WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/02 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Unlawful supplements to Commissioners' salaries.
Date: 2002-10-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Court of Justice of the European Union, EU law, European Commission, European Court of Auditors, European official, capital transfer, fringe benefit, pay, regulations for civil servants

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/121

(2003/C 137 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2807/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Unlawful supplements to Commissioners’ salaries

(7 October 2002)

In its answer to my Written Question P-1805/02 (1), Mr Kinnock once again refuses to provide information
about the extent to which he has benefited from the so-called ‘weightings’, the application of which to
Commissioners’ salaries was halted only as a result of my Written Question P-1233/02 (2).

If the Vice-President of the Commission has been having part of his salary transferred not to an account in
to London, he could according to press reports have received an estimated monthly
Brussels but
supplement of Euro 3000 during the period up to June 2002. If Mr Kinnock’s total time in office to date
in Brussels is taken into account, a cautious estimate of the overall sum accumulated in this way could be
around EUR 150 000.

Why does Mr Kinnock nevertheless maintain that additional payments on such a scale are not increases of
salary?

Why does Mr Kinnock give the impression that the European Court of Justice has approved the salary
transfers in question? Is he not aware that the Court of Justice has also halted such transfers?

If, as maintained by the Commission, these transfers were entirely lawful, why then is the question as to
who benefited from them being kept secret by the Commission? How is such secretiveness compatible
with the Commission’s duty of democratic accountability?

Can the Commission confirm that Commissioners not originating in the United Kingdom were also able to
transfer part of their salary to London, for example,
in order to finance on fabulous terms (with a
supplement of more than 60 %) the acquisition of property there?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 164.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 162.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 December 2002)

The Honourable Member repeats a number of questions relating to the legality of the weighted transfer
system which are broadly similar to those put in her Written Questions P-1805/02 (1) and P-1233/02 (2).
The Honourable Member is referred to the Commission’s answers to those questions, which set out in full
the legal reasons demonstrating that the system is lawful, and does not lead to a net increase of salary.

As the Honourable Member knows, the Commission takes the view that the weighted transfer system is in
full conformity with the principle of parallelism contained in the Council Regulation on Members’
remuneration (3). Furthermore, the suggestion that weighted transfers are increases of salary is erroneous.
The application of the weighting factor in respect of permanent officials and Members of the Court of
Justice, Court of Auditors and the Commission is intended to reflect the difference in the cost of living
between the place of employment and the place where the official or Member continues to have to meet
financial obligations. It is therefore an instrument intended to ensure, within limits, equality of purchasing
power.

No Commission decisions were taken ‘as a result of’ a Question from the Honourable Member. As the
Honourable Member knows from the answer to her Question 1233/02, the Commission was informed by
the Court of Auditors on 17 May 2002 that Members of the Court decided on 16 May to suspend their
use of the weighted transfer system from 1st July and to continue that suspension unless and until the
legal base for such weighted transfers was clarified. The Commission took note of that information and
decided on 5 June to follow the same course from 1st July. That decision was duly implemented and it
remains in force.

C 137 E/122

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

12.6.2003

The reference made by the Honourable Member to ‘impressions’ related to the Court of Justice appears to
overlook the letter of 15 July sent to her by the Court which confirmed the opinion of that Institution that
the weighted transfer system defined in the Staff Regulations also lawfully applies to Members of the
Commission, the Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice. The Commission understands that on 12 June
the Members of the Court of Justice followed the same course as members of the Court of Auditors and of
the Commission and suspended use of the weighted transfer system.

In a letter of 9 October 2002 to Vice-President Kinnock, however, the Court of Justice informed the
Commission that, following reflection,
it had reaffirmed its view that the weighted transfer system as
applied to Members of the Institutions always has been, and continues to be, legal and in full conformity
with the rules. Accordingly, the Court of Justice has ended its suspension of the weighted transfer system,
and has consequently decided to apply the weighted transfers for its Members on the same conditions as
those applicable to officials. A copy of that letter will be sent to the Honourable Member and to
Parliament’s Secretariat.

The Commission confirms that no Member of the Commission who is not a national of the United
Kingdom has carried out transfers to that country.

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 164.
(2) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 162.
(3) Regulation No 422/67/EEC, 5/67/Euratom of the Council of 25 July 1967 determining the emoluments of the
President and members of the Commission and of the President, Judges, Advocates-General and Registrar of the
Court of Justice, OJ 187, 8.8.1967.

(2003/C 137 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2808/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(7 October 2002)

Subject: Common fisheries policy reform (cid:1) 12-mile exclusive zone

Has the Commission considered instigating permanent exclusive use of the 0-12-mile zone for national
fishing vessels?

Indigenous inshore shellfisheries urgently need protection to safeguard them from over-fishing. Can the
Commission explain briefly what measures it is taking in this regard and indicate the timescale to which
they are working?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(21 November 2002)

The Commission’s intention is to maintain in the future exactly the same conditions relating to access to
the 0-12 mile zones which exist today and have existed for many years. As such, therefore, there is no
specific reference to exclusive use of this zone for national fishing vessels.

However, existing conditions leave some parts of the 12-mile zone of some Member States to be fished
only by vessels of those Member States. Where it has been agreed that vessels of other Member States have
access, the species which might be exploited are specified.

If inshore shellfisheries need protection, there are opportunities for doing so currently under Article 46 of
Council Regulation (EC) No 850/98 of 30 March 1998 for the conservation of fishery resources through
juveniles of marine organisms (1) where possibilities for
technical measures for
autonomous action by Member States are laid down. The Commission intends that Regulation (EC)
No 850/98 will be replaced with a new Regulation on the same topic but within the new Regulation, the
Commission intends to maintain the conditions giving autonomy to Member States to enact additional
technical measures for local stocks.

the protection of

(1) OJ L 125, 27.4.1998.