WRITTEN QUESTION P-3482/02 by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Nepotism in the Commission's Agriculture Directorate-General.
Date: 2002-11-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, application of EU law, appointment of staff, farming sector, professional qualifications

12.6.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 137 E/215

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Honourable Member’s question relates to a procedure for the award of a public service contract with a
view to designing an overall urban development concept for the European district in Brussels.

The Commission was not involved in the invitation to tender either as the main resident of the European
district, or otherwise.

According to the Commission’s information, the financial value of the contract appears to be limited to
EUR 250 000.

The Commission has received a complaint from the Rem Koolhaas Office for Metropolitan Architecture.
It therefore intends to examine the procedure at issue in detail and, if necessary, question the Belgian
authorities on the matter.

(2003/C 137 E/242)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3482/02

by Freddy Blak (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(29 November 2002)

Subject: Nepotism in the Commission’s Agriculture Directorate-General

The Commission has nominated Mr Fabrizio Barbaso as Deputy Director-General
Directorate-General. He is to be responsible for, among other matters, markets.

in the Agriculture

Mr Barbaso was appointed Deputy Director-General for markets in October 2000, but was suspended in
July 2002 after the European Court of First Instance ruled that he did not possess the necessary experience
on agricultural market issues.

How can the Commission justify re-nominating the same person to Deputy Director-General when he is
not competent in his area of responsibility according to the Court of Justice’s ruling?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Honourable Member should note that the decision of the Court of First Instance annulled the
appointment of the official named in the question on the basis of the job specification which was then
relevant. The Court did not, however,
the official as suggested and the official was not
‘suspended’ in any other way.

‘suspend’

in the Agriculture Directorate General

The recent appointment
(DG AGRI) was undertaken in full
accordance with the procedures adopted by the Commission in December 2000 and set out in the
Communication on the ‘The Appraisal, Selection and Appointment of Senior Commission Officials’ (1).
That communication is being sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.
The vacancy notice relating to that appointment was drawn up on the basis of the policy introduced by
the Commission in December 2000 of recruiting individuals who have the capacity to carry out multiple
senior management functions within the Institution. The Commission also took account of changes in the
organisational structure of DG AGRI which had come into operation in the intervening period.

suggested candidates

After the initial screening of applicants for the post and following interviews by the Consultative
Committee on Appointments, the Committee then followed the usual practice of putting forward a
shortlist of
further consideration and there were five such candidates.
The shortlisted candidates were then interviewed by the Member of the Commission with portfolio
responsibility for Agriculture and by me as Commissioner responsible for Personnel and Administration
and the Commission decided that Mr Barbaso had the best combination of desired skills and attributes set
out in the vacancy notice for this post. He was then duly appointed.

for

(1) SEC(2000) 2305/5.