WRITTEN QUESTION E-0088/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Weightings applied to officials' pensions.
Date: 2003-01-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, case-law (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, pension scheme, regulations for civil servants, residence

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/155

(2003/C 192 E/190)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0088/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Weightings applied to officials’ pensions

the Committee on Budgetary Control on 28 November 2002,

the Commission
At a meeting of
justified the application of weightings to officials’
representative, replying to a question I had asked,
retirement pensions on the grounds that they are in keeping with the relevant case law of the Court of
Justice.

However, I have found no evidence in existing case law to confirm the Commission’s assertion. Indeed the
only reference to such matters concerns the weighting applied to the salaries of serving officials (cid:1) a totally
different issue (cid:1) and not retired officials.

The Commission representative also stated that my criticisms of the workplace-based weighting system
applying to retired officials (cid:1) who obviously do not have a place of work (cid:1) stemmed from the fact that
the system placed people of my nationality at a disadvantage. I consider this to be an insulting remark,
entirely at odds with the manner in which the Commission normally discusses such issues.

In view of the above, will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What is the case law on the application of a weighting system to calculate the pensions of retired
officials on the basis of their supposed or actual place of residence, to which the Commission
representative referred at the Committee on Budgetary Control meeting of 28 November?

2. Does the Commission endorse the view expressed by its representative at the meeting that my
criticisms merely reflected the interests of officials of my nationality? Might
the Commission
representative’s defence of the current system have anything to do with the fact that he benefits
from the system as a result of the nationality which he is considered to hold in this context?

3. Does the Commission consider that there are differences in status between nationalities within the

European Union, which would justify this approach?

4. Does the Commission not consider it deplorable that nationalistic arguments and references to virtual
case law are being used instead of replying to the substantive questions which I have repeatedly asked
concerning the fact that the pensions paid to retired officials on the basis of their supposed place of
residence are discriminatory, contrary to people’s basic rights and absurd?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(13 March 2003)

I undertook enquiries into statements made at the meeting of the Budgetary Control Committee referred to
by the Honourable Member. The Commission regrets any inference that may inadvertently have been
made about the motivation of the Honourable Member in raising matters related to weightings applied to
official’s retirement pensions.

My enquiries have further established that
the reference to case law made by the Commission
representative at the meeting in question was not focused specifically on pensions but related to the
workings of the system of corrective coefficients in general.

The legal principle of equal treatment would seem to require that, where persons with rights under the
Staff Regulations live in places or countries where the cost of living is not the same, the system of
corrective coefficients is necessary to correct those variations.

In relation specifically to pensions, the Court of First Instance has held that, under Article 82 of the present
Staff Regulations, retired officials have the right to have the corrective coefficient for the country in which
they live applied to their pensions. This remains the case if they live in a country outside the Community if
weighting exists for that country (1).

C 192 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

In keeping with the provisions of the Staff Regulations the Commission has always sought to avoid
discriminating between nationals of different Member States in relation to pensions and in all other
domains.

(1) See the judgement of 14 December 1995 in case T-285/94, Pfloeschner v Commission.

(2003/C 192 E/191)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0094/03

by Laura González Álvarez (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 January 2003)

Subject: Planned diversion of water from the River Castril to the Jabalcón Canal (Granada, Spain)

The Association for the Protection and Promotion of the River Castril, along with leaders of several
irrigator communities, local councils themselves, members of the Castril-Jabalcón Platform and a range of
ecological organisations have all informed me of their opposition to the plan to channel water from the
River Castril to the Jabalcón Canal, which was presented by the Guadalquivir Hydrographic Confederation
and was to receive European funding. This project was first publicised in 2000, but was clearly unviable
and was withdrawn as a result of strong public opposition. At the same time, another project, entitled
‘improvement of the river banks and reforestation in the Castril river valley’, is also being presented, and
has already been the subject of two thousand complaints.

This diversion project, which is envisaged as ‘a necessary part of the national hydrographic plan’, would
seriously affect farmers in the area, many of whom are organic farmers, and would impact on the
countryside, on fauna and flora and on the Sierra de Castril natural park, with its precious ecosystem.

Implementation of this project could violate the following directives:

(a) Directive 85/337/EEC (1), as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (2) on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment;

(b) Directive 92/43/EEC (3) on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

What steps will the Commission take to ensure compliance with Community legislation governing the
environment, and more specifically with the directives referred to above?

(1) OJ L 175, 5.7.1985, p. 40.
(2) OJ L 73, 14.3.1997, p. 5.
(3) OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7.

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(25 February 2003)

The Commission notes, firstly, that the Spanish authorities have proposed the Sierra del Castril as a site of
Community importance for inclusion in the Natura 2000 network. The Sierra has also been designated a
special protection area for birds under Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation
of wild birds (1). Article 6 of Directive 92/43/EEC stipulates that any plan or project likely to have a
significant effect on a special area of conservation must be subject to appropriate assessment of its
implications for the site in view of the site’s conservation objectives. The authorities must not authorise the
plan or project until they have ascertained that it will not adversely affect the integrity of the site. If, in
spite of a negative assessment of the implications for the site and in the absence of alternative solutions, a
plan or project must nevertheless be carried out for imperative reasons of overriding public interest,
including those of a social or economic nature, the Member State must take all compensatory measures
necessary to ensure that the overall coherence of Natura 2000 is protected.