WRITTEN QUESTION E-3739/02 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Increases in Commissioners' income without a legal basis.
Date: 2002-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU law, European Commission, European official, budget, capital transfer, pay, ratio, regulations for civil servants

C 161 E/134

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

plummeting to levels which threaten to displace ACP suppliers, most of whom have no alternative
markets’ and were ‘already creating tremendous social and economic dislocation and eroding the
achievements in the fight against poverty’.

This problem results from the implementation of phase 2 of the EU-US Agreement which transfers
100 000 tonnes of quota from ACP (quota C) suppliers to dollar (quota B) suppliers, which effectively
increased the total volume of bananas entering the market by 100 000 tonnes, enabling EU supermarkets
to pursue a highly competitive price policy.

Will the Commission implement a temporary reduction in the B quota (dollar supplies)
in order to
eliminate excess supplies that are depressing prices, and, if not, what steps does the Commission intent to
take in support of ACP suppliers?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2003)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that in 2002 the Community banana market
displayed a satisfactory quantitative balance that was reflected in smooth price movements. As happens
every year, prices began to fall at the beginning of the second half, with a steepening of the downward
trend during September and October. But the situation strongly improved with a big price upswing from
the end of November. In particular the price of ACP bananas rose by 58 % between week 46 (mid-
November) and week 51 (end of December) and at the end of 2002 reached their highest level at that
season for five years. The outlook for the coming months is positive and the market should display a
satisfactory balance in 2003. It can justly be said that the Community market continues to be a profitable
one for banana-producing countries, including the ACP ones.

The Commission can also point out that the agreements concluded with the United States and Ecuador
allowed the trade dispute that had lasted for several years to be ended and authorised opening of a tariff
quota reserved for ACP bananas. Moreover,
in November 2001 the Union succeeded in obtaining
derogations at WTO level guaranteeing the ACP banana-producing countries preferential access to the
Community market.

Lastly, it must be remembered that the common market organisation for bananas has no price guarantee
arrangement. Banana price formation, and sometimes the volatility of that price, is the expression of a
market dynamic with which the Commission has no power to interfere. The size of tariff quotas can be
adjusted to secure market supply only in cases where a shortfall of bananas from one of the various origins
arises. In that event the only power the Commission has is to increase the quantities to be imported under
the unbound tariff quota (quota B). The rules in force give it no authority to reduce the size of tariff
quotas, nor would lower prices on the Community market be an adequate ground for proposing a tariff
quota reduction.

(2003/C 161 E/138)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3739/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2002)

Subject: Increases in Commissioners’ income without a legal basis

In the answer to my Written Question P-1233/02 (1), Mr Kinnock, Commission Vice-President, confirmed
on behalf of the Commission that Commissioners have profited for years from increases in income by
having a proportion of their salaries not paid into accounts at their place of employment, Brussels, but,
rather, transferred to other EU states, taking advantage of so-called weightings for that purpose.

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/135

Can Mr Kinnock confirm that, as long ago as the middle of last year, he personally had his attention drawn
directly and unequivocally by the Commission departments responsible, which are answerable to him, to
the fact that the Council Regulation determining the emoluments of the President and Members of the
Commission includes no provisions at all that would allow such income transfers by analogy with
provisions under the Staff Regulations?

Can the Commission forward copies of the relevant memoranda from the Commission departments?

Can Mr Kinnock explain why, in spite of the information from his officials, he has not acted and has had
payments continued for himself and for other Members of the Commission?

Can Mr Kinnock explain why the Commission’s preliminary draft budget
for 2003 (Item A-1090)
nonetheless again contained incorrect information, creating the erroneous impression that the Council
Regulation referred to makes provision for weightings to be applied to Commissioners’ salaries?

What conclusion does the Commission draw from the fact that, in the meantime, the Council has rectified
this and deleted the Commission’s misleading wording?

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 162.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

In my answers to the previous questions of the Honourable Member on this subject (P-1233/02 (1),
P-1805/02 (2) and E-2807/02 (3)), I explained the legal position related to the matter in detail. I also
demonstrated by reference to the views repeatedly expressed by the Court of Justice that weighted transfers
have never been illegal and have not led to a net increase of salary for Members of the Commission, the
Court of Auditors and the Court of Justice who have been entitled to use the system. The Commission
consequently rejects the allegations contained in the Honourable Member’s questions: There have not been
payments to Commissioners or to Members of the Court of Auditors and Court of Justice without a legal
basis.

