WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/03 by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system.
Date: 2003-05-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, professional career, regulations for civil servants, staff assessment

C 11 E/194

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

However, the Commission is also aware that the German Government intends to install a collection system
allowing the return, by 1 October 2003, of the one-way packaging to any sales point in Germany.

5.
In order to ensure that this new collection system is introduced as quickly as possible and to avoid
future infringements relating to the deposit of one-way packaging, the Members of the Commission
responsible for Environment and Internal Market wrote to the German Minister for the Environment, Mr
Jürgen Trittin,
in May 2003. With reference to the Commission’s views, as expressed in the written
observations to C-309/02 described above, the Members of the Commission have voiced their concern
about the current transitional phase of the deposit scheme in place because a satisfactory, nation-wide
return system has not been set up. In this respect, they have requested additional information on the
current situation as well as further information on the proposed new return system and have urged the
German Government to speed up the introduction of measures to bring German law in line with
Community law. They have also asked the German Government whether it had envisaged suspending the
measure until a proper return system is in place.

In his answer to the letter, the German Minister for the Environment stresses the joint efforts made by
industry and the German government in order to set up a nation-wide return system by the target date of
1 October 2003. Mr Trittin considers that there is no need to suspend the measure until that date.

The Commission is currently in the process of evaluating Mr Trittin’s reply.

At the moment the Commission does not envisage to discuss this issue at the forthcoming Internal Market
Council.

(1) OJ L 365, 31.12.1994.
(2) Council Directive 80/777/EC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the exploitation

and marketing of natural mineral waters, OJ L 229, 30.8.1980.

(2004/C 11 E/219)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1562/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system

Does the Commission acknowledge that there is considerable disquiet among a large number of its officials
about the new Career Development Review (CDR) system which has been introduced this year?

Will the Commission explain the following anomalous aspects of the new system?

Why is a particular service of the Commission penalised, in terms of loss of priority points, if the average
for its officials in a particular grade exceeds 14,5 points (out of 20)? Does this mean that each grade has a
uniform level of performance in all of the services of the Commission?

(2004/C 11 E/220)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1563/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system

Does the Commission acknowledge that there is considerable disquiet among a large number of its officials
about the new Career Development Review (CDR) system which has been introduced this year?

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/195

Will the Commission explain the following anomalous aspects of the new system?

Most services of the Commission have chosen to apply an overall average of 14 points for every one of the
grades, in order to avoid losing priority points. This means, for example, that if one official is considered
to be particularly able and receives 16 points, then another in the same grade must be only given 12
points, irrespective of his/her ability, in order to maintain the average of 14. Does this not bring about a
distortion of the true situation? If most of the officials in a certain grade in a certain service are well above
average, does not this system penalise them by giving them artificially low numbers of points?

(2004/C 11 E/221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1564/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system

Does the Commission acknowledge that there is considerable disquiet among a large number of its officials
about the new Career Development Review (CDR) system which has been introduced this year?

Will the Commission explain the following anomalous aspects of the new system?

Most services of the Commission have chosen to allocate the points between all of their officials prior to
any officials’ CDR interviews with their hierarchical superior, in order to maintain the desired 14-point
average. If the points for each official have already been allocated prior to their CDR interview, does not
this make a farce of the interview, which is supposed to be helping to assess the official’s performance?

(2004/C 11 E/222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1565/03

by Eija-Riitta Korhola (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Anomalous aspects of the new Career Development Review (CDR) system

Does the Commission acknowledge that there is considerable disquiet among a large number of its officials
about the new Career Development Review (CDR) system which has been introduced this year?

Will the Commission explain the following anomalous aspects of the new system?

If promotion is supposed to be primarily on the basis of merit, and if merit is properly reflected in the staff
reports and the number of points awarded, why then do Director-Generals have the possibility of awarding
up to 10 additional priority points per member of staff on the basis of criteria which are neither clear nor
objective? Does this not encourage favouritism rather than merit?

Joint answer
to Written questions E-1562/03, E-1563/03, E-1564/03 and E-1565/03
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 June 2003)

It was natural, in the Commission as in other organisations, for the introduction of a new appraisal system
to be viewed with a degree of reticence and concern by some members of staff. However, the Commission
observes that much of that initial concern has now been dispelled as staff have participated in the Career