WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/02 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Investigations into unlawful State aid within the Union.
Date: 2002-05-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU Member State, State aid, aid to undertakings, control of State aid

C 92 E/52

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

The Commission is sending the information requested on the evaluation report directly to the
Honourable Members and to Parliament’s secretariat.

3. The first version of module 1 comprised one full day of training per session, using an interactive
technique to explain the CDR. The idea was to arrange officials in ‘multigrade’ groups to promote
dialogue among officials across all the grades and categories. This approach was poorly received from
the beginning, mainly because of hostility to the teaching technique being employed. When the feed-
back from the courses indicated that they were not up to expectations, instructions were immediately
given for corrective measures to be taken without delay. It is factually incorrect for the Honourable
Members to state that the services in charge were ‘late in reacting’.

teaching presentation. Since that meant

After a 48-hour suspension, the structure of the courses was thoroughly overhauled in favour of a
traditional
the group discussion approach was
abandoned, the leader’s role become one of
instructor, and there was regular attendance by a
representative of the Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration either in the question time
at the end, or throughout the session where Directorates-General considered this necessary. The new,
more conventional, approach meant that the course was reduced to half a day.

that

the participants said, after the course,

4. The revised version of the courses was evaluated. Surveys made at the end of each session showed
that, contrary to the impression conveyed in the Honourable Members’ question, a large majority of
those present (80 %) stated that they had a better understanding of the key aspects of CDR and 75 %
they understood their own role in CDR. The
of
Commission is not complacent about
to secure further
improvement will be made. Those responses to the broad surveys do, however, reflect a measured
staff view that is based on personal experience. It diverges strongly from the opinion on which the
Honourable Members’ question appears to be based.

response and continual efforts

that

this

5. The new appraisal system is a novel approach for the Commission and it represents a significant
challenge. It was therefore considered that appropriate training was required to guide staff (cid:1) in their
own interests (cid:1) in understanding and assimilating the goals and mechanisms of the new system. For
this reason, the Commission’s Communication of 30 October 2001 (2) on the reform of staff policy
recommended the organisation of appropriate training that is directly related to the implementation of
the Career Development Report system to be introduced in 2003, and further recommended that it is
targeted at jobholders, reporting officers, countersigning officers and Heads of Unit responsible for
human resources.

(1) OJ S 151, 7.8.1998.
(2)

Final Guidelines on ‘Career Development Report’ (Staff Appraisal) and Promotion, 30 October 2001 Annex 8 of
Global package for the reform of personnel policy, SEC(2001) 1697/78.

(2003/C 92 E/053)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1417/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Investigations into unlawful State aid within the Union

Once again, the Commission has announced that it is instituting a formal investigation into the way in
which Belgium apparently discriminates in favour of businesses by providing State aid. In one of the most
recent cases, it instituted inquiries into how the Belgian treasury taxes American companies.

How many investigations has the Commission instituted concerning unlawful State aid to businesses
operating in Belgium?

How many of these have been completed? In how many of these cases has the Belgian State been found
guilty of unlawfully granting State aid? What measures has the Commission taken after arriving at such
findings?

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/53

How many investigations are still in progress?

Can the Commission supply similar figures for the other 14 EU Member States?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2002)

In response to the increasing number of information requests, the Commission launched two new State aid
transparency tools in 2001.

The first is a State aid Register which provides access to detailed information of all Commission State aid
decisions. It provides for each Member State the type of aid, an indication whether the case is an individual
aid or a scheme, the objective of the aid and its form, the sectors covered by the aid, the duration of the
scheme and the type of Commission decision (positive, negative or conditional decision etc). It also
contains links to press releases and the texts of State aid decisions that are currently published in the
Official Journal.

The second instrument is the State aid Scoreboard which is updated twice a year. It is divided into four
parts: Part One looks at the extent to which Member States are reducing their State aid relative to the gross
domestic product (GDP). Part Two focuses on Member States’ relative success in redirecting aid from
specific sectors to horizontal objectives. Part Three contains data on State aid control procedures of both
the Commission and the Member States while Part Four examines the role of State aid in the context of the
internal market.

Both tools may be accessed online at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/index_en.html

(2003/C 92 E/054)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1418/02

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2002)

Subject: Use of languages in report on undeclared labour in Europe

On 26 February 2002 the Commission published a report on undeclared labour in Europe. It has been
placed on the official website, Europa, only in English, with brief summaries in German and French.

Why did the Commission opt for these three languages?

Will it have the report translated into all the official languages of the Union?

Will the Commission in future ensure that the documents which it disseminates via the official European
website are translated into the 11 official languages of the Union?

Does the Commission still consider it vital, as it has previously observed, that citizens of the Union should
be able to read the texts adopted at Union level in their own language (see http://www.europa.eu.int/
comm/role_nl.htm#5)?

Does the Commission agree that this limited choice of languages constitutes a violation of Article 21,
Chapter III, of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2002)

The publication of documents adopted by the Commission is foreseen in the eleven official languages of
the Union. This is notably the case for COM documents, which contain the Commission’s legislative
proposals, and other communications of general
interest that are due to be transmitted to the other
institutions.