WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Council. Extra income for members of the European Court of Justice.
Date: 2003-07-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: budget, member of the Court of Justice (EU), pay, pay policy, regulations for civil servants

C 70 E/110

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

The Commission welcomes the recent adoption of the long-term strategy on North American
1. and 2.
cooperation in the conservation of biodiversity. It considers that the Convention on Biological Diversity
(CBD)
is the main forum for international cooperation on the conservation and sustainable use of
biological diversity. The CBD has currently 187 Parties, including the Community, all the Member States
and Acceding Countries, Mexico and Canada. The United States has not yet ratified the CBD.

The Commission has always supported regional level implementation of the CBD and has a long standing
experience in this respect, both at the Union level (see inter alia the Union Biodiversity Strategy (1) and
Action Plans (2)) and at Pan-European level
the Council of Europe Pan-European
Biodiversity and Landscape Strategy and the Environment For Europe Conferences.

in the context of

The Commission is in principle willing to share its experience with the North American Commission for
Environment Cooperation in the context of ongoing transatlantic cooperation.

3.
As indicated in the 6th Environment Action Programme, the Commission is actively contributing to
the development of biodiversity indicators. For example, the Commission is working with the European
Environment Agency on the Biodiversity Implementation Indicators (Bio-IMPs) project which aims at
developing and testing biodiversity implementation indicators for the Community in the framework of
requirements of the CBD (3). This project consults internationally through the International Working Group
of Biodiversity and Monitoring Indicators (IWG-BioMIN). The issue is also subject of intensive work under
the CBD involving both European and North American experts (4).

The recently adopted ‘European Environment and Health Strategy’ (5) announces the development of
4.
harmonised environment and health indicators, with no specific focus on children’s environment and
health indicators.

5.
The ‘European Environment and Health Strategy’ is developed for the enlarged Union, fully involving
the Acceding Countries. Given the different situation in America with regard to environment and health,
but also because of the lack of human and financial resources, the Commission is not able for the moment
to actively co-operate with North America on this particular issue, but it intends to be fully informed
about the situation outside Europe.

(1) Communication from the Commission to the Council and to the Parliament on a European Community Biodiversity
Strategy, COM(98) 42 final, Council Conclusions of 21 June 1998, European Parliament non legislative resolution
A4-0347/98.

(2) Communication from the Commission to the Council and the Parliament on Biodiversity Action Plans in the areas
of Conservation of Natural Resources, Agriculture, Fisheries and Development and Economic Cooperation,
COM(2001) 162 final; Council Conclusions of 18th June (Fisheries); 19th June (Agriculture); 29th October
(Environment); 8th November (Development); European Parliament non legislative resolution A5-0063/2002.

(3) See http://biodiversity-chm.eea.eu.int/convention/cbd_ec/F1046676334
(4) See http://www.biodiv.org/programmes/cross-cutting/indicators/
(5) COM(2003) 338 final.

(2004/C 70 E/111)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2533/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Council

(29 July 2003)

Subject: Extra income for members of the European Court of Justice

Members of the European Court of Justice have for years been receiving extra income by having part of
their salary transferred not to bank accounts in their place of employment, Luxembourg, but to accounts
in other EU countries, with weightings being applied to the amounts transferred. In the 2003 budgetary

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/111

procedure the Council deleted remarks from the Preliminary Draft Budget of the European Court of Justice
(budgetary item A-1090) which provided for this weighting to apply to Members of the Court of Justice
‘by analogy to the Staff Regulations of officials of the European Communities’.

1. Will the Council say why did it delete these remarks from the Budget of the Court of Justice?

2.
How does it view the fact that, according to the Commission (see the answer to my Written
Question P-1508/03 (1)), members of the Court of Justice are still transferring their salaries in the current
financial year to benefit from the weighting? Does it endorse the continuation of this practice?

3.
How does it evaluate the statement by Vice-President Kinnock in the answer to the above Written
Question ‘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’?

Does it share Mr Kinnock’s view expressed in the answer that the remarks by the Council and

4.
Parliament on the implementation of the expenditure have no effect on the legality of the matter?

5.
Can it confirm that no provision is made for the possiblity of such transfers of salaries in application
of the weightings and that this is not mentioned anywhere in the relevant regualtions on the emoluments
of members of the institutions?

(1) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 83.

Reply

(5 December 2003)

The issue raised by the Honourable Member is currently being considered by the Council’s preparatory
bodies in order to find an appropriate solution.

(2004/C 70 E/112)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2536/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Outcome of the CAP reform compromise for Portugal

(29 July 2003)

On 25 and 26 June 2003 the Agriculture Council reached a political agreement on CAP reform.

According to the figures announced by the Portuguese Minister of Agriculture, Portugal will apparently
benefit from a rise in funding of about EUR 168 million a year, of which EUR 33 million will be accounted
for by net transfers resulting from ‘modulation’ and the remainder by the 50 000 tonne increase in the
milk quota, together with 90 000 additional production rights for beef and veal, that is to say EUR 20
million.

These figures have, however, been challenged in the media.

Can the Commission therefore say how Portugal is likely to be affected by the current CAP compromise as
regards:

(cid:1) the level of annual net transfers under the heading of modulation;

(cid:1) the difference in terms of estimated impact between the political agreement in the Council and the

initial Commission proposal as far as modulation is concerned;

(cid:1) the impact of the political agreement in the Council on the beef and veal sector in Portugal, bearing in
mind that there has been no take-up whatsoever of the earlier programme to convert arable land into
livestock units?