WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/01 by Gianfranco Dell'Alba (NI) to the Commission. Decision to discontinue medals for twenty years' service.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, honour, professional career

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/97

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(15 February 2002)

As the Honourable Member is now probably aware, the Commission decided on 20th December 2001 to
request the United Kingdom to provide additional information concerning the regulation and supervision
of the Lloyd’s insurance market. The request is the first stage of the infringement procedure under
Article 226 (ex Article 169) of the EC Treaty. Based on the information currently available, the Commission
has concerns about the supervision and regulation of Lloyd’s with respect to the requirements of the first
non-life insurance Directive, first Council Directive 73/239/EEC of 24 July 1973 on the coordination of
laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the taking-up and pursuit of the business of
direct insurance other than life assurance. The Commission is examining the compatibility of the current
regulatory and supervisory arrangements for Lloyd’s, and on the basis of the information received from the
United Kingdom,
it considers there is a violation of
Community law. The Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market has written to the
President of the Petitions Committee to inform the Committee of this decision. The Commission has also
sent separately a copy of the Commission press release to the Petitions Committee secretariat.

the Commission will decide whether or not

the Commission in charge of

With regard to access of Members of the Petitions Committee to the preceding questionnaire addressed to
the British authorities by the Commission, the Honourable Member will no doubt recall that the Vice
President of
this
questionnaire to the President of the Petitions Committee by letter dated 27 February 2001. However, in
accordance with Article 3(2) of Annex III to the Framework Agreement between the Commission and the
Parliament, this document was provided on an exclusive confidential basis to Members of the Petitions
Committee only.

the relations with Parliament provided a copy of

As the Commission has already explained at some length, both through the personal response of the
Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market to the Petitions Committee in June 2001
as well as through responses to a number of letters received from Honourable Members, under the
Framework Agreement, the Commission is not at liberty to disclose a copy of the response of the British
authorities, unless the British authorities waive their rights to confidentiality.

In response to a formal request from the Petitions Committee of the Parliament, the Commission has
written to the British authorities asking them to waive these rights. The British authorities have now
replied by letter dated 3 December 2001 that they do not wish to waive confidentiality in light of the
Commission’s on-going investigation. The Commission is therefore unable to provide access to the answers
to the questionnaire addressed to the British authorities. The Vice President of the Commission in charge
of the relations with Parliament and the Member of the Commission responsible for the Internal Market
have written to the President of the Petitions Committee to relay this decision.

(2002/C 172 E/100)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3622/01

by Gianfranco Dell’Alba (NI) to the Commission

Subject: Decision to discontinue medals for twenty years’ service

(8 January 2002)

It is extremely irritating for a Member of Parliament to be faced with a situation where the Commission
hardly ever replies to questions submitted to it in accordance with a right defined in the Treaties. In the
case of my Written Question E-2056/01 (1), the Commission’s arrogance is particularly unacceptable and,
quite frankly, confirms even the worst criticisms made about it.

; Will

the Commission explain the underlying reasons for the utter contempt it

is showing for
Parliament’s role by sending replies such as the one to the above question, which was presumably
written by a stagiaire?

; Why does it avoid replying to questions as simple as that regarding medals for twenty years’ service?

; Will it answer the three questions contained in Written Question E-2056/01?

(1) OJ C 93 E, 18.4.2002, p. 54.

C 172 E/98

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

18.7.2002

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(8 February 2002)

In response to Question E-3622/01 the Commission feels that the public and parliamentary interest in
accurate and comprehensive record is best served by repeating the Honourable Member’s Question
E-2056/01 and the answer given by the Commission on 22 November 2001.

In Question E-2056/01 the Honourable Member asked:

The Commission would appear to have decided to put an end to the practice of awarding medals to
officials after twenty years’ service and to replace it with a European civil servant’s ‘diploma’, to be
awarded after twenty-five years’ service. The decision was apparently taken in response to a report
produced by the Peer Group, which deemed the awarding of medals after twenty years’ service in the
European institutions to be a ‘negative priority’.

