WRITTEN QUESTION P-3345/02 by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Criteria for the selection of directors-general and other senior staff in the Commission.
Date: 2002-11-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, administration of the Institutions, administrator, appointment of staff, equal treatment, recruitment

C 155 E/140

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.7.2003

Commission was informed about the project in the context of several complaints concerning the correct
application of the Council Directive 85/337 EEC of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of
certain public and private projects on the environment (3) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March
1997 (4). These complaints are currently under assessment. However, at the moment, the Commission has
no information whether the project might have a significant impact on the SPA ‘Park De Maasduinen’.

(1) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.
(2) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.
(3) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985.
(4) Amendments by Directive 97/11/EC (cid:1) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(2003/C 155 E/156)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3345/02

by Vitaliano Gemelli (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: Criteria for the selection of directors-general and other senior staff in the Commission

for

The Commission’s answers to Written Questions E-1268/02 (1) and E-0268/02 (2) call
further
clarification. If the situation is as described by the Commission, we must conclude that the criticisms
repeatedly expressed by the R & D union were unfounded. However, in that case, it is surprising that the
Commission did not feel obliged to intervene in order to defend the honour of the persons mentioned in
the R & D notes and letters. Moreover, the details provided in such documents are sufficiently explicit to
identify the cases of ‘nepotism’ in question. What is needed, therefore,
is not to establish how R & D
succeeded in obtaining advance knowledge of the names of successful candidates, but to reassure the
general public that appointments have not been made according to a country quota system, as recently
noted by the Court of First Instance when it ruled against the appointment of a Deputy Director-General
partly on the grounds that senior posts in DG Agriculture had been shared out among five large countries
since 1973. Another example may be found in the procedure set in motion to fill the post of Director of
Security, which is likely to result in the appointment of a candidate who is currently a temporary staff
member and who was employed by a Member State’s intelligence service from 1980 to 1996.

In the light of the above, does the Commission not consider that the current selection procedures do not
ensure that there are no grounds whatsoever for questioning the transparency of appointments among its
senior staff?

Does it not feel that the rulings delivered by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Justice in this area
constitute an outright rejection of these procedures as far as an objective assessment of the candidates’
managerial qualifications and professional skills is concerned? Will it state how many appointments of A1,
A2 and A3 officials have been annulled following rulings by the Court of First Instance and Court of
Justice in the last three years?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 173.
(2) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 107.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 January 2003)

The tracts of the trade union referred to did not, in fact, name any individual person so it would be
difficult if not impossible for the Commission to act in such circumstances.

Meanwhile, Article 24 of the Staff Regulations of officials and other servants at the Communities allows the
Commission to respond to requests from officials for assistance in proceedings against any person who is
alleged to have perpetrated insulting or defamatory acts or utterances.

With regard to the assertion about a ‘country quota system’ the Honourable Member should note that at
its first meeting (cid:1) held on 18 September 1999 (cid:1) the present Commission emphasised that
‘the
nationality of the outgoing post holder should not be a factor in the appointment of the new occupant of
the post’, thus re-affirming the provisions of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations in that no posts are to be
reserved for nationals of any specific Member State. Since the current Commission came into office a

3.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 155 E/141

number of mobility exercises have taken place amongst the A1 (Directors General or equivalent) and A2
(Directors or equivalent) cohort, the most recent of which was in November 2002. Indeed, over the past
three years some 60 appointments at A1 level (including transfers) have been made. These movements
took place in the context of a total A1 population at the Commission of 62 posts. Similarly some 117 A2
appointments (including transfers) have been made, from a population comprising 223 posts. Within the
context of such widespread changes, the nationality of successive post holders has rarely remained the
same. The various decisions on appointments (including those taken in the context of mobility exercises)
clearly demonstrate the Commission’s effective implementation of its stated policy and also its respect of
the terms of Article 27 of the Staff Regulations. Whilst the Commission does strive to fulfil its policy of
maintaining merit in appointments whilst sustaining reasonable geographic balance in appointments (as
required by the Staff Regulations and by the multinational and multilingual character of the Institution),
the Commission does not have or operate a ‘country quota system’ of any kind.

The Honourable Member cites two individual cases. With regard to the first, he is factually incorrect when
he asserts that the Court of First Instance ruled against the appointment of a Deputy Director General
‘partly on the grounds that senior posts in DG Agriculture had been shared out among five large countries
since 1973’. The Court of First Instance did not make any judgement whatsoever on the validity or
otherwise of the plaintiff’s claims on this point. The Honourable Member should also note that the post in
question was published some eight months before the Commission’s new rules on ‘the appraisal, selection
and appointment of senior Commission officials’ came into effect. The Court’s ruling does not call into
question any of the new measures put into effect by the Commission since December 2000. However, the
Commission is not at all complacent in this or other areas. Recruitment methods are under a process of
continued review and are constantly being refined.
the appointment of a Permanent
Rapporteur to the Consultative Committee on (Senior) Appointments (the ‘CCA’) has significantly
improved the provision of feedback to candidates, which not only increases transparency but also helps
such candidates to better prepare for future career opportunities which may arise.

In particular,

With regard to the second case quoted in the question, the Commission is unaware on what basis the
Honourable Member makes his claim, given that the recruitment procedure referred to is barely underway.

In answer to the Honourable Member’s final question, apart from the case which he refers to, only one
other appointment decision has been annulled by the Courts during the last three years. It should be noted
that in that other case, the recruitment procedure was actually undertaken during the term of office of the
previous Commission. Meanwhile, the annulment of two appointment decisions over the last three years
should be seen in the context of more than 360 appointment decisions relating to senior officials taken
during the same period.

(2003/C 155 E/157)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3348/02

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Council

(26 November 2002)

Subject: Crime in South Africa (cid:1) another Portuguese citizen murdered

In its reply of 21 November 2001 to Written Question P-1662/01 (1) on the same subject tabled on 1 June
2001 the Council said that it considered that ‘the escalation of violent crime in South Africa is a general
problem that is affecting all races, nationalities and social strata present in the country and not only the
resident Portuguese community’ going on to say that ‘South Africa is however an independent country
with a democratically elected government’ (cid:1) which has of course never been called into question (cid:1) ‘and
the Council remains convinced that the South African authorities are doing their outmost to control this
unfortunate situation in the country and to respect the human rights situation’. The Council also refers to
the European Programme for Reconstruction and Development (EPRD), described as ‘among the largest
development programmes that the EU is financing to an individual country’ and the Council considers that
‘through these positive actions, the EU aims at improving the quality of life in South Africa and thereby
also reducing the level of violence’. However, the Council says that only one of the specific programmes
was ‘aimed at strengthening the capacities and institutional development for the services of the South
African police’.