WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Promotion procedures in the Commission.
Date: 2001-10-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, General Court (EU), action by staff, promotion, regulations for civil servants

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/171

Reply

(14 February 2002)

Regulation (EC) No 2666/2000 (CARDS) was adopted by the Council on 5 December 2000 and entered
into force on 7 December 2000. Under Article 7 of that Regulation, the Commission shall implement the
Community assistance, assisted by the ‘CARDS Committee’ (see Article 10 of the Regulation). Each year,
pursuant to Article 12,
‘the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council a
progress report on the Community assistance. That report shall contain information on the action financed
during the year and on the findings of monitoring work and shall give an assessment of the results
achieved in the implementation of the strategic framework, the multiannual indicative programmes and
the annual action programmes referred to in Article 3(1)’.

In conclusion: implementation of the assistance is the responsibility of the Commission. Each year the
Council and the Parliament are briefed in parallel on the activities and progress.

The first report will refer to 2001. That report has, of course, not yet come out.

(2002/C 134 E/174)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3000/01

by Emmanouil Bakopoulos (GUE/NGL) to the Council

Subject: Statements by the Turkish Prime Minister

(5 November 2001)

Speaking on the US television network CNN on 14 October 2001, the Turkish Prime Minister, Mr Bulent
Ecevit stated that his country was also a victim of terrorism perpetrated by terrorists who find refugee in
EU countries.

In view of Turkey’s status as a candidate for accession to the EU, and the Turkish Prime Minister’s
indiscriminate accusation against all 15 Member States of the Union, will the Council seek to obtain an
explanation and specific evidence to substantiate Mr Ecevit’s claim?

Reply

(14 February 2002)

This is not the first time Turkey has claimed that persons regarded as terrorists in Turkey have found
refuge in Member States of the European Union. This is neither new nor unique to Turkey. Since the
events of 11 September, Member States have been investigating possible abuses of the right to political
asylum by persons 8 particularly those with connections to the Al Quaida network 8 who, operating
from within the territory of EU Member States, have encouraged violence and terrorism elsewhere.

The issue of EU-Turkey cooperation in combating terrorism is addressed with Turkey in the appropriate
bodies, as part of measures to implement the action plan adopted by the Ghent European Council.

(2002/C 134 E/175)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3002/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Promotion procedures in the Commission

Every year, the Commission’s promotion procedures prompt a number of officials to lodge complaints and
some of them go on to bring actions before the CFI (Court of First Instance). The main reasons invoked are

C 134 E/172

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

the excessive importance attached to seniority in grade as a precondition for promotion and stubborn
practices such as the automatic promotion of officials passed over during the previous promotion exercise
and the fixing in advance of promotion quotas for each directorate-general.

In a note drawn up in July 2000 the Commission itself acknowledges that its procedures are complicated,
that they take too little account of merit and that the CFI has handed down judgments penalising the
Commission for employing this far from transparent procedure. By continuing to conduct its promotion
exercises on the basis of controversial criteria which have regularly been the subject of court judgments
against it, the Commission is also displaying a degree of contempt for the CFI and its judges, whilst
refusing to implement, to the benefit of its staff, a system which takes genuine account of merit, as
intended by the Staff Regulations, as promised by Mr Kinnock and as called for by a majority of officials.

1.

2.

3.

4.

How many complaints relating to promotion procedures have been lodged by Commission officials?

How many complaints have been rejected, whether implicitly or explicitly?

How many complaints have given rise to actions before the CFI?

How many such actions have resulted in the appellant being vindicated?

Has the Commission issued instructions to its administration to change immediately its promotion
5.
procedures and, at the very least, its procedures for dealing with the ensuing complaints, so that the
promotions granted to officials are finally and solely based on the merit acknowledged by that promotion
procedure or, where applicable, as a result of their complaints? If not, when will it do so?

