WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/00 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Staff disciplinary procedures.
Date: 2000-09-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal

C 113 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.4.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(9 October 2000)

The Netherlands, backed by Italy, has brought before the Court of

Justice an action for the
1.
annulment of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the
legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Further to this action, the Netherlands has also initiated
proceedings for interim measures to suspend the above Directive.

The President of the Court dismissed this request in an Order dated 25 July 2000 on the grounds, in
particular, that it was unlikely that any patents would be granted during the period between the entry into
force of the Directive(30 July 2000)and the Court issuing its judgment. Moreover, for requests made before
the entry into force of the Directive, the Netherlands may grant patents containing a resolutory clause
relating to a possible annulment of the Directive. Therefore, there are no serious or irrevocable reasons to
justify deferring the transposal of this Directive into national law.

2.
Furthermore, the Directive makes a clear distinction between an invention and a discovery. The mere
discovery of genes cannot, under any circumstances, be the subject of patent protection (Article 5(1)). This
Directive is in keeping with general patent law which precludes even temporary ownership of mere
discoveries.

A gene can only be entitled to patent protection if it has been isolated, for example, by means of technical
processes which have made it possible to identify, purify, classify and reproduce it outside the human
body.

Moreover, a patent can only be granted for such inventions in as far as the general requirements for
involve an inventive step, and be
i.e. the invention must be new,
patentability have been fulfilled,
susceptible of industrial application.

Article 5(3) of the Directive states, in this respect, that the industrial application must be disclosed in the
patent application. Therefore, a mere sequence of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), with no indication of a
function and containing no technical information, is not a patentable invention.

(2001/C 113 E/158)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2688/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Staff disciplinary procedures

1. Will the Commission reconsider its response to my Written Question E-0557/00 (1) concerning
disciplinary procedures for its own staff given (a) the very small numbers of employees of the Commission
who are dismissed and (b) the answer given by the British Parliament to Mr Matthew Taylor MP (113608)
showing that 0,1 to 0,2 per cent of the non-industrial civil service employees are dismissed or discharged
each year?

2.
Does the Commission take the view that there may be an inverse relationship between its very low
rate of disciplinary action against employees and the evidence of malpractice, inefficiency and delays (for
example in making due payments)?

Can the Commission indicate the civil service of any Member State that dismisses proportionately

3.
fewer of its own employees in any given year?

If not, is it aware of any evidence that its own employees are intrinsically less likely to succumb to

4.
temptation or sloth than the employees of any other organisation or institution?

(1) OJ C 374 E, 28.12.2000, p. 105.

18.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 113 E/153

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 October 2000)

The Commission sees no reason to reconsider its answer to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s Written
1.
Question E-557/00 on the basis of the statistical data reported by the Honourable Member and given in a
Parliamentary answer in the House of Commons. Whilst accepting the need for improvements to its
disciplinary system (cid:129) and, consequently, pursuing such improvements through the Reform Strategy (cid:129) the
Commission continues to take the view that the overall effectiveness of a disciplinary regime is best
measured by the degree to which it helps to prevent indiscipline, rather than by the numbers of employees
dismissed.

2.
To the extent that (cid:145)malpractice, inefficiency and delays(cid:146) exist within the Commission, they are often
the result of unsatisfactory rules and systems rather than the individual actions of the Commission(cid:146)s
employees. This is largely the case, for example, with the payment delays to which the Honourable
Member makes specific reference.
In such circumstances, disciplinary proceedings against individuals
would not provide a solution. Change in the system is necessary and that, too, is being actively pursued.

The Commission is not in possession of detailed information on the numbers of civil servants
3.
dismissed by Member States annually, and it is thus not in a position to respond to the Honourable
Member(cid:146)s question.

The Commission does not assume that Community civil servants are intrinsically more or less likely
4.
to succumb to bad practices than any other people. It does recognise, however, that it would not be
reasonable or wise to introduce a system of dismissals that is determined by whatever average may or may
not exist in any other organisation or institutions.

(2001/C 113 E/159)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2702/00

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(1 September 2000)

Subject: Agricultural support and accession of Turkey

1. What is the Commission(cid:146)s estimate of the extra annual cost of support if existing EU farm support
policies were extended to Turkey on its accession to the EU:

(a) assuming no change in its current agricultural production;

(b) projecting a change in its agricultural production based on changes in price incentives as support and

structural policies were brought into line with existing EU policies?

2. What is the estimated annual cost respectively for both Guarantee and Structural Funds in each case?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2000)

To estimate the extra annual cost of agricultural support resulting from Turkey(cid:146)s accession to the
Community it would be necessary to know with a reasonable degree of certainty the date, terms and the
conditions of Turkey(cid:146)s accession to the Community. These aspects will have to be defined in accession
negotiations with Turkey, which have not yet been opened. Consequently, any cost estimate made on the
basis of assumptions indicated by the Honourable Member would necessarily be of an entirely hypothetical
and speculative nature. At the present stage of the pre-accession process the Commission is, therefore, not
in a position to answer the questions asked by the Honourable Member.