WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/04 by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Irregularities in competitions organised by the Commission.
Date: 2004-04-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Portugal, competition (EU), discrimination on the basis of nationality, equal treatment

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/933

It is therefore possible to strike a balance between the fair and necessary remuneration of those who create
products and the widest possible access to culture and knowledge via public lending. This point was
reiterated by the Internal Market Commissioner on 16 September 2002 (2) when the report on the
application of the public lending right in the Member States was published. (3):

The challenge is to … maintain good public access to cultural products while making sure that those
who create them get equitable remuneration which allows them to keep on working and giving us
pleasure.

In order to attain this balance and ensure that the directive is properly applied, the Commission has indeed
instituted infringement proceedings under Article 226 of the EC Treaty against Member States which have
not (cid:1) or have incorrectly (cid:1) transposed Articles 1 and 5 of Directive 92/100/EEC (and which have, for
example, exempted all categories of public lending establishments from the lending right (4)), as this is
is the
clearly damaging to the smooth operation of
responsibility of the Commission, as guardian of the Treaties, to ensure that primary and secondary
Community legislation is applied fully and correctly in all Member States.

the single market and to its rightholders.

It

In addition, the Commission would like to point out that it is not responsible for laying down or deciding
upon the system set up at national level to ensure that the aforementioned directive is transposed. This
responsibility lies with the Member States, which do, moreover, have a wide margin of flexibility in
implementing the public lending right (5).

The Commission is, however, required to ensure that
Community legislation, is applied effectively in all Member States.

the public lending right, as harmonised by

(1) See point No 3.3 of

the Commission Communication on the public lending right

in the European

Union, COM(2002) 502 final.
(2) See press release IP/02/1303.
(3) Above-mentioned Communication, see footnote No 1.
(4) See press release IP/04/60 of 16.1.2004.
(5) See Article 5 of Directive 92/100/EEC and points 3.3 and 3.4 of the Communication COM(2002) 502 final.

(2004/C 84 E/1031)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1034/04

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(5 April 2004)

Subject: Irregularities in competitions organised by the Commission

There have been complaints regarding the way in which competitions organised by the Commission have
been conducted to the detriment of Portuguese candidates. One recent case involves the competition
published in Official Journal (1), in which the Portuguese lawyer José Manuel Barbosa Gonçalves of Viana
do Castelo was a candidate. He has already submitted a complaint to the Court of First Instance of the
European Communities. It seems that the selection board made serious mistakes, as regards the list of final
answers, some of which were withdrawn because the questions had been withdrawn, and the deadline for
appeals, as well as inaccuracies, contradictions and translation errors and obvious mistakes in the notice of
competition.

We cannot run the risk of having a preponderance of candidates of a few select nationalities in the
European institutions protected by means of dubious criteria.

Can the Commission therefore say what steps have been taken to ensure that all candidates benefit from
the same conditions of impartiality and independence, ensuring that their competence is assessed on the
basis of objective criteria?

(1) OJ C 110 A,11.4.2001.

C 84 E/934

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(30 April 2004)

The Commission refers the Honourable Member to the opinion of the Court of First Instance of 25 March
2004 on the case brought by the candidate. The Court rejected all claims by Mr Barbosa. Therefore, there
can be no question of the kind of irregularities imputed to the Commission. A copy of this Judgement is
sent directly to the Honourable Member.

The Commission can also confirm that, in keeping with established arrangements, all possible measures
have been taken to ensure the equality of treatment of all candidates who participated in the pre-selection
tests and written exams of the competition referred to in the Honourable Member’s question.

As is the case for all competitions, an independent Selection Board was appointed in this case in order to
prepare and mark the different exam papers. This Board comprised a capable team of experienced
Commission officials, covering a broad range of Community languages and working in the two fields
covered by the notice of competition. The questions were carefully checked before they were sent to the
Translation Service of the Commission. All exam papers (cid:1) the optical reader forms on which the
candidates marked their replies to the pre-selection tests as well as the written exams (cid:1) remained
anonymous throughout the marking process. Each written exam was marked by two markers working
independently. If necessary, third markings took place before the Selection Board decided on the final
mark.

In response to the assertion about a ‘preponderance of staff members from some nationalities’, in relation
to this specific case, the Commission emphasises that the competition comprised two different fields
(external relations (cid:1) field 1 (cid:1) and management of aid to non-member countries’ (cid:1) field 2), each resulting
in separate reserve lists. The list for the first working field was relatively short and comprised 80 successful
candidates. This list indicated a substantial (cid:1) though far from preponderant (cid:1) representation of citizens of
one Member State, whereas the list
the second field, comprising 250 successful candidates,
demonstrated a more even spread by nationality. The administrative procedures used, through their rigour
and transparency, ensured that all candidates benefited from the same conditions of impartiality and
independence. In view of the above, the Commission therefore considers that equality of treatment has
been ensured throughout the whole process.

for

In response to the Honourable Member’s more general comment about the protection of a preponderance
of candidates from particular nationalities, the Commission would reiterate its obligation and the law and
its policy commitment to maintaining geographical balance across the Institutions combined with the
rigorous procedures to guarantee merit applied in all cases.

(2004/C 84 E/1032)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1041/04

by W.G. van Velzen (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 March 2004)

Subject: Number portability in connection with mobile telephony

Can the Commission give details of the EU Member States and accession countries in which number

1.
portability in connection with mobile telephony had not been introduced by 1 March 2004?

2.
Can the Commission give details of the extent to which telecommunications operators in the
Member States impose conditions on customers who wish to change operators but keep their numbers,
such as long waiting periods and the charging of costs?

3.
Number portability was supposed to have been introduced in the Member States by mid-2002. What
measures does the Commission plan to take against those Member States which have failed to meet this
deadline with a view to forcing them to implement number portability in the near future?