WRITTEN QUESTION E-1615/02 by Christopher Beazley (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Hunting Technical Services compensation claim following the termination of project 7-ACP UN1012 — Oban Hills Programme.
Date: 2002-06-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European Development Fund, Nigeria, indemnification, technical cooperation, termination of a contract

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?

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/71

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s concerns for the delay leading to a settlement to the
dispute between Hunting Technical Services (HTS) and the Nigerian authorities further to the termination
of a technical assistance contract by the latter, in 1996.

As the Honourable Member is aware, in the framework of the European Development Fund (EDF), the
Commission acts as a funding agency and is not party to the contract. In line with the procedures set out
in the Financing Agreement between the Commission and the Government of Nigeria, whereby the Chief
Authorising Officer may intervene should the National Authorising Officer fail to execute his mandate, the
Commission transmitted its draft settlement proposal to the National Authorising Officer of Nigeria back
in May 2001. Despite several reminders, the Commission only received a reply by letter dated 2 May
2002. Further to this reply, the Chief Authorising Officer of the EDF has decided to use the powers
conferred upon him by the Financing Agreement and make all the payments directly to the company
concerned out of the credits available for Nigeria under the 7th EDF.

A dispute settlement agreement was put forward to HTS in a meeting held in Brussels on 29 May 2002. In
doing so, the Commission adhered to the line of conduct suggested by the Ombudsman who had asked
the Commission to propose a settlement of the claim for financial losses put forward by HTS, by 31 May
2002 at the latest. Subsequently, HTS has agreed to the settlement as presented by the Commission in that
meeting.

(2003/C 92 E/071)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1616/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(5 June 2002)

Subject: Worsening quality of Portuguese in Commission documents

The quality of Portuguese used in official Commission documents has deteriorated and is beginning to give
rise to serious concern.

I had already been compelled to use other language versions of the proposal for a regulation on the
establishment of a common classification of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) (1) because the
Portuguese version was incomprehensible on some key points.

I had also been confronted with ‘governança’ instead of ‘boa governação’ as a translation of ‘governance’,
the Portuguese language among the Commission services.
which reveals a complete ignorance of
According to the on-line Portuguese dictionary published by Porto Editora, ‘governança’ is a deprecatory
feminine noun used as a pejorative term for the government. Moreover, any Portuguese person living in
Portugal
is well aware of this without needing to consult a dictionary, and the Commission’s official
translation of this extremely important political initiative has made its initiative an object of ridicule in
Portugal.

I have now been confronted with a pair of regulations, (COM(2001) 764 final and COM(2002) 108 final),
in which the Portuguese version of
is given as ‘pesca das unidades
populacionais da fundura’.

‘fishing for deep-sea stocks’

Even though the Porto Editora on-line dictionary allows the term ‘fundura’ as a synonym of ‘profundidade’
(depth), or an attribute equivalent to ‘de fundo’ (deep), which are the two terms used to refer to this type of
fish in Portuguese as it is spoken in Portugal, the expressions ‘peixe da fundura’, or ‘unidade populacional
da fundura’, do not exist in Portuguese and are not used by anyone in fishing circles, the correct
expressions being ‘peixe de profundidade’ or ‘peixe de fundo’.

The poor linguistic quality of these two documents, whose subject matter is already highly esoteric and far-
removed from everyday reality, makes them even less comprehensible.