6. Will the Commission immediately comply with the CFI judgments dealing with promotions? If not,
why not?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2001)

The information requested is given below:

Number of complaints relating to promotions

Number of complaints explicitly or implicitly rejected

Referred to the Court of First Instance (CFI)

1999

2000

28

18

2

59

31

3

Of the five appeals made to the Court, four were rejected by the Court and one is still pending.

Implementing Provisions of
The Commission’s promotion procedures are laid down by the General
Article 45 of the Staff Regulations and are based on the principle, set out in that Article, that promotion
‘shall be exclusively by selection from among officials who have completed a minimum period in their
grade, after consideration of the comparative merits of the officials eligible for promotion and of the
reports on them.’

The CFI has consistently ruled that seniority in grade and age can be taken into consideration, for the
purposes of promotion, only as subsidiary criteria where the merits of
the officials concerned are
comparable.

The Commission has always brought any new rulings on promotion made by the CFI to the attention of
Directorates-General and the promotion committees so that they may comply with those judgements. The
judgements of
the CFI on promotion also serve as the basis for considering complaints about
non-promotion made by officials under Article 90 of the Staff Regulations.

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/173

Following extensive consultation with its staff, the Commission is in the process of finalising a new system
of appraisal and promotion as a central part of Commission Reform. The system will bring significant and
helpful simplification and it will introduce very transparent procedures, while guaranteeing that promotion
is made on merit that is measured through full and fair individual appraisal.

The Commission implements all the judgements of the CFI concerning promotion and will continue to do
so. The Court has never given any indication or view which supports the Honourable Members’
unsubstantiated assertion that the Commission displays ‘a degree of contempt for the CFI and its judges’.

(2002/C 134 E/176)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3004/01

by Bernard Poignant (PSE) to the Commission

(29 October 2001)

Subject: Maritime transport safety

The sinking of the Erika brought a new awareness of the state of some ships navigating in Community
waters: badly maintained, sailing under flags of convenience, with unscrupulous owners and crewmembers
who count for nothing.

Although, thanks to the Erika I and Erika II packages, Community rules are moving slowly towards
enhanced maritime safety protection, for people, ships and the environment, public opinion is impatient
and highly critical of the abuses coming to light.

The most recent example is that of the ‘Han’, and the last few months of its life can be summarised as
follows:

8 In August 2000 a 28-year-old, rusty cargo ship arrived in Brest (Finistère, France) to take on board the
Erika’s pumping equipment. This cargo ship, which was sailing at the time under a Bolivian flag, had a
Pakistani crew and was called the ‘Palatial’. It was impounded by the maritime authorities, which
stipulated more than 40 separate items of repair work. After being purchased by a Greek shipowner
(FEF 55 000), it became the ‘Han’.

8 While the ship was impounded in port, the crew was not paid. The authorities discovered that the
Bolivian papers and registration certificates were false: the cargo ship thus no longer had a nationality.
It was no longer simply fit for the scrap heap; it was also a ghost ship.

8 Finally, in February 2001 the ship regained a nationality: it was registered in Sao Tomé and Principe.
After the ship had spent 171 days in dock in Brest, the authorities allowed it to leave, towed by a
Polish tug, without the crew, who had been paid and repatriated, but with its cargo, and subject to
one condition: banned from the ports which had signed the Paris Memorandum, its destination had to
be Piraeus, in Greece, where it would be broken up.

8 Six months later, a Portuguese classification company issued a navigation certificate to a ship, the
‘Tom T’. This cargo ship was sailing under a Panamanian flag and belonged to a company based in the
Marshall Islands in Micronesia … It was the ‘Han’. What goes around, comes around.

Having been neither scrapped nor repaired, it is continuing to sail in international waters.

Had the Commission made provision for such a case? If so, what action can be taken under Community
law to prevent such abuses?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

One of the aims of the European maritime safety policy is to eradicate sub-standard shipping and ships,
such as appears to be the case with the vessel Tom-T (ex-HAN). The specific European rules in force relate