WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/02 by Philippe Herzog (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Commission practices in connection with advisers ad personam.
Date: 2002-07-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, operation of the Institutions, personnel administration, regulations for civil servants, working conditions

C 110 E/30

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.5.2003

the Commission examined the actual and
In its recent Communication on the Mid-Term Review,
prospective development of agricultural expenditure for the period 2000-2006. The results indicate that on
the basis of a continuation of present policies, there will be no overshoot of the annual average of
EUR 40,5 billion. Preliminary estimates on the proposed adjustments to the CAP point at a slight saving.

The Union does not deal with the issue of
introducing direct payments in its Common Positions
transmitted to the negotiating countries in June 2002. However, the Commission proposals have been
drafted having in mind the need for budgetary stability and foresaw agricultural expenditure for ten new
Member States (including markets with phasing-in of direct payments and rural development), rising from
EUR 2 048 billion in 2004 to EUR 3 933 billion in 2006. The Commission will be able to produce precise
figures concerning 2007-2013 period when both decision of the Council on the negotiating position and
the Union’s financial perspectives for 2007-2013 will be available.

It is the view of the Commission that there should be no linkage between enlargement negotiations and
the Mid-Term Review of the CAP. Moreover, in the Union’s Common Positions of June 2002, the Council
acknowledged that the decision on direct payments for the new Member States ‘will be taken … without
prejudging the forthcoming internal discussions on Community policies’. The Mid-Term Review is
necessary for internal reasons, as the Honourable Member suggests, to adjust the CAP to the expectations
of citizens and consumers. Such an adjustment would also facilitate the integration of the new Member
States.

The overall position of contributors to the Union’s budget can only be assessed within the framework of
all Union policies. The appropriate time to do so will be during the discussion of the next financial
perspective, when it would also be appropriate to re-examine budgetary rebate mechanisms.

(2003/C 110 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2077/02

by Philippe Herzog (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 July 2002)

Subject: Commission practices in connection with advisers ad personam

A high-level task force was set up in July 2001 to look at the current situation of advisers at the
Commission and their future role. Its report of 14 November 2001 notes several management errors over
the past two years. It also asks questions about the Commission’s practices as regards ad personam
advisers, pointing out that this is an unofficial job designation. It recommends that all the ad personam
advisers (many of whom were heads of unit and/or advisers), as well as many of the present advisers,
should be made into principal administrators or administrators hors classe.

On what specific basis does the Commission justify transferring officials from an official post to a

1.
personal post not recognised by the staff regulations?

On the basis of the information presented by the task force, it is possible that advisers and advisers
Is the

2.
ad personam have been, or still are, subject
Commission not pressurising them into taking early retirement?

to professional and psychological harassment.

3.
The task force report says that ‘between half and two-thirds of the advisers perform tasks which are
insignificant or ill-defined or needlessly duplicate work already done by the units’. What has the
Commission done to ensure that these advisers and advisers ad personam are given responsibilities,
the
including management posts, corresponding to their professional
Commission not compounded the problem by creating new adviser posts since the report was finalised?

skills and experience? Has

Is the Commission prepared to initiate new analyses and consultation to solve the above

4.
management problems?

8.5.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 110 E/31

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

On the issue of the high level Task Force, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to
its reply to written question E-1531/02 from Mr Goebbels (1).

On the specific questions:

1. The Commission points out that the term ‘adviser ad personam’ neither refers to the functions, nor to
the posts but is a title. This title was created in the framework of the rotation exercise of the External
Relations Directorate General.

The possibility of appointing officials as advisers ad personam outside the rotation exercise has been
explicitly provided for in two Commission Decisions of 18 and 29 September 1999 concerning the
‘Reorganisation of administrative structures of the Commission’. These Decisions create a basis on
which each Appointing Authority (AIPN (cid:1) Directors General) has the right and power conferred to
them under the AIPN-rules.

As recently judged by the Court of First Instance in a case concerning precisely an adviser ad
laid down by Article 5 of the Staff
personam, the principle of equivalence of grade and post;
Regulations, does not prevent the Appointing Authority from entrusting to an official duties differing
from those he has previously performed and regarded by this official as a reduction of his
responsibilities (judgement of 16 April 2002 in case T-51/01, Fronia, ground 53).

2. The Commission does not concur with the interpretation of the Task Force Report made by the
Honourable Member. In fact, the Commission did not receive any formal complaint from advisers or
advisers ad personam about professional or psychological harassment, and the Commission is certainly
not forcing them to take early retirement. Once adopted, the relevant regulation will, naturally, be
evenly applied to advisers as well as to any other official.

3. The Commission set up the Task Force to evaluate the tasks performed by advisers and advisers ad
personam, to analyse problems and to make recommendations. The Task Force has asked each
Directorate General to review all existing adviser and adviser ad personam jobs and to identify a
solution which would ensure that each official is effectively posted on a function corresponding to his/
her qualifications. According to Article 5 of
this also includes principal
administrator and ‘hors-classe’ administrator posts.

the Staff Regulations,

Advisers may always apply for any management post vacancy, and such vacancies are now managed
in a decentralised way by individual Directors General. Directorates General are recommended,
wherever possible, to assign/integrate advisers to line-management functions in the context of the
restructuring of services.

The very few adviser functions which have been created since the Task Force report are to cater for
specific administrative situations. Adviser ad personam posts are suitable only if it is in the interest of
the service and clear responsibilities are attached to the post. That approach ensures that post holders
are given appropriate tasks.

4. Concerning the follow-up to this report, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member

to the reply given to the above-mentioned written question (E-1531/02 by Mr Goebbels).

(1) See page 19.

(2003/C 110 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/02

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: New Italian laws on managing the artistic heritage

(17 July 2002)

What view does the Commission take of the setting up by the Italian Government of two companies
(‘Patrimonio dello Stato S.p.A.’ and ‘Infrastrutture S.p.A.’) to manage the artworks, historic buildings and
land owned by the State and, possibly, to mortgage and even sell off part of these assets with a view to
generating funds for major public works of various kinds?