It also appeared that the Honourable Member is misinformed about messages which she alleges were
received by me to the effect that ‘the Council Regulation determining the emoluments of the President and
Members of the Commission includes no provisions at all that would allow such income transfers by
analogy with provisions under the Staff Regulations’. There have been no such messages or memoranda
received by me.
such a
memorandum was sent, she is advised to make it available to the Director General for Administration
and Personnel or other suitable official.

the Honourable Member has any written information showing that

If

As pointed out in previous replies to the Honourable Member, the decision of the Commission on 5 June
2002 to suspend use of the weighted transfer system was based entirely on the information from the Court
of Auditors on 17 May 2002 that its Members had decided that they would suspend their use of the
system and would not resume use unless and until the legal basis for the system was clear. Shortly after the
5 June decision of the Commission the Members of the Court of Justice took a similar decision.

In the answer to Question E-2807/02 the Commission drew the Honourable Member’s attention to the
reaffirmed view of the Court of Justice, conveyed to the Commission by letter on 9th October, 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. The Honourable Member will, by now, have seen the relevant
letter to the Commission from the Court of Justice and she will also know, therefore, that the Court of
Justice resumed use of the weighted transfer system for its members.

On 9 January 2003 the Commission was informed by the Court of Auditors that,
following the
information from the Court of Justice about the clarity of the legality of the weighted transfer system, its
Members had resumed use of that system.

C 161 E/136

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The Commission considers that the decisions taken by the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors mean
that no further doubts about the legality of the system can continue to exist.

As the Honourable Member knows from previous replies, Members of the Commission suspended use of
the weighted transfer system from 1 July 2002 in common with Members of the Court of Justice and the
Court of Auditors. As a consequence, no Member of the Commission has used the system since that date.
The Honourable Member should therefore withdraw her allegation, made under the protection of
Parliamentary privilege, that Members of the Commission have continued to use the system, despite their
decision on 7 June. That allegation is completely without foundation.

Finally, the Commission confirms that the legal situation relating to the payments system is not affected in
any way by the fact that, in its first reading of the draft budget 2003, the Council proposed an addition to
the budgetary comment of
to ‘Council amended draft
line A-1090 from ‘our draft commentary’
commentary’ since, in the event, that addition was not adopted by the budgetary authority in the final
budget, after conciliation between Council and Parliament.

The Commission consequently rejects the inferences in the Honourable Member’s question that the
Commission was using ‘misleading’ wording in order to give an ‘erroneous impression’. There is no
justification whatsoever for such inferences and they should be withdrawn.

(1) OJ C 277 E, 14.11.2002, p. 162.
(2) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 164.
(3) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003, p. 121.

(2003/C 161 E/139)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3742/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(12 December 2002)

Subject: Conflicts of interest

Can the Commission confirm that ASBL Eurocost, a company based in Luxembourg, has committed
serious irregularities (‘massaging’ the accounts, double and triple financing of projects, theft of computer
equipment) which have resulted in a loss to the Community budget of over EUR 1 million? Can the
Commission confirm that those irregularities had already been unearthed early in the year 2000 during an
inspection by officials of the Commission’s Audit Directorate-General but that the Luxembourg legal
authorities were not called in until the summer of 2002?

Can the Commission say exactly when the relevant report by the Audit DG was submitted to the
Commissioner
financial control and what action she took in response? Can the
Commission forward a copy of the report by the Audit DG to Parliament?

responsible for

Can the Commission confirm that the Director-General of Eurostat was a founding member and sometime
chairman of ASBL Eurocost and saw to it that Eurocost received subsidies from the Community’s budget
over a period of more than ten years?

in an
Can the Commission say whether the active participation of a Commission Director-General
organisation receiving considerable sums in subsidies from the Community budget was consistent with
Commission rules on the avoidance of conflicts of interest? Will the Commission ask the Director-General
of Eurostat to make good the damages caused to taxpayers? Was the Director-General of Eurostat also
involved with other firms or organisations which received subsidies from the Community budget? If so,
which?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2003)

An audit launched at the joint initiative of Eurostat’s Internal Audit Service and DG Financial Control (DG
Audit at the time) and carried out during the first quarter of 2000, identified several alleged irregularities