WRITTEN QUESTION P-1805/02 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unlawful supplements to Commissioners' salaries.
Date: 2002-06-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Commissioner, European official, case-law (EU), fringe benefit, interinstitutional relations (EU), legal basis, regulations for civil servants, wage determination

C 309 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

In February 2001 the Commission presented its report (4)
to the Council and Parliament on the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general rules for the application of
measures to improve the production and marketing of honey (5).

In April 2001 the Commission adopted Regulation (EC) No 704/2001 (6) amending Regulation (EC)
No 2300/97 (7) on detailed rules to implement Council Regulation (EC) No 1221/97 laying down general
rules for the application of measures to improve the production and marketing of honey; the Council
deemed this to be satisfactory as a follow-up to the report.

In December 2001 Parliament adopted a resolution on the February 2001 Commission report and called
on the Commission to take seven steps in support of European beekeeping:
to set up a common
organisation of markets with direct income aid and a pollination premium; to include beekeeping in the
compensatory payments scheme provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 1259/1999 of 17 May 1999
establishing common rules for direct support schemes under the common agricultural policy (8); to transfer
the varroasis control measure to veterinary legislation; to grant aid for promoting quality honey; to
increase the budget for, and the share of, Community part-financing; to adopt a harmonised and flexible
approach in implementing national programmes; and to grant aid for investment in restocking material.

In February 2002 the Council noted majority Member State support for a number of the measures
proposed by the Parliament resolution and called on the Commission to expand its activities in this sector.

The budget heading allocated to honey programmes has been increased by 10 % in 2002 and the
Commission has amended the Decisions relating to the programmes accordingly. This budgetary increase
has been maintained in the preliminary draft budget for next year.

Moreover, France’s 2001-2002 marketing year national programme (cid:1) which the Commission approved in
July 2001 (cid:1) provides for studies on how plant protection products affect honey quality. The 2002-2003
marketing year programme includes aid for investment in restocking material.

(1) OJ L 230, 19.8.1991 (as last amended by Commission Directive 2002/48/EC of 30 May 2002, OJ L 148,

6.6.2002).

(2) Written answer, 15.5.2001.
(3) Written answer, 13.2.2001.
(4) COM(2001) 70 final.
(5) OJ L 173, 1.7.1997 (as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 2070/98 of 28 September 1998, OJ L 265,

30.9.1998).

(6) OJ L 98, 7.4.2001.
(7) OJ L 319, 21.11.1997.
(8) OJ L 160, 26.6.1999.

(2002/C 309 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1805/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Unlawful supplements to Commissioners’ salaries

(19 June 2002)

In the answer which he gave on behalf of the Commission to my Written Question P-1233/02 (1),
Mr Kinnock, Vice-President of the Commission, confirmed that, for many years now, Commissioners have
been benefiting from the opportunity to bump up their salaries by having a part thereof transferred not to
their bank account in their place of employment, Brussels, but to accounts in other EU countries, which
transfers qualify for beneficial weightings. The Commission also confirmed that Regulation No 422/67/EEC
of the Council (2), which determines the emoluments of members of the Commission and which is
applicable in this instance, includes no provisions which would authorise this practice.

In its defence, the Commission argues that, none the less, Parliament annually makes provision for such
transfers by entering the requisite additional appropriations in the budget.

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/165

Does not the Commission take the view that it has included misleading data in the draft budgets which it
has submitted to Parliament and erroneously given the impression that Article 4a of
the relevant
Regulation authorises the application of weightings?

In its judgment of 12 May 1998 (Case C-106/96), the European Court of Justice held that payments may
be made from the budget only where what is known as a basic act has been adopted which authorises and
lays down the conditions for such payments, in other words, that the entry of appropriations in the budget
does not, of itself, constitute an adequate condition for payments. Are the Commissioners prepared to
repay the supplements to their salaries which they have received since that judgment was handed down?

Can the Commission supply me with a list of
supplements to their salaries and indicate the amount of the additional payments made?

the Commissioners who have benefited from such

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 162.
(2) OJ 187, 8.8.1967, p. 1 (Special edition, 1967, p. 222).

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

The assertion in the Honourable Member’s question that weighted transfers were ‘unlawful’ is wrong and
the inference that they were ‘increases’ of salary is equally erroneous:

The Commission has already explained that the transfers have never been illegal. That continues to be the
case. As the Court of Justice confirmed to the Honourable Member on 15 July 2002, the weighted transfer
system defined in the Staff Regulations also applies to Members of the Commission, the Court of Auditors
and the Court of Justice.

