WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/03 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Abolition of pension weightings.
Date: 2003-04-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment, interpretation of the law, judgment of the Court (EU), pension scheme, purchasing power parity, regulations for civil servants, residence

C 70 E/32

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

It is my understanding that Wordsworth Technologies had made a complaint to the European Commission
in January 1999 regarding Motorola’s price fixing, squeezing Wordsworth out of the market.

Has there been any progress in investigating this complaint and if so what has the outcome been?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission opened an investigation into the distribution
arrangements of Motorola Computer Group (a business division of Motorola Inc) for certain of its products
with a view to ascertaining whether these arrangements were in accordance with Articles 81 and 82 of the
EC Treaty. This investigation was opened after the Commission had received a complaint by Wordsworth
Technologies Ltd in January 1999.

The Commission has been investigating this complaint by Wordsworth Technologies Ltd actively. It has
its
sent a very significant number of formal requests for information to Motorola Computer Group,
distributors and customers as well as Wordsworth Technologies Ltd, in order to be in a position to analyse
all facts in their proper economic and legal context. It has also held various meetings with the parties in
this case, including Wordsworth Technologies Ltd.

The Honourable Member may be interested to know that Motorola Computer Group has introduced
various modifications to its distribution arrangements as a direct result of the Commission’s investigations
in this case.

The Commission is currently elaborating its final analysis of all the issues that were raised by Wordsworth
Technologies Ltd. This analysis will not only take account of the issues that Wordsworth Technologies Ltd
raised in its initial complaint but also of those raised in later correspondence,
including those the
Honourable Member is referring to, which were actually only brought to the Commission’s attention late
in 2002.

The Commission is confident that it can inform Wordsworth Technologies Ltd in the near future about the
Commission’s position in this case. Wordsworth Technologies Ltd will then be given an opportunity to
comment upon this position.

(2004/C 70 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1146/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(1 April 2003)

Subject: Abolition of pension weightings

In direct and total contradiction with the statements made by the Commission representative at the
meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control on 28 November 2002 and its answer to Question
E-0088/03 (1), it is absolutely clear that the judgement of 14 December 1995 in case T-285/94 in no way
justifies the application of weightings to officials’ retirement pensions.

The issue raised by the plaintiff in paragraph 28 of the judgement has not been considered by the Court,
as paragraph 52 of the same judgement shows.

Under these circumstances, will the Commission say what disciplinary measures it intends to take in
respect of an official who has not only deliberately falsified the facts, but involved a Commissioner in
repeating this falsehood?

Given that this is the only argument put forward so far by the Commission to defend this absurd and
unfair system, will it say when it intends to abolish weightings for officials’ retirement pensions?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 155.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/33

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 June 2003)

The Honourable Member refers to paragraph 28 of the judgement of 14 December 1995 in Case T-285/94
and states that
the issue raised by the plaintiff, Mr Pfloeschner was not considered by the Court.
His questions refer to paragraph 52 of the same judgement and he asks what disciplinary measures the
Commission will take in respect of an official who falsifies facts and involves a Commissioner in this. He
also asks when the system of the weightings will be abolished.

The Honourable Member appears to have inadvertently misinterpreted legal details which are very relevant
to the case.

It is true that the issue raised by the plaintiff was not considered by the Court: However, this is in no a
way decisive factor. The Court did not in any way reject Mr Pfloeschner’s argument, it merely did not have
to consider it since the case could be dealt with on the basis of the first argument, which was illegality of
Council regulation 2175/88. However, in considering that argument (cid:1) relating to Regulation 2175/88 (cid:1)
the Court expressly referred to the justification for the weighting factors, and the justification is equal
treatment under the explicit terms of the Staff Regulation. That was why the Commission referred to the
Pfloeschner case and why it continues to do so.

The Court’s reasoning in grounds 46-47 of the judgement is that Article 82 of the present Staff Regulations
only provides that the weighting factor should be 100 where no other factor had been fixed. However
those Regulations do not allow the Institutions to actually fix that factor as 100. This reasoning was based
not only on the textual analysis of Article 82, but also upon the purpose of the weighting factor. Ground
47 says ‘Such a weighting factor [i.e. equal to 100] amounts, in a case like this one, to non-application of
a weighting factor. It should be pointed out, in this connection, that the weighting factor is a means of
correcting salaries and payments, whose purpose is precisely that of ensuring equivalent purchasing power
for officials, whatever the country in which they are established’.

Equivalence of purchasing power is an expression of the fundamental principle of equal treatment.
The Commission’s reference to the Pfloeschner case was therefore entirely relevant, correct and accurate.
Neither the Commissioner appearing at Cocobu nor Parliament have been misled and no facts have been
falsified.

The Honourable Member will be aware that, in the context of the negotiations on the Reform of the Staff
Regulations, the issue of pension weightings has been the subject of much debate and,
indeed, their
non-discriminatory nature has been called into question. As a consequence of this, legal precedent and
political will do not (cid:1) for the time being (cid:1) coincide. The future of the weightings system will not be
legislation of proposals relating to the Staff Regulations, now before the
resolved with certainty until
Council, has been concluded.

The Commission is sure that the Honourable Member understands that, in referring to jurisprudence on
cases before the Court that have previously taken place, Commission officials are bound to reflect the legal
situation established or clarified by those cases. They are not legally or procedurally in a position to base
advice or action on speculation about what future political changes relating to pension rights and
allowances might or might not occur.

(2004/C 70 E/037)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1228/03

by José Ribeiro e Castro (UEN) to the Commission

(2 April 2003)

Subject: Floods in Mozambique

According to media reports, since Mozambique was hit at the beginning of this month by Cyclone Japhet
the centre of the country has been afflicted by flooding, heavy rain and gale-force winds.