WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Guardianship of the Treaties.
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European treaties, discretionary power, infringement of EU law, interpretation of the law, power of assessment

C 81 E/38

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.3.2001

After due process, disciplinary proceedings relating to six officials referred to in Mr van Buitenen(cid:146)s book
have been concluded. In two cases the officials were acquitted, in one case the official was reprimanded, in
two cases the officials were dismissed, and in one case the official was dismissed with partial reduction of
entitlement to retirement pension.

In other cases, disciplinary proceedings and administrative enquiries launched before and after the date of
the publication of this book are in progress.

(2001/C 81 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1405/00

by Jeffrey Titford (EDD) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Action against Paul Van Buitenen

At a recent launch in England of Paul Van Buitenen(cid:146)s book (cid:145)Blowing the Whistle(cid:146), Mr Van Buitenen said
(cid:145)I have been warned, and threatened, and my home has been ransacked, and I am told that if members of
the Commission decide to take legal action against me, the Commission will back them.(cid:146)

Does the Commission intend to take any action against Paul Van Buitenen?

Does the Commission utterly renounce the actions of anyone who may have warned or threatened Paul
Van Buitenen, or ransacked his home?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Disciplinary action was taken against Mr Paul van Buitenen because he breached the existing rules by
investigations and disciplinary proceedings to be
causing documents that related to on-going criminal
transmitted outside the Commission. Mr van Buitenen was formally reprimanded for that breach of the
rules and that concluded the case.

Mr van Buitenen has not formally notified the Commission that he has been warned or threatened or that
the Commission would strongly deprecate abusive
his home has been entered illegally. Naturally,
behaviour of the sort alleged in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question, or of any other kind.

Article 24 of the Staff Regulations specifies that (cid:145)The Communities shall assist any official, in particular in
proceedings against any person perpetrating threats, insulting or defamatory acts or utterances, or any
attack to person or property to which he, or a member of his family, is subjected by reason of his position
or duties(cid:146). Such assistance must be formally requested by the official.

(2001/C 81 E/045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1422/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Guardianship of the Treaties

Does the Commission accept that Article 211 of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty establishing the
European Community requires the Commission (cid:145)to ensure that the provisions of this Treaty and the
measures taken by the institutions pursuant thereto are applied(cid:146), and, if so, and if the Commission wishes
to retain its role as (cid:145)Guardian of the treaties(cid:146), how is that compatible with remarks made recently by the

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/39

head of the European Commission(cid:146)s legal service, Jean-Louis Dewost, and reported in the European Voice,
and, in particular, his comment that if a misinterpretation of EU law was isolated to a specific case, we
would say we have other priorities?

(2001/C 81 E/046)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1428/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: The nature of the Commission(cid:146)s role as guardian of the Treaties

Can the Commission indicate whether its role as (cid:145)guardian of the Treaties(cid:146) is a legal or political one, and
whether in either case it believes that it is in the interests of the Commission and of the European Union
for all violations of the Treaty to be addressed as long as that role is maintained?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-1422/00 and E-1428/00
given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2000)

The Honourable Member rightly refers to Article 211 (ex Article 155) of the EC Treaty and to the role of
the Commission as (cid:145)guardian of the treaties(cid:146) which indeed constitutes one of its core tasks.

According to well-established case law of the Court of justice, (cid:145)the Commission is not bound to commence
the proceedings provided for in that provision but in this regard has a discretion(cid:146) (1);
(cid:145)the Commission
alone is competent to decide whether it is appropriate to bring proceedings against a Member State for
failure to fulfil its obligations and to determine the conduct or omission attributable to the Member State
on the basis of which those proceedings should be brought(cid:146) (2). Indeed, without having such a margin of
discretion the Commission could not fulfil efficiently its role as (cid:145)guardian of the Treaties(cid:146). It should also be
noted that a comparable margin of discretion is generally granted to national authorities having the task of
prosecuting violations of the law in the public interest.

When exercising its discretion the Commission has to take into consideration a wide range of aspects,
including the gravity of the infringement, its significance or its aptitude as a model case, as well as the
Commission(cid:146)s resources. After careful consideration of all circumstances, the Commission may in a given
case decide to give less priority to commencing infringement proceedings in a matter involving exclusively
a problematic application,
in an isolated case, of national rules that are as such compatible with
Community law. It also needs to be taken into account that in such individual cases national courts
might provide more advantageous remedies than infringement proceedings, given that such a proceedings
could last longer and do not allow illegal measures to be quashed, or judicial injunctions to be issued
against the administration or compensation for damages to be granted. This does not prejudice by any
means the paramount importance, stressed repeatedly by the Commission, of individual complaints for
detecting violations of Community law. The Commission(cid:146)s concern is merely to ensure that the most
important infringement cases continue to be treated quickly and efficiently in the future.

It is to these considerations that the remarks of the Director-general of the Commission Legal service,
mentioned by the Honourable Member, are related.

(1) Case 247/87 Star Fruit Company v. Commission [1989] ECR 291, point 11.
(2) Case C-431/92 Commission v. Germany [1995] ECR I-2189, point 22.