stock management measures in the
Mediterranean on the one hand and not to unnecessarily jeopardise the activities of the fisheries sector on the
other hand, can the Commission explain the reasons and the biological data which led to the establishment of
a minimum landing size of 120 cm for swordfish in the Mediterranean?

(1) OJ L 171, 6.7.1994, p. 1.