WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The Commission's staff policy.
Date: 2001-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, pay, personnel administration, strike

C 350 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

As already pointed out in the reply to Written Question E-936/01 by Mr Sj(cid:246)stedt (1), (cid:145)the Commission has
not signed any contract relating to the Berlaymont building.
In July 1997 the Commission signed
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A.
Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum
included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of
renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice.(cid:146) The costs of
renovating the building after removal of the asbestos were estimated to be € 324 million.

The provision mentioned above retains its validity. Meanwhile,
the Commission and the Belgian
Government are currently re-examining the Memorandum of Understanding with a view to establishing
a contract which fixes the final cost of the building, precisely describes the work covered by the contract,
and sets down a firm delivery date.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.

(2001/C 350 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The FlØchard affair

What measures has the Commission taken to resolve the (cid:145)FlØchard affair(cid:146) and to find possible culprits
among the Commission(cid:146)s own officials?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The so-called (cid:145)FlØchard(cid:146) case has during more than two years been exhaustively examined by the
Commission, the Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control, the European Court of Auditors and the
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The Commission has over this time on numerous occasions supplied
information to the various bodies. The Honourable Member is advised to consult this comprehensive
documentation available to the Parliament, f. ex. the Commission reply of 10 May 2000 to the Court of
Auditors presidential letter, the reply of 19 March 2001 to the questionnaire addressed to the Commission
by the (cid:145)FlØchard(cid:146) working group of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the member responsible for
Budget(cid:146)s statement to the Parliament in April 2001 for the 1999 discharge. In addition, OLAF transmitted
in March 2001 its report concerning the minutes of the Commission interservice meeting of 7 January
1994 to the Commission and to the Parliament.

The Commission is of the view that the case is thoroughly documented and does not see any possibility,
nor need, to take further measures to resolve it.

(2001/C 350 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s staff policy

The Commission is reforming its staff policy with the aim of improving the efficiency of its operations.
This is a perfectly correct objective. Some staff representatives have already threatened legal action if the
reforms do not satisfy officials. If a strike occurs, will the Commission take the line that the officials should
be paid for the time they are on strike?

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/75

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The payment of salaries during a strike is not provided for in the Staff Regulations. Point 10 of the Annex
to the Framework Agreement between the trade unions and staff associations and the Commission of
1974 stipulates that (cid:145)the Commission and the trade unions and staff associations involved in the dispute
shall together decide on the conditions for resuming work(cid:146). This implies that the question is addressed on
an ad hoc basis following a strike.

The Commission(cid:146)s practice is to deduct from the salary of officials who participate in a strike an amount
equivalent to their pay over the period of the strike. This practice was followed most recently on the
occasion of a half-day strike by some officials of the Commission services in Luxembourg on 31 January
2001.

(2001/C 350 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1125/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Special levy on alcoholic beverages and rate of VAT on wine

On 19 March 2001 the Portuguese press reported that the Commission was preparing to withdraw the
levy on alcoholic beverages and end the possibility of applying
exemption for wine from the special
a reduced rate of VAT, with a consequent increase from 5 % to 17 %. It was also stressed that the
Commission is set to bring about these changes without consulting Portugal or Greece, having received the
tacit agreement of France and Italy.

Everyone is aware of the socio-economic and cultural
importance of the wine sector, particularly for
southern countries. It is also well known that wine is essentially an agricultural product and that it is
largely produced outside the industrial structures found in the case of other alcoholic beverages such as
beer. Changing the exemption from the special levy would lead to wine prices increasing by Esc 30 per
litre. The combined impact of this measure and changes in the VAT rate would be a dramatic rise in
consumer prices and a reduction in the consumption of wine in favour of other products, which would
have a detrimental effect on the sector. This is of course the aim of the strong lobby representing
multinational beer companies, chiefly concentrated in northern Europe.

In this context, can the Commission confirm the reports published in the Portuguese press?

If so, does it not consider that this proposal runs counter to the protection of multifunctional, sustainable
agriculture which respects the environment and produces quality, safe products for consumers, such as
levy should therefore be
wine-growing and wine-producing, and that the exemption from the special
maintained?

Have any studies been made to assess the impact of these measures on producer countries, particularly
Portugal?

Will the Commission consult Portugal on the proposed measures?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(29 May 2001)

The Commission would like to inform the Honourable Member that the end of the application of a reduced
VAT rate to wine in Portugal is the result of a recent judgement of the Court of Justice, of 8 March 2001
(Case C-276/98), in which such practise was considered as infringing the Sixth Vat Directive, Council
Directive 77/388/EEC of 17 May 1977 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to
turnover taxes (cid:129) Common system of value added tax: uniform basis of assessment (1).