WRITTEN QUESTION E-2253/03 by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Competitions COM/B/2/01 and COM/A/6/01.
Date: 2003-07-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, European official, competition (EU), equal treatment, foreign policy, personnel administration, servant (EU), third country

C 58 E/148

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(12 August 2003)

The current financial rules on grants establish the principle that, before eligibility can be settled, a call for
proposals must normally be published. This should set out the specific conditions on which grants may be
made and the exact procedure for submitting applications. Applications are submitted to the individual
Directorate-General, which will then have to check that all the conditions for making the grant are met.

Each Directorate-General provides information, on its own site on the Europa server, about the types of
grant administered, grants made in previous years, its grants work programme for the current year, and
open calls for proposals.

Nevertheless, a website containing information on funding implemented by the Union is made available to
the public on the Europa server (1). It is currently being completely reorganised and updated.

The site and its proposed reorganisation are evidence of the Commission’s commitment to transparency
and its desire to provide citizens with clear, complete and practical information about the project funding
possibilities open to them through the Community budget and the conditions that have to be met.

(1) http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgc/info_subv/index_en.htm

(2004/C 58 E/163)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2253/03

by Enrico Ferri (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Competitions COM/B/2/01 and COM/A/6/01

(8 July 2003)

Regarding the competitions COM/B/2/01, and COM/A/6/01 published in the Official Journal (1) and in the
light of Article 255 of the Treaty establishing the EC, implemented by Regulation 1049/2001 (2) of 30 May
2001 concerning access to Commission documents, could the Commission provide the following
information:

(cid:1) Among the candidates admitted to the oral exam, how many were already or previously under
contract and working for the European Commission (as auxiliaries, temporary staff, officials, etc.)?

(cid:1) Why was the number of successful candidates in the oral exam lower than laid down in the OJ? (Can
the jury explain the reasons for this choice especially in view of the fact that this is one of the last
competitions before the enlargement of the EU)?

(cid:1) Was a list of questions to be put to the candidates during the oral exam drawn up in advance, in order

to guarantee non-discriminatory treatment?

(1) OJ C 167 A, 12.6.2001.
(2) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(29 September 2003)

Concerning competition COM/B/2/01

Among the candidates admitted to the oral exam, 73 were already or previously under contract and
working for the Commission as auxiliaries, temporary staff or officials.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/149

The reason that the number of successful candidates was lower than that laid down in the Official Journal
was that following correction of the written test only 125 candidates obtained the pass mark. The notice
of competition stipulated that in order to be admitted to the oral test the candidates must have the 150
highest marks and at least the pass mark. At the earlier stage of the competition only 277 candidates
completed the written tests out of a total of 300 who were invited.

Concerning competition COM/A/6/01

Among the candidates admitted to the oral examination, for field 1: 16 and for field 2: 86 were already or
previously under contract and working for the Commission as auxiliaries, temporary staff or officials.

For this competition the number of successful candidates as laid down in the Official Journal was reached.

With regard to the 3rd question put to the Commission by the Honourable Member, it should first of all
be noted that Selection Boards may exercise their discretion, not only in they way they organise interviews,
but also in determining the number and nature of questions to be put to the candidates. As indicated by
the Honourable Member, Selection Boards must ensure equality of treatment between candidates. However,
they are not required to draw up a fixed list of questions. They must simply ensure commonality of
standards by preparing their questions in advance to reflect the same level of difficulty. This requirement
was met
in full by the Selection Boards for the two competitions in questionCOM/B/2/01 and
COM/A/6/01.

Clearly the use of a list of questions would not, in itself, guarantee equality of treatment, since orals are
very often held over several days and communication between candidates cannot be prevented.

(2004/C 58 E/164)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2264/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(9 July 2003)

Subject: Contamination of frozen chicken intended for export by adding water and porcine and bovine

protein and by handling the meat with bare hands

1.
Is the Commission aware that the protein plant Prowico in Nordhorn, Germany, which is near the
Dutch border, produces a powder called ‘Surplus 601’ which consists of relatively cheaply obtainable
bovine or porcine proteins from which the DNA code has been removed so that it is no longer possible to
ascertain from what animals the proteins have been derived?

2.
Is the Commission aware that at least twelve businesses are using these special untraceable proteins,
including the Dutch chickenmeat plant Slegtenhorst in the village of Zevenhuizen, which add these
proteins to chickenmeat by injecting it or rinsing the meat for 90 minutes in tumblers (large metal
containers), in order to make the meat retain more water, thus substantially increasing its weight and
accordingly raising its price?

Is the Commission aware that this work is often performed by people who do not speak the
3.
language of the country concerned, are compelled to work extremely long days and are permitted to cut
away bone, blood, fat and tendons from chicken breast without wearing plastic gloves, thereby maximising
opportunities for contamination of the meat?

Are the practices described in the previous three paragraphs not yet illegal in the EU provided at

4.
least that a label inconspicuously indicates that water and some form of protein may have been added?

5.

Is the Commission aware of other cases of such practices, including in other Member States?