WRITTEN QUESTION E-3473/02 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. The Commission's new accounting officer.
Date: 2002-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, administration of the Institutions, appointment of staff, closing of accounts, financial regulation, interinstitutional relations (EU)

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/15

the Yorkshire and Humber region to regenerate such
The Commission endorses the initiative of
‘brownfield’ sites like Manningham Mills. While housing projects are not eligible for support, it is clear
that there are other projects coming forward that would be eligible for European funding support.
The Commission is convinced that some of these will be successful and thus enable the building to be used
in a manner that will create employment and wealth in line with the objectives of the programme.

(1) See, among others, the Commission decisions on the cases N 497/2001 ‘Grants for Owner Occupation (Scotland)’,
for Regeneration

N 680/2001 ‘Property Support Scheme (Scotland)’ and N 230/2002 ‘Partnership Support
(England)’.

(2003/C 280 E/016)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3352/02

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Commission

(19 November 2002)

Subject: EC Petition 566/2000

The Commission claimed (letter of 19.6.2002) that no effective action could be taken under the EC/
Norway Agreement of 1973. Article 27(2.3) states that the Contracting Parties must provide the Joint
Committee details of any Article 23 breach with all information and a decision made within three months.
Was this done by the EC as a Contracting Party, what was the result, and if it was not done, why was it
not done?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2002)

The letter of 19 June 2002 to which the Honourable Member refers sets out the eventual outcomes of
submitting a competition case involving a Norwegian company to the European Economic Community-
Norway Joint Committee under the European Economic Community-Norway Free Trade Agreement of
1973.

However, Article 27 of the said Agreement to which the Honourable Member also refers only provided for
a right for either Contracting Party to refer the matter to the Joint Committee. In the case which is the
subject of EC Petition 566/2000 and of
the question asked by the Honourable Member the facts
established by the Commission did not indicate any violation of Articles 85 and 86 of the then EEC Treaty
and did not call for a reference of the matter under Article 27.

(2003/C 280 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3473/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2002)

Subject: The Commission’s new accounting officer

The Commission appointed Mr Marc Oostens as its new accounting officer with effect from 1 September
2002.

Can the Commission forward to me a copy of its Decision appointing Mr Oostens?

Can it say from how many candidates Mr Oostens was selected and whether it
Commission officials were given the opportunity of applying for this post?

is true that only

After Mr Oosten’s appointment, when was the interim statement of account drawn up, as required by
Article 18 of the Regulation laying down detailed rules for the implementation of certain provisions of the
Financial Regulation?

What was the date of the interim statement of account?

C 280 E/16

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Who signed the interim statement of account?

When did the new accounting officer countersign the interim statement of account?

Did he express any reservations when so doing?

If so, can the Commission let me know exactly what he said?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

A copy of the Decision appointing Mr Oostens is being transmitted direct to the Honourable

1.
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

2.
Two eligible candidatures were received for this post. It is not true that only Commission officials
were given the opportunity to apply for this vacancy; applications were also invited from officials of the
other institutions.

3.
The interim statement of account was prepared by the accounting services during the fourth quarter
of the year 2002. Mr Oostens signed it on 27 January 2003. This delay is because the financial statements
include extra information on accrual elements, collected within several Directorates General
(DG’s),
controlled by DG Budget and introduced in the accounting system on a double entry basis by the
Accountant’s services.

4.
In the event of an accounting officer terminating his duties, an interim statement of account shall be
drawn up on the date of the termination of officer’s duties. Consequently, the interim statement of the
accounts was drawn up as of 31 August 2002.

5. Mr Taverne signed the transmittal note on 21 January 2003 as the Accounting Officer terminating
his duties on 31 August 2002. Mr Oostens, the appointed Accounting Officer as from 1 September 2002,
signed the reception note for the interim statement on 27 January 2003.

6.

7.

8.

The new accounting officer countersigned the interim statement of account on 27 January 2003.

Yes.

A copy of the notes is sent direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat.

(2003/C 280 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3475/02

by Benedetto Della Vedova (NI) to the Commission

Subject: State aid for public broadcasting companies

(6 December 2002)

The existence of a public broadcasting service can be justified in that it gives viewers and listeners
programmes not otherwise provided by existing commercial channels.

Broadcasting is not exempt from the application of Articles 86, 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty relating to
competition and while the Protocol to the Treaty of Amsterdam on the system of public broadcasting
reaffirms the power of the Member States to provide for the funding and define the role of public service
broadcasting, it does so on condition that ‘such funding is granted for the fulfilment of the public service
remit as conferred by each Member State’, ‘insofar as such funding does not affect trading conditions and
competition in the Community to an extent which would be contrary to the common interest’ and with
regard to ‘the need to preserve media pluralism’.

The definition of public service in the service contract between the Italian Government and RAI appears to
be at variance with the requirements set out by the Commission in its Communication on State aid for
public service broadcasting,
is excessively general and much broader than is considered
acceptable in the communication.

in that

it