It is not true, either, that weighted transfers are ‘increases’ of salary. They are a proportion of salary which
can be paid in a Member State other than that in which the Members of the Commission or other
Institutions work, with the application of a weighting factor which reflects the difference in the cost of
living between the place of employment and the place where the Member continues to have to meet
financial obligations, despite being required to live at
It is therefore an
instrument to ensure, within limits, equality of purchasing power between Members of the Commission
and other Institutions, wherever they come from.

the place of employment.

Because there is a clear analogy with the circumstances of officials, the Council Regulation on Members’
remuneration provides for a very similar remuneration structure and is a legal basis for the remuneration.
Indeed, successive amendments to the Regulation provide for the salary to be expressed as a percentage of
a defined official’s salary (1). Moreover, when the Council amended the Staff Regulations to include a
method for annual adjustments of officials’ salaries, which included a structural reduction, called a
‘temporary contribution’,
justifying that
specifically because of the analogy between the Members and officials (2). The Members’ salaries were
therefore subject to the same proportional reduction as those of officials, because they were considered to
be in substantially the same position. Neither the Council nor the Parliament had any difficulty with this
proposal nor with the justification for it. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Honourable
Member now seems to think that the same principle does not apply, even though nothing whatever has
changed.

it did exactly the same for the Members of the Institutions,

As the Honourable Member knows, the same Institutions are the budgetary authority and it is therefore
not surprising that, in that capacity, when adopting the budget they onsistently voted for the relevant item
whose purpose was clearly and unmistakably identified and the same justification applied. In doing that
they were applying the principle of parallelism with officials, which is clearly a part of the Regulation and
thus provided a legal basis for the budgetary credits.

The Commission would also point out that the same budgetary authority continued to vote the credits in
exactly the same way after the 1998 judgement to which the Honourable Member refers.

C 309 E/166

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

The suggestion that the amounts were ‘unlawful’ and that they should be repaid ignores the plain principle
of parallelism in the Regulation. It also implies that the Honourable Member thinks that approval of the
budget has no meaning. The Commission is surprised that a Member of the European Parliament, part of
the budgetary authority, should take such a view.

It follows from all of the above that the Commission has not misled Parliament since 1998 or before
1998, that the amounts have always been legally paid, that there is no valid reason for them to be repaid,
and no justification for listing Commissioners or Members of other Institutions who have made the
manifestly legal transfers.

As the Honourable Member has previously been informed, the relevant Institutions will review the
weighted transfer issue and examine the question of whether, for clarification, an explicit legal base should
be developed to relate specifically to Members of the Commission, the Court of Justice and the Court of
Auditors.

If, as a result of these deliberations, a decision was made to propose a specific legal base the proposal
would, of course, have to come from the Council and not from the Commission since the Commission
does not make proposals for adapting arrangements relating to the remuneration of its Members or the
Members of other Institutions.

(1) See for example Council Regulation (EC, Euratom, ECSC) No 840/95 of 10 April 1995 amending Regulation (EEC,
Euratom, ECSC) No 2290/77 determining the emoluments of the members of the Court of Auditors, OJ L 85,
19.4.1995.

(2) Council Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 1084/92 of 28 April 1992 amending Regulation No 422/67/EEC, No
5/67/Euratom determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the Commission, of the President,
Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the Court of Justice and of the President, Member and Registrar of the
Court of First Instance, and Regulation (EEC, Euratom, ECSC) No 2290/77 determining the emoluments of the
Members of the Court of Auditors, OJ L 117, 1.5.1992.

(2002/C 309 E/192)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1808/02

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Environmental damage to the Neda river valley in Greece

(24 June 2002)

In the Figaleia-Platania area on the boundary between the prefectures of Ilia and Messinia in Greece, works
are being carried out on construction of a road linking the two prefectures which are having a serious
environmental impact on the Neda river valley, as evidenced in the past by a survey carried out by the
Ministry of the Environmental, Regional Planning and Public Works, the findings of which are contained in
its report to the Peloponnisos regional authorities (No 119900/3.11.2000). Unfortunately no measures
have been taken to date to protect the environment of this area and construction work is continuing to
endanger the river ecosystem.

What measures will the Commission take to protect the environment in this area?

(2002/C 309 E/193)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1809/02

by Mihail Papayannakis (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Projects affecting the Neda river valley

(24 June 2002)

Allegations have recently been made by local authorities and individual residents in the prefecture of
Messinia concerning sand and gravel extraction in the Neda river valley and the dumping of rubble from
nearby roadworks for the second phase of the Messinia provincial highway No 29 (Sidirokastro-Avlona-
Platania-prefectoral boundary section), which are having a serious impact on the environment and
biodiversity of the area.