1. Would the Commission state exactly why, in spite of the fact that in its current staff reform
proposals it continues to claim that European civil servants are the life blood of the European
institutions, it intends to do away with this traditional means of acknowledging the work carried out
by officials in these institutions, on the grounds that it is a ‘negative priority’?

2. Would it not agree that the European civil service could do without another small but significant
gesture of this kind, which is clearly unhelpful and quite frankly incomprehensible?

3. Would it not agree that it would be wise for it to reverse the decision?

The Commission replied on 22 November 2001:

The award of medals for 20 years of service was originally introduced to mark the first 20 years of the
European Institutions and subsequently adopted as a way of recognising the contribution made by
officials working in the Institutions.

This year, the Commission will be following its usual custom of awarding 20-year service medals. The
awards will be made at Directorates General and services and a reception in honour of all recipients
will take place at each Commission location. In Brussels the President of the Commission will attend
the occasion.

The Commission recognises the significance of acknowledging good service and has recently proposed
a number of measures which will reflect that, not only near the time of retirement, but also during the
career of a civil servant.

These proposed measures are currently being discussed with the Staff Representatives in the joint
committees for social issues and they will be implemented as soon as a final decision has been reached
in 2002.

The answer shows very clearly:

1. That active consideration is being given to Awards policy through the appropriate representative
channels; that the assumption on which question E-2056/01 was based signified an apparent lack of
awareness of that fact; that by providing such accurate and up-to-date report on policy consideration
the Commission gave a complete answer to the Honourable Member’s question 1 and, therefore, to
his questions 2 and 3.

2. That the Commission manifestly did not show ‘utter contempt’ or disrespect of any sort in the tone or

the content of its reply to the Honourable Member.

3. That the Commission has certainly not ‘avoided’ replying to the Honourable Member’s question or

shown ‘arrogance’ in any form whatsoever.

18.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 172 E/99

When all of this is self evident, the Commission is puzzled by the uncharacteristically intemperate tone of
the Honourable Member’s question and feels that he may be acting on the basis of
inaccurate or
misleading information.

The Honourable Member claims that ‘the Commission hardly ever replies to questions submitted to it’ (by
MEP’s). The Commission would be obliged if the Honourable Member would either provide evidence to
support that claim or withdraw it forthwith.

As he will understand, the claim infers that the Commission consciously and repeatedly transgresses
against Article 197 (ex Article 140) of the Treaty, and that is demonstrably not the truth.

(2002/C 172 E/101)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3625/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(11 January 2002)

Subject: Compensation for French ban on British beef

Following the decision of the Court of Justice in Case C-1/00, will the Commission state what means of
redress and compensation are now available to British farmers whose livelihoods were affected by the
illegal French government decision?

Is the Commission satisfied with the procedures for compensation and redress in such cases, and will it
bring forward proposals to improve the present situation?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2002)

In accordance with the case-law of the European Court of Justice established notably in Francovich & Boni-
faci v Italy (1), Brasserie du Pêcheur S.A. v Federal Republic of Germany (2) and The Queen v Secretary of
State for Transport ex parte: Factortame Ltd and others Community law incorporates a general principle to
the effect that a Member State is obliged to make good the damage to individuals caused by a breach of
Community law for which it was responsible.

In principle therefore British cattle farmers, suffering losses arising out the infringement of Community law
which the Court of Justice found had been committed in Case C-1/00, could initiate an action for damages
against France in the competent national court.

To be successful in such an action the claimants would have to satisfy the conditions referred to in the
relevant case-law.

The Commission is satisfied that the case-law referred to above does establish in a clear manner general
principles governing the responsibilities of Member States to individuals in relation to breaches of
Community law by the latter. The Commission has not therefore up to the present time presented any
proposals in relation to the matter. The Court has, however, recognised that in the absence of relevant
Community provisions for determining the extent of reparation it is for the domestic legal system of each
Member State to determine the criteria governing that aspect. The Court has, nevertheless, underlined that
those criteria must not be less favourable than those applying to similar cases based on domestic law and
must not be such as in practice to make it impossible or excessively difficult to obtain reparation.

(1)
(2)

Joined cases C-6/90 and 9/90 [1991] ECR I-5357.
Joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93 [1996] ECR I-1029.