WRITTEN QUESTION P-3999/03 by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Internal control standard 5 — Sensitive functions: Modalities relating to the implementation of compulsory mobility.
Date: 2003-12-19
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, action by staff, equal treatment, personnel administration, professional career, reassignment

C 84 E/516

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

(2004/C 84 E/0593)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3999/03

by Alejo Vidal-Quadras Roca (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(19 December 2003)

Subject: Internal control standard 5 (cid:1) ‘Sensitive functions’: Modalities relating to the implementation of

compulsory mobility

According to the note of 8 May 2003 from the European Commission’s Secretary-General, Director-
General
for the Budget, which followed the
guidelines set out in the Commission Communication from Mrs Schreyer and Vice-President Kinnock (1),
mobility for persons in ‘sensitive’ posts will enter into effect as from 1 January 2006.

for Personnel and Administration and Director-General

If the aim of this measure is to prevent ‘clientelisation’ as well as offering a change of post, it must be
ensured that the transferee does not, in his new position (if this is also sensitive), deal with companies,
private individuals or organisations with whom he has had working relations in his previous position.
Since clientelism has its basis in personal preference relationships and is not limited to specific professional
fields, will this be taken into account?

If the persons concerned have preference in appointments to new posts, this status could impact on the
career of other officials who not only have been planning a change in career for longer but also have
priority in terms of qualifications, merit, knowledge and experience and have chosen the same post. Would
this not be a form of discrimination that could be contested before the European Court of Justice?

What are the arguments leading to the belief that the unproven efficacy of this measure can offset the
proven loss that arises whenever anyone with specialised experience relinquishes their duties?

this measure affect

Will
those officials who, despite not being responsible for payments, are still
responsible for providing payment authorising officers with advice and assessments as regards the
awarding of contracts and grants? If the objective is to prevent fraud, why is the same measure not
envisaged for those posts where forms of internal preferential treatment can be granted (promotions,
competitions) from which profit can also be derived?

Has the possibility of two officials alternating between the same two posts with fraudulent intent been
taken into account?

(1) SEC(2000) 2203.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2004)

The Commission welcomes the interest of the Honourable Member regarding implementation of Internal
Control Standard No 5 on sensitive posts.

The note of 8 May 2003 from the Commission’s Secretary-General, Director-General for Personnel and
Administration and Director-General for the Budget, was clarified and complemented by a note from the
Secretariat-General of 30 September 2003. That note confirms that mobility should be applied by
31 December 2003 for persons who have occupied an inherently sensitive post (1) for more than seven
years, and that the rule of mobility will be applied every five years to all sensitive posts from 31 December
2004. The note also emphasises that mobility may be implemented by transferring the sensitive function
to another post when the function in question concerns only a small part of the jobholder’s tasks.

All Services were required to identify and draw up an inventory of all sensitive posts by 31 December
2003. Above and beyond the inherently sensitive posts, the categorising of a post as ‘sensitive’ takes a
number of criteria into account that allow for the associated risks (such as ‘clientelism’ or the alternating of
officials between the same two posts) to be assessed. Mitigating control measures are also defined.
The capacity to influence or to take decisions,
for example in the area of recruitment and staff
management, is considered to be a condition which presents potential risks that could contribute to the
sensitivity of a post or function.

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/517

The Commission initiative aims to avoid situations such as those that could arise where a person is dealing
with the same procedures and interlocutors for a long time without appropriate mitigating control
measures. Mobility does not mean that the expertise and knowledge are lost to the Institution. On the
contrary, it means that the professional backgrounds of the persons concerned are broadened and can also
benefit other Departments. Moreover,
Internal Control Standard No 19 on ‘continuity of operations’
specifies that, in the case of officials who hand over their work to another official, a written handover file
must be established.

In accordance with the rules in place, persons who have to move from a sensitive post do not enjoy any
privilege or preferential treatment when they apply for another post. Their appointment to the new post is
determined by the appropriateness of their expertise, profile and level of responsibility. Of course, those
persons who encounter difficulties in finding another post can benefit from the career guidance support
developed within the Commission through Reform.

The first wave of compulsory mobility for sensitive posts is currently underway. The exercise is being
conducted within a framework which ensures the proper implementation of Internal Control Standard No 5
with minimum disruption to the Services, and it takes into account the needs of the individual staff
members concerned.

(1) The inherently sensitive posts are defined as those relating to financial management and the so-called AIPN

(appointing authority) and AHCC (authority empowered to conclude contracts of employment).

(2004/C 84 E/0594)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-4043/03

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Total allowable catch (TAC) and quotas for 2004

(12 January 2004)

The Commission’s proposal concerning the TAC and quota arrangements for 2004, based on the opinions
of the ICES, entails significant reductions in the TAC and quota levels for 2004 and introduces a
temporary system for management of the fishing effort. These proposals would involve a reduced number
of fishing days in the period February-December 2004 (51 days less), as well as substantial cuts in TAC
and quota levels for such species as monkfish, Norway lobster and hake, which, should they be
implemented, would have a considerable adverse socio-economic impact on the fisheries sector and the
regions that depend on it. Sustainable stocks are crucial to the preservation of fishing activity, and the
fishermen themselves are those most concerned by the need to preserve fish stocks. This is demonstrated
by,
the measures voluntarily taken by Portuguese fishermen on sardine seine fishing.
Nonetheless, the Commission’s apparent concern for the sustainability of the Portuguese stocks lacks
credibility in the light of its recent promotion of free access for the Spanish fleet to Portuguese waters and
the consequent increased fishing effort.

for instance,

Can the Commission state whether it has taken due account of
the
Portuguese fisheries sector? What measures will it take to offset the socio-economic impact of its proposal?
If the state of stocks is so critical, can the Commission explain why it is not putting forward recuperation
plans, which would include the necessary socio-economic compensation from the Community budget, and,
in particular, the creation of a financial mechanism to compensate income losses for the fishermen and
other fisheries sector workers affected?

the specific characteristics of

Can the Commission state which fishermen’s and vessel owners’ organisations it heard before presenting its
proposal, and to what degree those organisations were involved? What measures will it take to ensure that
fishermen and vessel owners are genuinely involved in the decision-making process under the CFP?

What measures will the Commission take to enhance the reliability and credibility of the relevant scientific
studies, notably among scientists and fishermen? Does it not consider that a more useful measure would be
to undertake a real decentralisation of the CFP in the area of resource management? What measures is it
taking on the other factors which affect fish stocks, such as pollution, maritime transport, etc?