WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Budget item A-1090 — extra income for Commissioners.
Date: 2003-04-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, administrative expenditure (EU), pay

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/83

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2003)

The Commission is aware of progress with this basin and the potential for crop development.

However, given the cotton aid reform put in place by Regulation 1051/2001 (1) (cid:1) aimed mainly at
discouraging any increase in cotton production that damaged the environment (cid:1) and the budgetary
implications of aid per hectare, it is hard for the Commission to envisage new legislation at this stage
aimed at expanding cotton production.

That said, it is the Commission’s intention nevertheless to undertake a review of the future of cotton aid.

(1) Council Regulation (EC) No 1051/2001 of 22 May 2001 on production aid for cotton, OJ L 148, 1.6.2001.

(2004/C 65 E/093)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1508/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Budget item A-1090 (cid:1) extra income for Commissioners

(28 April 2003)

Members of the Commission have for years been receiving extra income by having part of their salary
transferred not to bank accounts in their place of employment, Brussels, but to accounts in other EU
countries, with weightings being applied to the amounts transferred. One of the points which the
Commission has made in justification of this (see reply to Written Question P-1805/02 (1)) is that the
Council and Parliament have made the requisite appropriations for such transfers available in the budget
each year and have expressly provided for them in the relevant budget remarks.

Until the 2002 financial year,
the budget item concerned (A-1090 (cid:1) Adjustments to emoluments/
Weightings) contained the following remark: ‘This appropriation … covers the cost of weightings applied
to the part of emoluments transferred to a country other than the country of employment’. The
Commission again proposed this remark in its Preliminary Draft Budget for 2003. The Council deleted it at
first reading. Parliament upheld this deletion.

What conclusion does the Commission draw from the decision of the budgetary authority to delete this
remark?

Does the Commission consider that its Members can nonetheless still continue to take advantage of
weightings if they have part of their salary transferred to a country other than that where they are
employed?

In this context, what conclusion does the Commission draw from the fact that the relevant regulation
concerning the salaries of Members of the Commission also does not provide for the possibility of such
transfers of salary with the application of a weighting and indeed makes no mention whatsoever of the
subject?

(1) OJ C 309 E, 12.12.2002, p. 164.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 June 2003)

As the Honourable Member will know from previous answers, the weighted transfer arrangements to
which she refers have always applied to Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors as well
as Members of the Commission. The legality of the system has, as the Honourable Member knows, been

C 65 E/84

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

reaffirmed by the Court of Justice in an administrative decision. As the Honourable Member is aware,
Members of the Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors consequently resumed use of the system.
The Commission’s decision of June 2002 to suspend the use of the weighted transfer system is still in
force.

When the Council decided to delete the remark referred to in the Honourable Member’s question, the facts
that the Commission had not been consulted or informed, and no explanation had been provided in the
Explanatory Memorandum, prompted the Director General for Budget to indicate to the President of the
Council’s Budget Committee on 7 May 2002 that, the Commission considered the procedure to be ‘not
normal’. It is clear, however, that the remark on the budget item in question had no effect on the legality
of the matter, and the deletion of the remark had no effect on it either, as is evident from the fact that the
credit (similar to that for previous years) was maintained.

(2004/C 65 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1515/03

by André Brie (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 May 2003)

Subject: Extensive clearing of trees and bushes in FFH areas in the Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg,

Germany

For some time now extensive clearing of trees and bushes has been taking place on the rivers Schwarze
Elster, Pulsnitz and Röder (Elbe-Elster district, Brandenburg). The competent authority (Brandenburg
Regional Environment Office) has justified this work on the grounds of the necessary renovation and
maintenance work on the dykes.

These operations have been or are being carried out in the following designated FFH areas:

(cid:1) FFH area 509 ‘Pulsnitz and flood plains’;

(cid:1) FFH area 495 ‘Middle reach of the Schwarze Elster’;

(cid:1) FFH area 231 ‘Arnsnestea flood plains’;

(cid:1) FFH area 498 ‘Kleine Röder’.

The Brandenburg Regional Environment Office takes the view that this constitutes maintenance work
(for urgent flood-protection reasons), even though there was no acute threat on these rivers during the
floods of August 2002 or during those of January 2003. The extensive clearance of trees and bushes in
these FFH areas is having a considerable impact on protected habitats and animal species.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) whether it has already been informed of this work?

(cid:1) whether it is prepared to verify if this clearing operation is simply renovation or maintenance work

(as claimed by the Brandenburg Regional Environment Office)?

(cid:1) whether it is prepared to investigate (perhaps on the spot) the possibility that the work may be in

breach of EU directives (FFH Directive)?