WRITTEN QUESTION E-2138/00 by Encarnación Redondo Jiménez (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Garlic import arrangements.
Date: 2000-06-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: CCT duties, China, EU production, World Trade Organisation, bulb vegetable, customs tariff, import licence, import policy

C 113 E/66

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

1. and 2.
The Commission regrets any (cid:145)confusion as regards the conduct and regularity of the disciplin-
ary proceedings against the former Director of ECHO(cid:146), whatever the source. All Commission statements
and actions have been consistent and in keeping with its obligations under the Staff Regulations.

In this respect, the Honourable Member(cid:146)s attention is drawn to the letter to the President of the Committee
(cid:145)I would like to state once again that the
on Budgetary Control, dated 28 June 2000, which said:
disciplinary proceedings were conducted scrupulously and in accordance with the terms of the Staff
Regulations applicable to officials of the European Communities(cid:146); ((cid:133)) (cid:145)to make it clear that, in the absence
of any new facts (cid:129) and there are none at present, the decision to acquit Mr Gomez-Reino in the 1999
disciplinary proceedings must be regarded as final(cid:146).

The Commission submitted to the Disciplinary Board all of the information in its possession which was
used to support the various charges which were brought against the former Director of ECHO. That was
done by means of a report from the Appointing Authority, together with annexes. In the course of the
discharge procedure for the 1998 budget, the Commission has already indicated that, while that document
from the Appointing Authority included the report of the administrative inquiry which preceded the
disciplinary proceedings as an annex, the minutes of the interviews conducted in the course of the
administrative inquiry were not annexed. The Commission has already explained that the omission of such
minutes cannot be considered to have prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings for the following
reasons:

Article 6 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations stipulates that if the disciplinary board requires further
information concerning the facts of the charges laid against an official or the circumstances in which they
arose, it may order an inquiry in which each side can submit its case and reply to the case of the other
side. For the purpose of this inquiry, the board may call for any documents relating to the matter before it.
In addition, if the board desires clarification on any particular point, it may, at any time, request further
information from the administration. The board did not consider it necessary to order such an inquiry or
call for more information, and therefore, concluded that it was in possession of sufficient information to
deliver its opinion.

3.
The Commission has always co-operated with Parliament by providing it with all the factors on
which to base an assessment in order to demonstrate that no irregularity was committed in the course of
the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the former director of ECHO. Clearly the Commission has no
responsibility for documents emanating from Parliament or from its members.

The Commission must be represented in Parliament Committees at the appropriate level in order to deal
with relevant matters on the agenda of meetings. It is incumbent upon the Commission as an institution to
defend its staff against allegations of misconduct which have been formally rejected. That has been done
consistently. There has been no ambiguity in the Commission(cid:146)s position or action taken in conformity
with the Staff Regulations.

4.
It is for the Commission to decide who should speak on its behalf on any business before Parliament
or any other body. It has never forbidden the former director of ECHO from appearing before the
Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) or other parliamentary bodies in writing or by any other
means. The conduct of such meetings is a matter for Parliament itself.

(2001/C 113 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2138/00

by Encarnaci(cid:243)n Redondo JimØnez (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Garlic import arrangements

(30 June 2000)

On 14 May 2000 the Spanish press reported that negotiations were under way with a view to setting a
final quota and a tariff for garlic imports.

Can the Commission confirm that those negotiations are based on a tariff of € 770 per tonne?

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/67

What stage has been reached in the negotiations?

What is being done to safeguard against triangular operations in which garlic is exported to the European
Union from non-producing countries?

How will the recent agreement on China(cid:146)s accession to the WTO affect the Community(cid:146)s production
sector, given that China is the world(cid:146)s largest garlic producer?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

The Commission has a Council mandate to negotiate changes to its undertakings on garlic imports in
accordance with the procedures laid down in Article XXVIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade (GATT).

The mandate stipulates that the Commission should negotiate compensation for the increase in the import
tariff and that it should offer in exchange a new tariff quota at the current duty as laid down in the
procedures implementing Article XXVIII of the GATT.

Formal negotiations have not yet started. The Commission is awaiting official confirmation from the main
supplier country that it intends to participate.

Under Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1859/93 of 12 July 1993 on the application of the system of
import licences for garlic imported from third countries (1), as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1662/94 of
8 July 1994 (2), the release for free circulation in the Community of imported garlic from third countries is
subject to the presentation of an import licence. The customs service of the Member States concerned are
responsible for ensuring that
the procedures laid down in the
regulations have been complied with. The Commission has also adopted measures on several occasions
making a specific certificate of origin a requirement for the import of garlic originating in certain third
countries.

the licences are authentic and that

The planned changes to our undertakings on garlic imports will take account of China(cid:146)s accession to the
World Trade Organisation (WTO) and the new environment this creates, so avoiding any upsets to
Community garlic production.

(1) OJ L 170, 13.7.1993.
(2) OJ L 176, 9.7.1994.

(2001/C 113 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2144/00

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Workers at the JRC

How many people work at the JRC? What percentage are nationals of countries which are not EU Member
States?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2000)

In June 2000, the total number of personnel employed in the Joint Research Centre (JRC) Directorate
general in all of the DG(cid:146)s locations was 1 691 officials and temporary agents. Of those 1682 were Union
nationals (99,47 %) and 9 were not (0,53 %). 351 non- statutory staff were employed of whom 12 were