WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3391/98 by Nikitas KAKLAMANIS to the Commission. CEDEFOP
21. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 207/63 (1999/C 207/079) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3391/98 by Nikitas Kaklamanis (UPE) to the Commission (17 November 1998) Subject: Cedefop In his answer of 19. 10. 1998 to my Question E-2549/98 (1) Commissioner Liikanen stated that, as far as Cedefop personnel policy was concerned, ‘the Commission exercises controls only insofar as it is represented on the governing board of the Centre. ’ To this he added the interesting rider that ‘in the sphere of personnel management, relations between the Commission and (outside) bodies are more informal’. Despite this the Commission promotes funding requests by the decentralised bodies (including Cedefop, of course) before the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets and argues in favour of supporting them. It is therefore curious that the highly sensitive ‘function’ (as Commissioner Liikanen himself states in his answer) of appointing personnel ‘has been delegated to the Director of the Centre for all categories and grades of staff’, as the Commissioner adds. The delegation of wholesale responsibility in this area to the Director of the Centre is incompatible with Mr Liikanen’s admission that Cedefop has not brought its practices into line with those of the institutions of the Union as regards the implementation of the ‘Staff Regulations of officials of the EC and the conditions of employment of other servants’: for this reason advice is being given to the above Centre to help it come into line. The whole matter is highly sensitive and has been repeatedly discussed in the Greek press. One thing is certain: the recruitment practices of the Centre show no sign of coming into line with those of the other Community institutions. Will the Commission say whether it has considered the full ramifications of the problem of Cedefop recruitment, what conclusions it has reached concerning the allegations made by the press about machinations involving recruitment, and how it intends to react to ensure that transparent and unimpeachable staff recruitment procedures are adopted at the Centre, which will serve to protect both the Centre itself and the reputation of Thessaloniki, the host City? (1) OJ C 118, 29. 4. 1999, p. 92. Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (22 January 1999) The Commission has nothing to add to its previous answer to Written Question E-2549/98 (1) asked by the Honourable Member. (1) OJ C 118, 29. 4. 1999, p. 92. (1999/C 207/080) WRITTEN QUESTION P-3401/98 by Carmen Fraga Estévez (PPE) to the Commission (9 November 1998) Subject: Justification for the minimum landing size for swordfish in the Mediterranean Annex IV of Council Regulation 1626/94 (1) sets the minimum landing size for swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Mediterranean at 120 cm. This size corresponds with the ICCAT recommendation for the Atlantic. However, the ICCAT has made no recommendations regarding minimum landing sizes for swordfish in the Mediterranean and there is a great body of opinion within scientific circles, which is backed up the experiences of the fisheries sector, that this minimum size is excessive for the Mediterranean. In fact, it is proven that the Mediterranean swordfish stock is completely different to that in the Atlantic. This difference is reflected inter alia in the fact that the Mediterranean swordfish constitutes a stock of smaller fish reaching sexual maturity at a much earlier age. For this reason and with a view to maintaining the coherence of stock management measures in the Mediterranean on the one hand and not to unnecessarily jeopardise the activities of the fisheries sector on the other hand, can the Commission explain the reasons and the biological data which led to the establishment of a minimum landing size of 120 cm for swordfish in the Mediterranean? (1) OJ L 171, 6. 7. 1994, p. 1