WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council. Unforeseen and excessive financial demands made by the intended chairman of the Convention for an enlarged Europe.
Date: 2002-02-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, administrative expenditure (EU), allowances and expenses, appointment of staff, image, interinstitutional relations (EU), remuneration of work

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/95

Is the updating of the relevant provisions pending in the EU or internationally?

Would it be possible to secure the adoption of rules on the repatriation of deceased persons within the EU
that would make repatriation from one Member State to another as simple as transporting a deceased
person within a Member State?

What timetable could be envisaged for taking this matter forward?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-0209/02 and E-0343/02

(21 May 2002)

Neither the Treaty on European Union nor the Community’s secondary legislation contains any provisions
on the subject raised in the Honourable Members’ questions.

The Council is therefore unable to answer these questions.

(2002/C 205 E/107)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0211/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(5 February 2002)

Subject: Unforeseen and excessive financial demands made by the intended chairman of the Convention for

an enlarged Europe

1.
Prior to the decision taken on 15 December 2001 to ask Mr Valery Giscard d’Estaing to act as
chairman of the Convention on the future of Europe, did the Council or any other European Union
institution enter into agreements with him, or give undertakings, regarding his renumeration and that of
his vice-chairmen Giuliano Amato and Jean-Luc Dehaene and regarding exemption from taxation, payment
of expenses, payment of luxury accommodation in Brussels and the provision of support by a staff of 12?

2. What were the Council’s expectations as regards the financial conditions under which Mr Giscard
d’Estaing would carry out his duties? Did the Council take into consideration the fact that Mr Giscard
d’Estaing is not a person who is without employment or who would be forced to give up his job, but
someone who is already guaranteed a steady, and not inconsiderable, income as a former president of
France and former Member of the European Parliament, and who is being offered a unique opportunity to
resume and crown his political career with a very prominent role?

3.
Is the Council surprised at Mr Giscard d’Estaing’s demands? In the light of his request to be paid
EUR 20 000 net a month, does the Council still think he is a suitable person for the duties intended to be
assigned to him, bearing in mind the likely negative impact on efforts to involve citizens to a greater
extent in the operation of EU structures which are often a subject of contention?

4.
Does the Council consider that Mr Giscard d’Estaing’s financial demands can be justified vis-à-vis
European voters? If so, is it prepared to assume responsibility for meeting these demands in whole or in
part by amending the budget?

Did the Council have a conception beforehand of what a reasonable monthly salary for a chairman

5.
of the Convention would be, and does it have one now? What is that sum?

Does this situation justify the Council in approaching other possible candidates, perhaps those who

6.
were previously ascertained to be available, with a view to their accepting the chairmanship?

Sources: Het Parool of 19.1.2002 and the Financieel Dagblad of 22.1.2002

C 205 E/96

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Reply

(21 May 2002)

The Council would refer the Honourable Member to the replies already given on these matters during
Question Time at the February 2002 part-session in Strasbourg (Question H-0055/02 by Hans-Peter
Martin ‘Salary demands of the Chairman of the Convention’) and in response to Hans-Peter Martin’s
Written Question P-3630/01 ‘President of the Convention’.

The Council would point out that at its plenary session on 27 and 28 February 2002 the European
Parliament approved the arrangements for financing the Convention.

It would also remind the Honourable Member that it was the European Council which appointed Mr Valéry
Giscard d’Estaing Chairman of the Convention, as can be seen from point III of Annex I
‘Laeken
declaration on the future of the European Union’ to the Presidency conclusions G Laeken, 14 and
15 December 2001. His question 6 is therefore no longer an issue.

(2002/C 205 E/108)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0230/02

by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 February 2002)

Subject: Barriers to free movement posed by the system of non-statutory supplementary pensions

The system of non-statutory supplementary pensions poses barriers to mobility for EU citizens who are
employed, or have been employed, in a number of Member States in the course of their working lives.
Examples of such barriers are the fact that some schemes stipulate a qualifying period before pension
rights can be built up or the fact that G and this occurs more frequently G periods cannot be aggregated.
As non-statutory supplementary pensions do not come under the relevant regulations, there are no
arrangements to compensate for barriers placed in the way of the free movement of workers.

Does the Commission agree that the system of non-statutory supplementary pensions poses barriers to the
free movement of workers within the Union? Does the Commission intend to introduce compensatory
measures?

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(3 April 2002)

As the Honourable Member rightly points out, current Community legislation on social security for
migrant workers (Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 (1)) does not cover non-statutory supplementary pension
schemes.

These schemes fall under Directive (EC) No 98/49 (2) which guarantees equality of treatment as regards
preservation of pension rights. Member States are obliged to take the necessary measures to ensure the
preservation of vested pension rights for members of a supplementary pension scheme,
in respect of
whom contributions are no longer being made to that scheme as a consequence of their moving from one
Member State to another, to the same extent as for members in respect of whom contributions are no
longer being made but who remain within the same Member State.

Member States should also ensure that, in respect of members of supplementary pension schemes, as well
as others holding entitlement under such schemes, supplementary pension schemes make payments in
other Member States, net of any taxes and transaction charges which may be applicable, of all benefits due