WRITTEN QUESTION E-1439/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reform of the disciplinary procedure.
Date: 2003-04-24
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, administrative reform, disciplinary proceedings, power to appoint, regulations for civil servants

C 280 E/142

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

If so, does the Commission consider it fair that inland waterway transport in the new Member States will
be able to benefit from these reserve funds without itself having contributed to them?

If it does not regard this as fair, how does the Commission intend to prevent or limit claims of this kind?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(15 May 2003)

The inland waterways funds are governed by Council Regulation (EC) No 718/1999 of 29 March 1999 on
a Community fleet capacity policy to promote inland waterway transport (1).

Pursuant to Article 3 of that regulation, each Member State whose inland waterways are linked to those of
another Member State is required to set up an inland waterways fund under its national legislation. The
financing, management and use of the funds are governed by the regulation. The funds are financed by the
surplus funding from the structural improvement schemes for the Community fleets in the 1990s, special
contributions paid by the vessel owners under the ‘old-for-new’ rule, and financial resources which could
be made available in the event of serious disturbance of the inland waterway market. The funds’ resources
now stand at around EUR 38 million.

The use made of the funds is subject to the principles of mutual financial support and Community action.
Mutual financial support means that all the funds set up on the basis of the regulation are mutually
responsible for all the expenditure and resources, irrespective of the (national) fund to which the vessel
belongs (Article 3(6)). The principle of Community action means that the funds may be used to meet
financial obligations only if the measures in question are the subject of action at Community level
(Article 3(5)), which by definition covers all the Member States concerned by the regulation.

Following enlargement, Regulation No 718/1999, like all the other Community legislation concerning
inland waterways, will also apply to the new Member States under the same conditions as apply to the
existing Member States. The incorporation of this legislation into national law was not called into question
during the accession negotiations either by the Candidate States or by the Member States.

Consequently, the new States concerned will have the same rights and obligations deriving from the
regulation when they join the EU.

The Commission therefore considers that (cid:1) de jure and taking into account the principle of equal
treatment (cid:1) the new Member States’ fleets cannot be excluded from action at Community level financed
by the reserve funds for inland waterways provided they meet the conditions laid down.

(1) OJ L 90, 2.4.1999.

(2003/C 280 E/161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1439/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Reform of the disciplinary procedure

As part of the reform of the Staff Regulations, the Commission has proposed changes to the disciplinary
procedure.

At present, disciplinary proceedings that have been concluded can be re-opened, at the request of the
official concerned, and also on the initiative of the Appointing Authority, if there are new facts, supported
by relevant evidence, that cast a different light on the official’s behaviour.

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/143

Under the Commission proposal, only the official concerned will in future be able to have disciplinary
proceedings re-opened.

In practice this would mean that the Appointing Authority’s hands would be tied if it came upon new,
incriminating evidence of misconduct by an official who previously had been cleared and not subject to
any disciplinary measures.

Why has the Commission proposed this change, which would mean that, even in important cases, it would
be unable to take action?

Does the Commission stand by its proposal, or will it change it?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 June 2003)

In the version of the Commission proposal for amendment of the Staff Regulation which the Honourable
Member has apparently seen, the words ‘on its own initiative or’ were inadvertently omitted from the new
Article 25 of Annex IX. The relevant article in the revised Staff Regulations was subsequently corrected.
The text agreed with the Council consequently reflects the current Staff Regulation as follows: ‘Where new
facts supported by relevant evidence come to light, disciplinary proceedings may be re-opened by the
appointing authority on its own initiative or on application by the official concerned’ (1).

(1)

see doc 5752/03 STAT 10 FIN 31 of 6 February 2003 of the Council of the European Union.

(2003/C 280 E/162)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1443/03

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(24 April 2003)

Subject: Twenty year prison sentences for peaceful demonstration in Laos

imprisonment for anti-governmental activities (sic),

According to the 2002 human rights report published on 31 March 2003 by the US State Department,
the five leaders of the ‘26 October Movement’, Thongpaseuth Keuakoun, Khamphouvieng Sisa-At, Seng-
Aloun Phengphanh, Bouavanh Chanmanivong and Keochay, who had been arrested in October 1999 for
organising a peaceful demonstration in Vientiane in support of democracy, have been sentenced to 20
years’
following a trial held in camera, and are
currently incarcerated in Vientiane. Previously, it should be said, the Laotian authorities had provided other
(cid:1) totally contradictory (cid:1) versions of the fate of the five student leaders. For example, after the authorities
of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (LPDR) had denied for two years that the five student leaders had
been arrested, in November 2001 the country’s Foreign Minister, Mr Somsavad Lengsava, told Italian Vice-
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mrs Margherita Boniver, that the students had not yet been tried. Then, in
June 2002, the chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the LPDR National Assembly told a meeting of
the European Parliament in Strasbourg that they had been sentenced the previous year. On that occasion,
he undertook to produce documentary records of the trial, a commitment which has yet to be honoured,
despite repeated reminders.

Has the Commission expressed to the LPDR authorities its indignation at the severity of the sentences
handed down to the students and at the way in which the whole judicial process was conducted? Has it
expressed its extreme annoyance at the failure to provide it with accurate information? In the light of this
series of particularly serious incidents and bearing in mind the breadth and scale of the European Union’s
cooperation programmes with Laos, does the Commission not think that the cooperation agreement
between the European Union and Laos should be suspended, unless the LPDR authorities give a formal
undertaking to review the trial of the five student leaders without delay?