WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/02 by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission. Jim Currie and reform of Staff Regulations.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, duties of civil servants, regulations for civil servants

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/69

As regards the protection of and assistance to the victims of crime, the Union follows a horizontal
approach. To this extent a Council Framework Decision on the standing of victims in criminal
proceedings (2) was adopted on 15 March 2001. This instrument contains provisions regarding the right
to compensation in the course of criminal proceedings,
to obtain a decision within
reasonable time limits and to encourage the offender to provide adequate compensation to victims.

in particular,

The Commission’s Green Paper on compensation to crime victims (3) launches a wide public consultation
on how compensation to victims of crime in the Union could be further improved through a Community
initiative.

One of the most important issues includes how adequate compensation for victims of racist offences or of
other crimes with racist motives can be ensured. In the autumn of this year the Commission expects to
conclude its assessment of how this issue could be taken forward. This assessment will also take due
account of the upcoming opinion of the Parliament on the Green Paper.

(1) OJ C 75 E, 26.3.2002.
(2) OJ L 82, 22.3.2001.
(3) COM(2001) 536 final.

(2003/C 92 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1605/02

by Chris Davies (ELDR) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Jim Currie and reform of Staff Regulations

1. What requirements has the Commission now placed upon Mr Currie, the former Director- General
of DG Environment, in order that he may accept a role as a non-executive director with British Nuclear
Fuels Ltd?

In what ways do these differ from the requirements placed upon former Commission staff on

2.
previous occasions and in similar circumstances?

3.
In what ways will the Commission’s published proposals for reform of the Staff Regulations ensure
that the Commission has greater ability to curb the risk of conflicts of interest and the weakening of the
Commission’s reputation for independence which may occur when its existing or former employees take
up employment elsewhere?

In the light of recent experience does the Commission intend to make additional proposals to

4.
strengthen the Staff Regulations to address such problems?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 August 2002)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the answers given to his written question E-

1.
1466/02 (1) and to the written question E-1708/02 from Mrs Ahern (2).

2.
Because each request is specific, applications for approval of the functions taken up by civil servants
after leaving the service of the Commission are considered on a case by case basis. It is therefore not
possible to draw precise comparisons between Mr Currie’s situation and those that have arisen on previous
occasions. However, all cases are examined in accordance with the same rules, and it may be noted that in

C 92 E/70

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

terms of the length of time between leaving the relevant service and taking up an appointment, and the
detailed undertakings required from and given by Mr Currie, the conditions imposed were equivalent to or
more rigorous than those imposed in any previous case.

In the context of the Staff Regulations Reform, the Commission’s Legislative proposal

3.
amendments to Articles 16 and 17. The proposed modifications provide, inter alia:

includes

(cid:1) that former officials or agents must inform the Institution of any professional activity they intend to
undertake in the two years following their departure. The Commission considers that such a two-year-
period is in general satisfactory to protect the interests of the Community, as it allows the institution
to ensure that there is a clear break between the termination of service in the institution and the
subsequent pursuit of occupational activities in the same sector. It may be added that former officials
remain in any event bound by Article 17, which requires them to exercise the greatest discretion with
regard to all information, not already in the public domain, which they have obtained in the course of
their duties with a Community institution.

(cid:1) that the existing notion of a list of jobs considered a priori

incompatible with the obligations of
former officials be replaced by a system allowing the institution to examine case by case the
compatibility of subsequent activities. Under the proposed amendment to Article 16, where the
activity in which a former official intends to engage is related to the work carried out during his last
three years of service, the appointing authority may forbid the activity or impose such conditions as it
thinks fit.

(cid:1) that the deadline for response by the employing Institution to requests for authorisation will be

extended to 30 working days.

The Commission considers that its proposal for a new formulation of Articles 16 and 17 of the Staff

4.
Regulations takes full account of the legitimate concerns raised by the Honourable Member.

(1) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 110.
(2) See page 80.

(2003/C 92 E/070)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1615/02

by Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Hunting Technical Services compensation claim following the termination of project 7-ACP

UN1012 (cid:1) Oban Hills Programme

In 1996, all aid was unilaterally terminated by the EU to Nigeria. Hunting Technical Services (‘HTS’), whose
contract had been terminated as a direct result, submitted a claim to the Commission for compensation
according to the terms of the contract. The Commission having failed to propose a settlement for over
four years, HTS submitted a complaint for maladministration to the European Ombudsman (Complaint
No 444/2000/ME).

On 7 February 2002 the Ombudsman concluded that the Commission had the ability to propose a
settlement within that time and that its failure to do so constitutes an instance of maladministration. He
recommended a settlement of the case by the end of May 2002 at the latest. The Commission has
reiterated its position that it cannot do so because it is not a contracting party.

Will the Commission explain why it has failed to use powers expressly available to it under the European
Development Fund to comply with the recommendation to propose a settlement of the claim for all the
financial claims put forward by HTS within the deadline set by the Ombudsman?