WRITTEN QUESTION P-2964/03 by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Digital recording equipment.
Date: 2003-10-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: approval, codecision procedure, digital technology, motor vehicle industry, speed control, transport safety

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/197

(2004/C 78 E/0202)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2948/03

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Whistleblowing provisions

How many people have used Commissioner Kinnock’s whistleblowing provisions since they were
announced?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(2 December 2003)

The whistleblowing procedure was put in place by the Commission as part of the reform in order to
enable and encourage officials and other staff to express their concern about any malfunctioning coming
to their attention while guaranteeing whistleblowers every protection.

Article 2 of the Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 (1) requires officials and other staff to inform their
Head of Service or Director-General, or the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) or Secretariat-General
direct, of any evidence giving rise to the presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud.

The Commission decision of 4 April 2002 restates the obligation on all official or other staff to inform at
once their superiors, the Secretary-General or OLAF direct of any evidence they have suggesting some
illegal practice and also offers them the possibility of disclosing information outside the Commission or the
European Anti-fraud Office in certain well-defined circumstances.

The Commission does not collect general statistics about
the number of people having used the
whistleblowing procedure. OLAF receives information from a large number of sources which may include
whistleblowing by Community staff. However, the categories referred to in the OLAF activity report (see
http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/reports/olaf/2002.en) make the distinction between Commission,
other institutions, freephone, etc but do not make it possible to link the incoming information via an
instrument put in place by the Commission with whistleblowing.

OLAF has told the Commission, concerning the information it receives, that since 1 June 1999, 76
investigations have been opened on the basis of allegations coming from ‘Commission information
sources’.

The Commission President announced to Plenary on 18 November that the Commission’s Action Plan
following the Eurostat affair will include provisions to strengthen information flows between OLAF and
the Commission.

(1) Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to
the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities’ interests, OJ L 149,
16.6.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0203)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2964/03

by Brigitte Langenhagen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Digital recording equipment

Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2135/98 (1) stipulates that the Commission shall submit a proposal to
the Council and (in accordance with Article 251 of the EC Treaty) Parliament for an extension of the
deadlines for issuing driver cards (deadline 5 May 2004) and fitting digital recording equipment (deadline

C 78 E/198

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

5 August 2004) if type-approval has not been granted by 5 August 2003. To date no type-approval has
been issued, and in accordance with Chapter VIII of Annex 1B to Regulation (EEC) No 3821/85 (2) type-
approval cannot be expected before the first quarter of 2004 at the earliest. Nevertheless, the Commission
has not yet submitted any proposal for a codecision procedure to set new deadlines.

If the Commission does not initiate the codecision procedure and the deadlines of 5 May 2004 for issuing
cards and 5 August 2004 for fitting equipment continue to apply, there is a serious danger that the car
industry and possibly some Member States will not have sufficient time to ensure the smooth introduction
of this major new system.

for legal reasons,

Given that,
type-approval cannot be granted before the end of 2003, can the
Commission say what legal and practical steps it will take to guarantee the trouble-free introduction of
digital recording equipment simultaneously in all the Member States?

Has the Commission carried out a risk analysis of both alternatives when considering whether or not to
initiate a codecision procedure, and what was the outcome?

Does the Commission see the danger that, if the industry and authorities are set unclear or unrealistic
deadlines, the introduction of digital recording equipment is likely to be delayed for longer than it would
be if the codecision procedure was initiated?

As a matter of principle, how does the Commission view Parliament’s rights under Article 2(3) of
Regulation (EC) No 2135/98?

(1) OJ L 274, 9.10.1998, p. 1.
(2) OJ L 370, 31.12.1985, p. 8.

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

the Commission was provided by the tachograph manufacturers with new information
Recently,
concerning the state of the type approvals for the digital recording equipment. The Commission regrets
the fact that contrary to former statements issued by the industry in the beginning of this year, according
to which type approval could be expected before the end of this year, it is now stated that type approval in
the best case should be expected to be granted by April 2004. Up to now, in letters to Members of the
Parliament, Member States and other stakeholders based on statements provided previously by the
industry, the Commission has said that it would assess the situation, when the first type approvals were
expected to be granted. Now that it has become clear that there will be no type approval by the end of
2003, the Commission will have to re-assess the situation. The decision not to extend the implementation
deadlines, taken by the Commission earlier this year, was based on an analysis of the options available,
after the tachograph manufacturers had informed the Commission that
their
equipment would be delayed by a few months. On the basis of this assessment the Commission decided
not to submit a proposal for extension of the implementation deadlines. Such an extension was not
justified as it would have led to considerable delay in the overall introduction of the digital tachograph and
to an unacceptable situation from a road safety point of view.

the type approval of

The Commission is well aware both of the need to set clear and realistic implementation deadlines as well
as of the prerogatives of the Community legislator under Article 2(3) of Regulation No 2135/98 (1). The
Commission will reconsider the situation once it is clear when the first type approvals will be granted. The
Commission expects industry to accelerate their work.

(1) OJ L 274, 9.10.1998.