WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/01 by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission. Appointment of middle managers.
Date: 2001-06-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, appointment of staff, recruitment, temporary employment, transparency in decision-making

C 81 E/76

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

Will the Commission look into this complex problem and find an appropriate way of ensuring that the
subsidies available to one organisation are also made available to the other, not least with a view to
preventing large numbers of members from leaving and thus undermining the commercial progress made
to date?

(1) OJ L 118, 20.5.1972, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 207, 19.7.1989, p. 19.
(3) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2001)

The Commission takes note of the positive developments in the Piedmont region regarding regrouping of
supply into two producer organisations.

Support through operational funds is available to both organisations under Regulation (EC) No 2200/96,
and the possibility also exists of funding under rural development programmes.

The specific measures for nuts and locust beans under Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89 were introduced in
1989 as a temporary measure to improve marketing and production, over a 10-year period. The measure
was repealed by Regulation (EC) No 2200/96. However existing plans are allowed to continue to term.
Existing plans may also be extended once in their 10-year life, through the incorporation of new members
and surface areas.

Access to the improvement plan scheme under Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89 was open for a seven year
period from 1989 until 21 November 1996, which is the date of entry into force of Regulation (EC) No
2200/96. During this period all producer organisations were entitled to submit an improvement plan.
However since Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 does not provide for new improvement plans to be
authorised, Ascopiemonte would not be eligible to start a new improvement plan.

In order to benefit from the provisions of Regulation (EEC) No 2159/89, producers of Ascopiemonte
would have to join another producer organisation which was extending its improvement plan.

Alternatively the two organisations could also consider merging outside the scope of the improvement
plan. While this would not entitle the hazelnut producers of Ascopiemonte to participate in the
improvement plan of Asprocor, the merger could be advantageous, particularly in terms of economies of
scale. Community funds are available to cover the administrative and legal costs of such a merger through
the operational funds.

(2002/C 81 E/089)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1922/01

by Fiorella Ghilardotti (PSE) and Giovanni Pittella (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Appointment of middle managers

(29 June 2001)

The post of head of unit responsible for legal affairs in the Commission(cid:146)s Taxation and Customs Union DG
has been vacant for nine months. An official has been doing the job in a temporary capacity for the whole
of that time. The vacancy has been advertised, and, at the end of the selection procedure, three candidates
were short-listed.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:129) why the acting head of unit was not short-listed although he has been performing the duties to the

satisfaction of the Director-General;

(cid:129) why no candidate was selected from the short list once the selection procedure had been completed;

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/77

(cid:129) what it will do to fill the post and whether it intends in the immediate future to relieve the acting

head of unit of his duties, since he was not short-listed?

It is easy to see that, despite the Commission(cid:146)s numerous assurances on the subject of transparency,
strange things are continuing to happen in middle management selection procedures, just as they have
done in the past. For example, vacancies are held open for long periods until the desired candidates are
available to fill them, and selection boards are only nominally independent but in fact susceptible to
pressure from the Directors-General and the cabinets.

Bearing in mind that middle managers occupy a pivotal position within the administrative structure:

(cid:129) what, in the opinion of the Commission, should be done to end a practice which makes the public as

well as officials scoff at the assertion that heads of unit are appointed fairly and properly;

(cid:129) does the Commission not believe that it should rethink its decision concerning appointment, since it
concentrates the power to choose in the hands of the Directors-General with no guarantee of
transparency?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2001)

The procedure for publishing the vacant post referred to by the Honourable Members was set in motion as
soon as possible but actual publication was held up by absence of the budget resources required for the
level of the post whose publication had been requested.

As soon as the resources were made available, the vacancy notice was published in Vacancy Notices No 11
of 8 March 2001. The deadline for submitting applications was 22 March 2001.

the post was filled,

Until
Commission(cid:146)s Rules of Procedure; the person was not officially appointed Acting Head.

the person concerned deputised in accordance with Article 24 of

the

Nine applications were received in reply to the vacancy notice, including one from the deputising Head of
Unit. These were examined by a preselection committee, which submitted a report to the Director-General
of
the Consultative Committee on
Appointments (CCA) was informed. It submitted its opinion on 17 May 2001. The CCA concluded that
two applications, which it listed in alphabetical order, should be considered.

for Taxation and Customs Union. Next,

the Directorate-General

The appointing authority appointed the new Head of Unit with effect from 1 July 2001. The new Head is
one of the two officials put forward by the CCA.

The deputising Head was not one of the two persons recommended. Here it should be pointed out that the
fact of carrying out the duties of a Deputy Head of Unit does not give the person concerned any priority
over other applicants. It should be noted that the official concerned asked to be relieved of his duties in a
memo dated 22 May 2001.

The Commission has informed Parliament of the details of the Commission(cid:146)s reforms of the middle
management selection procedure which are intended to secure greater transparency, particularly by the
institution of a selection panel. It was this procedure which was used here (1).

(1) Communication on appointing senior Commission officials (SEC(2000) 2305/05, 22.12.2000) and consultative

document on middle management appointments (SEC(2001) 322/4, 28.2.2001).