WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/99 by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Complaint about harassment.
Date: 1999-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, servant (EU)

3.10.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 280 E/51

Would not the Council agree that this situation is unacceptable and that it constitutes a failure by the
Member States towards passengers and airlines which they should begin to remedy immediately?

Reply

(13 March 2000)

The Council shares the Honourable Member(cid:146)s concern. In its Resolution of 19 July 1999 (1) the Council
noted that the situation in air traffic delays undermined the efficiency of Community air transport, caused
great inconvenience to air travellers and could cause an additional burden on the environment. Having
welcomed the action taken by the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation (Eurocontrol) to
improve the efficiency of air traffic management in Europe, it invited the Member States to intensify their
action at national level and the Commission to submit a communication aimed at reducing air traffic
delays and congestion in Europe.

Further to that Resolution, the Commission submitted to the Council, at its meeting on 9 and 10 December
1999, a general communication on the subject aimed at the creation of a (cid:145)single European sky(cid:146). The
Council took particular note of the Commission(cid:146)s intention to set up a high-level group that would bring
together the parties responsible for the management of air traffic in the Member States and cover the civil
and military use of airspace, while taking due account of the interests of the end users of air transport.

The Council is awaiting the Commission(cid:146)s report on the group(cid:146)s findings so that it can discuss them at its
meeting in June 2000.

(1) OJ C 222, 4.8.1999, p. 1.

(2000/C 280 E/051)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2476/99

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Complaint about harassment

On 20 November 1998 a national expert seconded to the Commission made a complaint to his superiors
about harassment. The individual resubmitted his complaint on 4 December 1998.

Despite the Commission recommendations on the subject, no action was taken to protect the individual
concerned.

On 25 February 1999 he was unfairly relieved of his duties and his request for the renewal of his contract,
which was supported by the Commission, was rejected.

These facts appear to constitute a breach of the principles relating to the protection of victims laid down
in the Commission recommendations.

The Commission only decided to launch an internal investigation procedure three months after the first
complaint.

The procedure has still not been completed.

1. What is the official procedure for dealing with complaints about harassment within the Commission?

2. What measures may the Commission take to protect victims?

3. What sanctions may the Commission apply to those responsible for harassment?

4. What is the time limit for the completion of the internal procedures and what safeguards exist to
ensure impartiality?

5. What measures are provided for to compensate the victims of harassment?

C 280 E/52

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.10.2000

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(9 February 2000)

A complaint of harassment lodged by a member of staff of the Commission can lead to an administrative
inquiry decided on by the competent Appointing Authority (AA). The Commission provided specific
information to its staff concerning procedures relating to the protection of the dignity of the person, in an
administrative notice dated 29 February 1996. The purpose of the administrative inquiry is to establish the
existence of the facts and may lead to disciplinary proceedings against a person found to be responsible.

Measures can be taken to protect the victim of the harassment by his or her hierarchy, such as a transfer
to another post whilst the inquiry is being carried out.

Disciplinary proceedings are initiated by the appointing authority on request of the hierarchy of the person
concerned or on its own initiative. They may lead to the imposition of a sanction as laid down in the Staff
Regulations.

During the phase of administrative inquiries no time limits apply.
that disciplinary
proceedings are opened according to the decision of the appointing authority, the Commission has (cid:129)
depending on the individual case (cid:129) to obey the time limits provided for in Article 87 and Annex IX of the
Staff Regulation.

In the event

In order to determine the appropriate sanction the AA has to establish all facts in respect of the person
being subject to a disciplinary proceeding and is therefore entitled and obliged to eliminate all doubts.

The AA, can take a decision without an opinion from the disciplinary board in cases of disciplinary
measures such as a written warning or a reprimand, but must consult the disciplinary board to take other
measures. The AA takes a final decision after the disciplinary board has delivered its opinion.

Article 7(3) of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations provides that the appointing authority must take its
decision within one month from the delivery of the reasoned opinion of the disciplinary board; it shall first
hear the official concerned.

However, the case law of the Court of Justice and of the Court of First Instance states that the time limits
laid down in Article 7(3) are not mandatory but are only rules of good administration.

Disciplinary proceedings are subject to the principle of the presumption of innocence. The regularity and
the impartiality of the entire procedure are under the control of the Court of First Instance.

As to compensation for victims of harassment, the institution may be liable to compensate them where
damage is proved to have resulted from a service-related fault of the institution.

(2000/C 280 E/052)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2480/99

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) and Mauro Nobilia (UEN) to the Commission

(16 December 1999)

Subject: Housing safety standards

Recent instances in which residential buildings have collapsed (last year in Rome, this year in Foggia),
apparently without any specific cause, in other words not as the result of gas leaks or earthquakes, have
not only led to casualties but given rise to fears amongst the inhabitants and justified concern among
public officials over the minimum safety standards for buildings.