WRITTEN QUESTION E-3326/03 by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission. Emoluments of Commissioners.
Date: 2003-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, President of the Commission, member of the Court of Auditors (EU), member of the Court of Justice (EU), remuneration of work

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/521

The voluminous nature of the allegations meant that neither the Commissioner nor members of his
cabinet were in a position to determine whether the matters identified in the dossier constituted or
amounted to irregularities. This issue could, rightly, only be properly determined by the investigative
bodies to whom the file was referred in accordance with established and relevant procedures and analysis
was correctly left to them.

As has been reported to Parliament, on the basis of preliminary drafts submitted by Mr Van Buitenen,
OLAF and DG ADMIN conducted an initial review of the material supplied by Mr Van Buitenen in order
to determine which of the allegations that he made fell within OLAF’s competence, as set out in Article 1(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning
investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (1), and were therefore for OLAF to investigate.
The Honourable Member will know from previous answers that the material in the dossier relating to
Eurostat was considered to fall wholly within OLAF’s remit, particularly since OLAF was already
conducting investigations into the issues raised.

The information provided by Mr Van Buitenen in relation to Eurostat was, therefore, from the outset,
assessed by the competent analysts to be within OLAF’s remit and for OLAF, rather than for DG ADMIN
or Mr Kinnock, to investigate further. The OLAF investigating magistrates’ summary assessment of the
elements of the file attributed to OLAF was sent to the Commission’s Director General for Administration
and to the President of Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 15 February 2002.

In relation to Eurostat, OLAF concluded at that moment, that the information received did not justify
opening new investigations. However, the information supplied by Mr Van Buitenen on Eurostat was
transferred to the active files.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0542)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3326/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Emoluments of Commissioners

Further to the Commission’s answer to question E-2235/99 (1), will the Commission provide an update of
all the figures previously requested, giving the most recent figures available?

(1) OJ C 280 E, 3.10.2000, p. 19.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 January 2004)

Pursuant to previous Parliamentary answers:

(cid:1) The basic salary to which Commissioners, the President and Vice-President are entitled on a monthly
basis (twelve times a year) is EUR 17 341 (calculated as 112,5 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6)
for the Commissioners, EUR 19 268 (calculated as 125 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6 official)
for the Vice-Presidents and EUR 21 272 (calculated as 138 % of the basic salary of a grade A1/6
official) for the President. These sums are, of course, subject to the taxes and deductions payable by
officials of the European Communities.

(cid:1) The family allowances to which Commissioners, the President and the Vice-Presidents are entitled (cid:1) if
qualified (cid:1) on a monthly basis consist of a household allowance of 5 % of basic salary (if there is a
dependent spouse), a children’s’ allowance of EUR 237,38 per dependent child, and education
allowances which vary according to the child’s age and stage of academic development (36 %, 50 % or
100 % of EUR 212,14 respectively for primary, secondary and university education).

C 78 E/522

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(cid:1) A residence allowance is paid on the same basis as expatriate officials and is equal to 15 % of the basic

salary for non-Belgian Commissioners.

(cid:1) There is a monthly representation allowance, currently EUR 607,71 for Commissioners, EUR 911,38
reasons of
for Vice-Presidents, and EUR 1 418,07 for the President. Expenditure incurred for
representation is reimbursed after presentation of the relevant invoice and reason, and is subject to
the stipulated maximum in any month. Reimbursement is limited annually to EUR 11 489 for most
Members of
relations
responsibility, the annual ceiling is EUR 17 234 and for the President it is EUR 28 723.

the Vice-Presidents and Members with external

the Commission. For

(cid:1) When first taking up duty, a Member of the Commission (unless he or she is a Belgian citizen) is
entitled to an allowance to cover his or her installation expenses, equivalent to two months’ basic
gross salary (i.e. currently EUR 34 682 for a Commissioner), reimbursement for travel expenses for
himself or herself and dependent family, and reimbursement of the cost of moving personal effects
(insurance included).

(cid:1) Similar arrangements exist under the relevant legal provisions for Presidents and Members of the

Court of Justice and the Court of Auditors.

(2004/C 78 E/0543)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3328/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2003)

Subject: Wilful neglect,

to the point of destruction, of
Sandbostel’, an important memorial to the shared history of Europe

the former prison camp ‘Stammlager X B

Is the Commission aware that during the Second World War more than a million people from 46
1.
countries (including the United Kingdom, Belgium, France, Greece, Serbia, Poland, Italy, Russia, Ukraine
and the Netherlands) were at one time or another detained as prisoners of war by the Hitler regime in the
camp ‘Stammlager X B Sandbostel’ near Bremervörde between the Rivers Weser and Elbe in the German
Land of Lower Saxony and that 50 000 of them died there during their imprisonment on account of
hunger, disease or mistreatment?

2.
Is the Commission also aware that in the late 1940s the same camp was used to imprison camp
guards and SS personnel and that from the 1950s it housed refugees from the GDR, but that since 1974 it
has formed part of Immenhain business park and has passed into private ownership without any form of
protection by the Land, Landkreis or commune?

Is the Commission aware that over a period of many years all memory of the camp has been
3.
systematically destroyed by neglecting it, so that the buildings are falling down, by making it impossible
for survivors or any other visitors to view the camp, by banning TV cameras from the site, by shouting at
visitors that
the past, and by opposing the ‘Dokumentations- und Gedenkstätte
Sandbostel’ association, which was set up in 1992 and seeks to preserve the camp as a memorial?

they should forget

4.
In view of the common history of the peoples of Europe and their shared suffering under violence
and dictatorship, will the Commission, even irrespective of its formal powers and responsibilities, take
steps to maximise the scope for preserving this former prison and concentration camp as a memorial and
making it accessible as such, and will it, on this basis, contact the authorities responsible for land-use
planning, education and monuments in Sandbostel?

Source: TV Nederland 1, Netwerk, 19 October 2003.