WRITTEN QUESTION E-2253/99 by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission. Italy and the European area of justice.
Date: 1999-12-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European judicial area, Italy, judicial reform

C 203 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2000

central bank) must of course, be financially accountable. However, a right to control ex ante the budget
may, depending on the context, create a situation where an NCB is unable to fulfil its European System of
Central Banks (ESCB)-related tasks independently(cid:146).

(2000/C 203 E/201)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2242/99

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Wage bill and employees of the EU institutions

Please state the number of employees of the European Commission, European Parliament and European
Council at the end of each year for the last five years, together with the total wage bill for each institution,
and the average paid per employee.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 1999)

For the Commission, the figures are as follows:

Number of employees

14 082

1994

1995

14 922

1996

15 573

1997

16 061

1998

16 405

Total pay bill

Average cost

(1)
(2)

in euro millions
in euro

974 429 (1)

985 602 (1)

1 146 805 (1)

1 187 481 (1)

1 227 625 (1)

69 197 (2)

66 050 (2)

73 641 (2)

73 936 (2)

74 832 (2)

These figures represent the number of staff, including staff posted outside the Community, covered by the
establishment plan and paid on 31 December of each of the past five years. The total pay bill relates to
those posts paid from the general budget (part A), and therefore does not include research, or agency staff.

The Commission does not have the information sought in respect of the other institutions.

(2000/C 203 E/202)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2253/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (NI) to the Commission

(1 December 1999)

Subject: Italy and the European area of justice

The Presidency conclusions of the European Council in Tampere state that (cid:145)in a genuine European area of
justice individuals and businesses should not be prevented or discouraged from exercising their rights by
the incompatibility or complexity of legal and administrative systems in the Member States(cid:146). In order to
achieve this objective an information campaign is proposed, together with the publication of appropriate
(cid:145)user guides(cid:146) on judicial cooperation within the Union and on the legal systems of the Member States. Will
the information provided include details of the serious cases of injustice which have occurred in Italy? The
sense of insecurity spreading through the country, together with the growing feeling that offenders are
going unpunished, is borne out by statements made by judges that (cid:145)the code of criminal procedure is
inadequate(cid:146) and that (cid:145)the Italian legal system is bankrupt and on the verge of paralysis(cid:146). These words of
warning are backed up the alarming fact that in 1998 alone the statute of limitations was exceeded in
130 000 cases, a trend that seems to be on the increase.

18.7.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 203 E/157

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s opinion regarding the conditions needing to be met in order to be part of
the European area of justice?

Does it not consider that inclusion in this area is incompatible with the continued existence of penal

2.
codes seen as (cid:145)inadequate(cid:146) by those who operate them?

3.
Does it not share the view of many Italian citizens that the Union should intervene and (cid:145)recommend(cid:146)
reforms of the legal system to the Italian Government to prevent the serious anomalies and injustices with
which the system is riddled?

Does it not believe that, unless serious reforms are undertaken, the inclusion of Italy in the European

4.
area of justice could generate imbalance and instability?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(20 December 1999)

The Commission sees its task as putting information at citizens(cid:146) disposal by contributing to the launch of
an information campaign and to the publication of appropriate (cid:145)user guides(cid:146) on judicial co-operation
within the Union and on the legal systems of the Member States, as foreseen by conclusion No 29 of the
Tampere European Council. Citizens should thus be able to know their rights, which is a prerequisite for
them to exercise them. The Commission does not think that this goal would be furthered by trying to
include in the material chapters any alleged miscarriages of justice in one or several Member States.

The European area of justice is one of the objectives of the Union, as foreseen by Article 29 (ex-Article K1)
of the Treaty on European Union. Therefore, it is for the Union to take measures at its level. It is not for
the Union to interfere with the administration of justice in the Member States, as long as it is carried out
in line with the legal requirements imposed by the treaties and the legal instruments adopted in accordance
therewith. There are no requirements on Member States(cid:146) penal codes or penal procedure codes as such.
Only the parts dealing with subjects covered by above-mentioned legal instruments need to be aligned.

All the Member States are bound by the 1950 Council of Europe Convention for the protection of human
rights and fundamental freedoms, which in its Article 6 covers the right to a fair trial. Article 7 (ex-Article
F1) of the Treaty on European Union foresees that the Council may take sanctions against a Member State
for breaches of fundamental rights, including those foreseen in the above-mentioned convention. This,
however, is only foreseen for (cid:145)serious and persistent breaches(cid:146).

(2000/C 203 E/203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2255/99

by Luckas Vander Taelen (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(24 November 1999)

Subject: International architectural competition relating to the European Quarter in Brussels

In its reply to Written Question P-1486/99 (1), the Commission stated that the complainant (cid:145)by defending
his project [(cid:133)] brought about a loss of anonymity for all the projects(cid:146). What stage of the competition
procedure was the Commission referring to? Was it referring to the oral presentation of projects which
took place on 22 April 1998 on the basis of an invitation from the adjudication panel at the second stage
of the proceedings? If so, what is meant by (cid:145)bringing about a loss of anonymity(cid:146)?

According to the Commission(cid:146)s reply, the Belgian authorities, when questioned, acknowledged that certain
provisions on the appointment of deputies for panel members had not been respected. In this connection:

What was the status of Minister Hasquin as an honorary member of the panel and signatory to its report?
On what legal basis was Minister Hasquin allowed to play a decisive role in the panel, given that his
participation in the decision was not clearly provided for at the beginning of the competition?