WRITTEN QUESTION E-0216/00 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Internal competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99 and COM/TC/99.
Date: 2000-02-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, competition (EU)

28.12.2000

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 374 E/37

(2000/C 374 E/043)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0216/00

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: Internal competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99 and COM/TC/99

On 2 December 1999 the Commission(cid:146)s Directorate-General for Administration and Personnel decided to
re-set the deadlines for the three above-mentioned internal competitions to 22 December (whereas the
closing date for applications specified in the relevant notices was 4 p.m. on 30 July 1999) and not to hold
the tests on 6 and 7 December as planned but to postpone them to a later date. Commission staff were
notified of this decision by e-mail.

1. Will the Commission say:

(a) why exactly it took the decision to change the date specified in the competition notices, a date it had
chosen itself? Clarification of this matter is needed particularly in the light of the fact that the decision
to extend the closing date for applications was taken partly in order to admit candidates who,
according to the letter of the above-mentioned decision of 2 December 1999, had failed to comply
with the provisions of point XII of the notices of competition by the date laid down (4 p.m. on 30 July
1999);

(b) why the decision was taken only two working days before the tests were scheduled to take place on 6
and 7 December, with effects only to easy to imagine on the candidates concerned, of whom only
those working at the Commission were informed in time (i.e. before the scheduled date for the tests)?

(c) how it intends to resolve the problems created by this delay, the length of which remains uncertain, as
regards the holding of tests for those candidates who are approaching the end of their contracts or
whose contracts have already expired?

(d) how it intends to provide sufficient guarantees that the competitions in questions will be organised in
a proper and transparent manner with due regard for the rules which (cid:129) having established them itself
(cid:129) the Commission has breached?

2.
In the light of the above and bearing in mind that the likely consequence of the Commission(cid:146)s
decision of 2 December 1999 will be an increase in the number of candidates to the competitions
concerned, does the Commission not consider that it would be right and proper to increase the number of
posts available? This would make it possible to avoid penalising further the candidates for the internal
competitions which, unlike previous years, are open to all categories of staff with less stringent conditions
of eligibility, with the result that the number of candidates in proportion to the number of posts available
is decidedly less favourable than in previous internal competitions?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 March 2000)

1.

(a) On 2 December 1999 the Commission(cid:146)s Director General for Personnel and Administration
decided to extend the deadline for submission of applications from 30 July at 16.00 hours until
22 December 1999 at 16.00 hours, and not to hold the tests on 6 and 7 December 1999 as planned.
The Director General took this decision in his capacity as appointing authority and in conformity with
the Staff Regulations. The decision was fully supported by the Vice-President
responsible for
personnel. The Director general for personnel and administration sent a message to all staff on
2 December 1999, explaining that he had taken this decision because a large number of candidates
had drawn his attention to procedural problems which meant they had been refused admission to the
competitions because they had not submitted the necessary documentary evidence (as required by
point XII of the notices of competition). Since the requirements for the submission of necessary
documentary evidence had been more rigorous than in earlier competitions, the Director General
came to the conclusion that this change could have given rise to a lack of clarity for a high number of
applicants. In short, after taking account of all relevant factors, the Director General acted on the basis
that candidates who were entitled in all other respects to sit the competition should not be denied an
opportunity because of inadvertent errors on their part or deficiencies in the submission of formal
documents.

C 374 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.12.2000

(b) The Director General wanted to ensure that all possible solutions had been considered. Therefore he
took his decision only after the three selection boards had finished their work concerning the
admission of candidates, after consultation with various services in the Directorate General concerned,
and after a meeting with the members of the three Selection Boards, which took place on 1 December
1999. Thereafter, the information was communicated to candidates as quickly as possible.

On 2 December 1999 an e-mail was sent to all staff and each delegation was informed by fax. On
6 and 7 December 1999, representatives of the recruitment unit were present in the three exam
centres (Brussels, Luxembourg and Ispra), in case candidates who had not received the information in
time, arrived to take the test. Only four candidates (out of a total of 538) did so and the Commission
therefore considers that the measures taken to inform the candidates of the decision were, in the
circumstances, adequate.

(c) The message to all staff of 2 December 1999 clearly stated that candidates who had already been
admitted to the three competitions would not need to reapply. Candidates who had been admitted
before 2 December 1999 and whose contract has expired in the meantime, still have the right to take
part in the competition.

The written tests of the internal competitions took place in mid-March 2000, as announced in a
message to all staff of 12 January 1999. The specific date subsequently notified to all was 15 March
for COM/TA/99 and COM/TC/99 and 15 March for COM/TB/99.

(d) As mentioned above, the decision was taken by the Director General in his capacity as appointing
authority, and in conformity with the Staff Regulations. The Commission consequently considers that
no rules have been breached.

During a meeting with the Joint Committee (Commission Paritaire) on 17 December 1999 the
2.
Director General
for Personnel and Administration agreed to re-examine the number of successful
candidates for each competition in the light of the number of additional candidates who would now be
eligible for the competition, following the reopening of the deadline, in order not to disadvantage those
candidates who had been accepted initially, despite the admission of further candidates. All staff were
informed of this in a message of the Director General for Personnel and Administration of 12 January
2000.

(2000/C 374 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0219/00

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(4 February 2000)

Subject: EU aid to France for the (cid:145)Route ForestiŁre du Port des Moines(cid:146) in Morvan, Burgundy

to the
On 18 November 1998, Maartje van Putten, MEP,
Commission. In its reply of 2 February 1999, the Commission said that it needed more information
before it could answer the question. The required supplementary information was subsequently supplied to
the relevant directorate of the Commission. However, the Commission has still not answered the question.

tabled Written Question E-3743/98 (1)

The text of the written question (including the supplementary information requested by the Commission)
was as follows:

1.

Is the Commission aware of the deforestation taking place in various parts of the (cid:145)Route ForestiŁre du
in the
Port des Moines(cid:146) regional natural park and particularly the (cid:145)forŒt domanial de Saint Prix(cid:146)
commune of Saint Prix, which forms part of the Morvan natural park, and that any reforestation
which is taking place is being carried out using tree species (conifers) which damage water resources
in the area, with the result that natural assets in the area are being impaired and a drought is
occurring?

2. What are the Commission(cid:146)s views of the impact on natural assets in the regional natural park in the
light of the fact that the region received European financing via the Structural Funds for the period
1994-1999 (SPD Burgundy, Objective 5b regions, EAGGF money)?

(1) OJ C 207, 21.7.1999, p. 121.