You are on page 1of 2

8.5.

2003 EN Official Journal of the European Union C 110 E/31

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(16 October 2002)

On the issue of the high level Task Force, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member to
its reply to written question E-1531/02 from Mr Goebbels (1).

On the specific questions:

1. The Commission points out that the term ‘adviser ad personam’ neither refers to the functions, nor to
the posts but is a title. This title was created in the framework of the rotation exercise of the External
Relations Directorate General.
The possibility of appointing officials as advisers ad personam outside the rotation exercise has been
explicitly provided for in two Commission Decisions of 18 and 29 September 1999 concerning the
‘Reorganisation of administrative structures of the Commission’. These Decisions create a basis on
which each Appointing Authority (AIPN  Directors General) has the right and power conferred to
them under the AIPN-rules.
As recently judged by the Court of First Instance in a case concerning precisely an adviser ad
personam, the principle of equivalence of grade and post; laid down by Article 5 of the Staff
Regulations, does not prevent the Appointing Authority from entrusting to an official duties differing
from those he has previously performed and regarded by this official as a reduction of his
responsibilities (judgement of 16 April 2002 in case T-51/01, Fronia, ground 53).

2. The Commission does not concur with the interpretation of the Task Force Report made by the
Honourable Member. In fact, the Commission did not receive any formal complaint from advisers or
advisers ad personam about professional or psychological harassment, and the Commission is certainly
not forcing them to take early retirement. Once adopted, the relevant regulation will, naturally, be
evenly applied to advisers as well as to any other official.

3. The Commission set up the Task Force to evaluate the tasks performed by advisers and advisers ad
personam, to analyse problems and to make recommendations. The Task Force has asked each
Directorate General to review all existing adviser and adviser ad personam jobs and to identify a
solution which would ensure that each official is effectively posted on a function corresponding to his/
her qualifications. According to Article 5 of the Staff Regulations, this also includes principal
administrator and ‘hors-classe’ administrator posts.
Advisers may always apply for any management post vacancy, and such vacancies are now managed
in a decentralised way by individual Directors General. Directorates General are recommended,
wherever possible, to assign/integrate advisers to line-management functions in the context of the
restructuring of services.
The very few adviser functions which have been created since the Task Force report are to cater for
specific administrative situations. Adviser ad personam posts are suitable only if it is in the interest of
the service and clear responsibilities are attached to the post. That approach ensures that post holders
are given appropriate tasks.

4. Concerning the follow-up to this report, the Commission would like to refer the Honourable Member
to the reply given to the above-mentioned written question (E-1531/02 by Mr Goebbels).

(1) See page 19.

(2003/C 110 E/030) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2116/02


by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 July 2002)

Subject: New Italian laws on managing the artistic heritage

What view does the Commission take of the setting up by the Italian Government of two companies
(‘Patrimonio dello Stato S.p.A.’ and ‘Infrastrutture S.p.A.’) to manage the artworks, historic buildings and
land owned by the State and, possibly, to mortgage and even sell off part of these assets with a view to
generating funds for major public works of various kinds?
C 110 E/32 Official Journal of the European Union EN 8.5.2003

Would the Commission not agree that moves of this kind must be seen as a form of ‘creative accounting’
aimed at increasing or concealing the size of a public debt which is already extremely high in Italy, to an
extent that is incompatible with the Stability Pact criteria?

In connection with another extremely serious aspect of this matter  namely the danger that the world’s
most extraordinary historic, artistic and natural heritage might be broken up, at least in part  the Italian
President asked the Prime Minister for assurances as to its protection and for the relevant laws to be
tightened up. In his reply of 2 July 2002 the Prime Minister, Mr Berlusconi, acknowledged the basic
constitutional requirement to protect the heritage but rejected the request for further legislation to regulate
the activities of the two companies that had been set up.

Given the widespread alarm that the government’s attitude and these legislative initiatives have caused in
cultural circles, would the Commission not agree that it should ask the Italian Government for an
explanation, in the light of the provisions of Title XII of the EC Treaty (Article 151), the European
Convention on the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage and the Convention for the Protection of the
Architectural Heritage of Europe?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission


(15 October 2002)

The question refers to legislation recently adopted by the Italian parliament and setting up two institutions,
‘Patrimonio SpA’ and ‘Infrastrutture SpA’.

Under the Stability and Growth Pact, all Member States are committed ‘to adhere to the medium-term
objective of budgetary positions close to balance or in surplus’.

The budgetary position is defined in terms of the general government deficit, in accordance with Council
Regulation (EC) No 2223/96 of 25 June 1996 on the European system of national and regional accounts
in the Community (1) (also known as ‘ESA 95’) and with Council Regulation (EC) No 3605/93 of
22 November 1993 on the application of the Protocol on the excessive deficit procedure annexed to the
Treaty establishing the Community (2) (as amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 351/2002 of
25 February 2002 (3)).

Eurostat is currently scrutinising the nature of the operations to be carried out by these institutions and
will pass judgment on their treatment in the government accounts once the institutions start operating.

Article 151 (former Article 128) of the EC Treaty empowers the Community to take action to encourage
cooperation between the Member States in cultural matters. The question put by the Honourable Member
does not fall under the Community’s jurisdiction but, in line with the subsidiarity principle, is a matter
solely for the Member State in question.

Moreover, the Union is not party to the European Cultural Convention of 19 December 1954 or the
Convention for the Protection of the Architectural Heritage of Europe of 3 October 1985; thus it is not for
the Commission to look into any infringements.

(1) OJ L 310, 30.11.1996.


(2) OJ L 332, 31.12.1993.
(3) OJ L 55, 26.2.2002.

(2003/C 110 E/031) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2133/02


by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission
(17 July 2002)

Subject: Discrimination against international football referees on grounds of age

The Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) chooses referees for international football matches
from a list compiled by the International Federation of Football Associations (FIFA). Article 4 of FIFA’s
rules for international referees stipulates that referees and their assistants must not be older than 45 on
1 January of the year in which they are appointed. Article 4 also stipulates that they must pass a fitness
test and that national organisations are to give FIFA an indication of the quality of the referee or assistant
referee concerned. Irrespective of the legal aspect of the matter, the point of having an age limit is open to