WRITTEN QUESTION E-1270/00 by Alejandro Cercas (PSE), Miguel Martínez Martínez (PSE), Emilio Menéndez del Valle (PSE) and María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission. Internal competitions COM/TA/99, COM/TB/99 and COM/TC/99.
Date: 2000-04-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: competition (EU)

20.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 89 E/19

development fund (EDF) regional funds and European programme for reconstruction and development in
South Africa (EPRD) resources and would thus be additional to national programme funding. South Africa
has already accepted to earmark € 3 million of the EPRD allocation of 2000. A second phase will involve
a package for assisting the private sector to enhance its competitiveness (through the introduction of new
techniques, improved management and work practices and retraining of labour) and the design, where
transitional budgetary support programmes within the context of coherent macro
appropriate, of
economic programmes. A third phase would focus on the implementation of such programmes.

Furthermore, a fiscal restructuring programme has been prepared at the request of Swaziland and will be
presented to the EDF committee in June 2000. The project will be implemented over a four year period at
a cost of 5,6 M€. The purpose of the project is to assist Swaziland in building up its capacity to formulate
and implement a sound and equitable fiscal policy within a continued stable macro-economic environ-
ment. The International monetary fund (IMF) has been involved in the preparation of this programme.

Botswana recently submitted a request for support for an intended fiscal reform programme with the
objective of enhancing government revenue. Its projected results will include the introduction of value
added tax and the improvement of the assessment and the collection of taxes and duties. It has been agreed
firstly concentrate on the recruiting of a revenue adviser
with Botswana that Community aid will
(July 2000) who will then assist with the design of a fiscal reform project.

(1) OJ C 46 E, 13.2.2001.

(2001/C 89 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1270/00

by Alejandro Cercas (PSE), Miguel Mart(cid:237)nez Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE),
Emilio MenØndez del Valle (PSE) and Mar(cid:237)a Sornosa Mart(cid:237)nez (PSE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

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

On 2 December 1999 the Director-General of the Commission(cid:146)s Administration and Personnel department
decided to (cid:145)reopen(cid:146) the above three competitions until 22 December 1999, although the deadline for
applications laid down in the relevant notices of competition had expired at 4 p.m. on 30 July 1999, and
to postpone to a later date the written tests that were due to take place on 6/7 December 1999.

1. Would the Commission:

(cid:129) indicate why, disregarding the opinion of the selection boards, it decided to admit not only candidates
who, in the words of its decision of 2 December 1999, had not submitted all the documents required
in accordance with point XII of the notices of competition (cid:129) and thus had failed to comply with the
rules laid down by the Commission itself for those competitions (cid:129) but also new candidates who were
permitted to apply for the competitions in question between 2 and 22 December 1999, in other
words long after the officially published deadline?

(cid:129) provide the names and state the number of candidates, by competition category, who were permitted

by the selection boards to take part in the competition after 2 December 1999?

(cid:129) certify that the candidates whose applications were accepted after 2 December 1999 did not include
any persons who were related to Members of the Commission or members of Commissioners(cid:146) private
offices?

(cid:129) indicate the nature of the guarantees offered by the Administration to persuade the selection boards to

resume their duties after having tendered their resignation?

C 89 E/20

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.3.2001

2.

Does the Commission agree:

(cid:129) that as a result of the Administration(cid:146)s decision of 2 December 1999, which was merely forwarded by
e-mail, the organisation of the current competitions for permanent posts is flawed by serious errors of
form and substance and that this procedure is incomprehensible in terms of the policy of transparency
to which the Commission has committed itself?

(cid:129) that candidates who are incapable of filling in a complicated but precisely worded application form

correctly are unsuitable to be employed as officials?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2000)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that only the jury members need to certify that they
have no parental link with any of the candidates. The Commission does not request such information from
the candidates themselves.

The Director General explained the reasons for his decision to the juries concerned as well as to the Joint
Committee and agreed to re-examine the number of successful candidates for each competition. The juries
thereafter resumed their work in January 2000.

Regarding the further questions the Honourable Members are referred to the replies already given to
Written Questions E-216/00 by Mr Ferri (1), P-832/00 by Mr Turco (2) and oral question H-125/00 by
Mr Turco during question time at Parliament(cid:146)s February 2000 part-session (3).

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 37.
(2) OJ C 26 E, 26.1.2001, p. 116.
(3) Debates of the European Parliament (February 2000).

(2001/C 89 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1286/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(19 April 2000)

Subject: Indirect aid to coal and nuclear sectors

The White Paper on renewable energies commits the Commission to taking action against subsidising of
the coal and nuclear-energy sectors.

1.

(a) How many complaints has the Commission received in the last two years relating to the coal and

nuclear-energy sectors, with reference to possible aid?

(b) What did the Commission decide in each case?

(c)

In which countries did the complaints originate and what electricity undertakings were concerned
in each case?

(d) How many complaints are now being investigated by the Commission in this connection and in

which countries do those complaints originate?

(e) What is the substance of each complaint?

2.

(a) How does the Commission identify indirect, unnotified aid to coal and nuclear energy in the

Member States?

(b) Has the Commission developed a systematic approach to detecting indirect aid to this sector?

(c)

If so, is that approach effective in preventing possible competitive advantages from accruing to
particular supply undertakings?