WRITTEN QUESTION E-3311/03 by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission. Rotation principle in Directorates-General.
Date: 2003-11-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, image, personnel administration, reassignment

C 84 E/732

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(11 December 2003)

The Commission is carefully monitoring the political transition process in Guinea-Bissau, further to the
reference to the EU Presidency declaration
military coup of 14 September 2003, with particular
condemning this coup.

In the Framework of the Cotonou Agreement, the Commission is currently exploring the possibilities to
positively influence developments in Guinea-Bissau.

(2004/C 84 E/0824)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3142/03

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

Subject: Career movements of Directors-General

(17 October 2003)

Could the Commission submit to the Parliament a full analysis of all career movements of Directors-
General since 1999 including a full list of all people who have held that office for any part of that period,
details about when they first became a Director-General, any subsequent positions in the institutions they
have held, any reasons for excluding someone from the mobility policy, their ages and their anticipated
retirement date?

(2004/C 84 E/0825)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3311/03

by Philip Claeys (NI) to the Commission

(10 November 2003)

Subject: Rotation principle in Directorates-General

The Commission operates a system whereby senior officials are moved from one Directorate-General to
another after a certain period (around five years). This is based on the (in my view correct) assumption that
a certain form of mobility among officials is desirable, and that the rotation principle reduces the risk of
irregularities.

However, it has emerged from the recent publicity concerning the problems at Eurostat that the Director-
General there was no longer subject to the mobility requirement because he was approaching retirement
and it was no longer felt appropriate to move him.

How many officials are currently exempt from the mobility requirement?

Apart from impending retirement, are there other grounds for waiving this requirement? What are they?

In view of the Eurostat affair, will the Commission in future cease to exempt officials from the mobility
requirement?

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-3142/03 and E-3311/03
given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(23 January 2004)

Upon coming into office in September 1999, this Commission established guidelines for the appointment
of its senior officials. Under those provisions, Directors-General are subject to mobility after five years and
would not normally stay in a post for longer than seven years. The detailed provisions on selection and
appointment of Directors-General are available to Parliament and have been published for all staff in the
Administrative Guide.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/733

From the list of career movements of Directors-General since 1999 which is sent direct to the Honourable
Member and to Parliament’s Secretariat, the Honourable Member will see that no current Director-General
has been in his or her current post for more than five years.

In September 1999, eight Directors-General had been in their posts for more than seven years and four for
more than five years. Of that total of 12, two moved posts or left the Institution in 1999, four in 2000,
two in 2001, two in 2002 and two in 2003. The mobility provisions were not implemented in the case of
the Director General for Eurostat initially because of his central role in the period running up to and
following the introduction of the Euro and, subsequently, because of his impending early retirement. The
procedure for his replacement was initiated by publication of his post on 9 January 2003 as part of a
wider mobility schedule relating to several DGs which was prepared in 2002.

The Commission recognises the practical need to take due account of the interests of the Service when
deciding on the timing of mobility moves and a limited period remaining before retirement can be one of
the factors taken into consideration.

No officials are exempt from the mobility requirement and the Commission does not intend to introduce
such exemptions or to change the current guidelines.

It is, of course, not possible to anticipate retirement dates of personnel with precision because some
officials choose not to continue in employment until the age of 65 when it is compulsory.

The legal advice tendered to me is that systematic provision of information on the ages of named Directors
General would breach the personal data protection provisions of Regulation 45/2001/EC and, specifically,
Article 6 of that Statute.

The Commission can, however, inform the Honourable Member that of the 31 existing Directors General,
one is 46, one is 48, two are 49, one is 50, three are 53, two are 54, one is 55, six are 56, one is 57, five
are 58, three are 60, one is 61, two are 62, and two are 64.

(2004/C 84 E/0826)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3154/03

by Michael Cashman (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Mobile telephone safety

Given the findings of recent studies which show that the new generation of mobile telephones can
interfere with many types of heart pacemaker, can the Commission detail what measures are being taken
to prevent harm to the health of EU citizens?

It would seem that newer pacemakers that are fitted with a ceramic filter are immune. Can the
Commission confirm that steps are being taken to introduce these models across the industry and to
ensure that the public are aware of the risks of using the old models?

Can the Commission also detail what information it has provided regarding the safety of using mobile
telephones in conjunction with a pacemaker since 1994?

Supplementary answer
given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

The Commission is not aware of the studies to which the Honourable Member is referring. Similarly, the
Commission is not aware that under the vigilance systems in place with regard to medical devices,
incidents have occurred.