WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/01 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Charges of favouritism against the Land government in Schwerin.
Date: 2001-10-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU programme, European Anti-fraud Office, European Social Fund, Germany, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, award of contract, fraud, provision of services

C 134 E/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

There is no derogation to the age limit in the notice of competition COM/C/1/01 and that this has been
standard practice for all open competitions published by the Commission since February 1998.

The Commission agreed to the principle of abandoning age limits in its notices of competition in a
decision of 21 January 1998. It also expressed the view that a co-ordinated approach amongst all the
European institutions was needed. In addition, the Commission subsequently decided to raise the age limit
for competitions for recruitment at basic grades to 45 years, from 35 years. It should be noted that other
Community institutions also use age limits in their competitions, and, in some cases, they are lower than
45 years.

Before the 1998 decision the rationale of the derogation was that for some applicants it was difficult to
obtain the required number of years experience before the age of 35 because their professional career had
been interrupted for some reason. However this is no longer the case with an age limit of 45 years.

The professional experience required for competition COM/C/1/01 is just four years after obtaining the
required diploma (Lower secondary education ‘Licenza di scuola media’ for Italy) which is generally
obtained at an age of 16 years. As a consequence the Commission does not consider that an age limit of
45 years (which is authorised by Art. 1 point g) of Annex III to the Staff Regulations) without derogation
is discriminatory against women or other applicants. The Commission will, therefore, not change the
competition COM/C/1/01.

The Commission will, however, continue to consider how to encourage women who have interrupted their
professional career for family reasons to apply for competitions, and will strive to ensure that they are not
discriminated against when applying for competitions.

The Honourable Member will also be interested to know that in actions 27, 29 and 50 of the White Paper
on Reforming the Commission (1) of 1 March 2000 and subsequently in the Consultative Document on
Competitions and Recruitment of 28 February 2001 (2) the Commission expressed its political intention to
abolish age limits in competitions. In the same documents the Commission has proposed closer inter-
Institutional co-operation on recruitment, and the creation of a European Recruitment Office, which will
organise competitions for all the European Institutions in the future. The Secretaries-General of the
European Institutions agreed at their meeting of 9 July 2001 that it will be the responsibility of the
Management Board of this future Office, which will be composed of representatives of all European
Institutions, to take a decision in relation to age limits.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
(2) SEC(2001) 294/4.

(2002/C 134 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2806/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Charges of favouritism against the Land government in Schwerin

The news magazine Der Spiegel (Issues 35/01, 37/01 and 39/01) charges the Deputy State Minister of the
North German Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Helmut Holter, with involvement in favouritism and
speaks of a ‘Schwerin black hole’ into which EU monies have disappeared.

1.

(a)

Is the Commission investigating allegations

that there were serious irregularities in the award of a 15 million contract to the BBJ company for
‘services within the framework of technical assistance from the European Social Fund’?

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/111

(b)

that funding for the further training undertaking SBW from the EU’s ADAPT programme might have
been particularly generous because the wife of now sacked Secretary of State Joachim Wegrad was a
manager and partner there, while the wife of the Deputy State Minister was employed there as a social
worker?

2.

Does the Commission have any plans to nullify contracts and reclaim monies?

Can the Commission confirm that it conducted an investigation against the BBJ as long ago as the

3.
mid-90s for misappropriation of assistance funding? If so, what was the outcome?

Is the Commission investigating allegations that the non-profit Schwerin BBJ GmbH diverted monies

4.
to combat unemployment into real property projects of another BBJ subsidiary in Brussels?

Can the Commission indicate the amount of payments which firms and companies belonging to the

5.
BBJ Group have received from the Community budget in the past five years?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 December 2001)

As part of its audit and control work, the Commission will investigate whether the awarding of the most
recent technical assistance contract to BBJ was made in conformity with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of
18 June 1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (1) and in
particular Article 11 thereof, which under certain circumstances allows the award of a public service
contract by negotiated procedure.

In line with the principle of subsidiarity, the Commission is not informed about the funding of particular
projects. It is the Member State which is responsible for the approval of particular projects and contracts
for technical assistance. This was also the case as regards the technical assistance contracts signed between
German Länder and firms and companies belonging to the BBJ group during the last programming period.
There is no obligation to inform the Commission automatically about details of these contracts.

For the same reasons, the Commission has no detailed information on projects awarded to SBW by the
Ministry of Labour of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

By letter of 30 August 2001, the Commission requested information from the Land, in particular on the
allegations concerning the BBJ contract. No reply has been received to date. At the same time, the Court of
Auditors of Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania is preparing a report on the BBJ and SBW contracts.
Therefore, the questions of whether the contracts have to be declared null and void or whether money has
to be reclaimed cannot be answered at this stage.

In the so-called Flathus case, a case of fraud which happened in Thuringia in the mid-1990s and in which
a BBJ company was involved, the Commission did not continue with its own investigations once the
German authorities withdrew the projects concerned from European Social Fund (ESF) co-financing.

The Commission is not aware of allegations which would concern investment decisions taken by a private
company.

The European Anti-Fraud Office has indicated its intention of checking for possible irregularities with
regard to technical assistance contracts with companies forming part of the BBJ Servis network in Europe.

(1) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.