REPORT on the proposal for a Council regulation introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, special temporary measures for recruitment of officials of the European Communities
(COM(2003) 351 – C5-0287/2003 – 2003/0123(CNS))

5 November 2003 - *

Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market
Rapporteur: Manuel Medina Ortega

PROCEDURAL PAGE

By letter of 24 June 2003 the Council consulted Parliament, pursuant to Article 283 of the EC Treaty, on the proposal for a Council regulation introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, special temporary measures for recruitment of officials of the European Communities (COM(2003) 351 – 2003/0123(CNS)).

At the sitting of 30 June 2003 the President of Parliament announced that he had referred the proposal to the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market as the committee responsible (C5-0287/2003).

The committee appointed Manuel Medina Ortega rapporteur at its meeting of 7 July 2003.

It considered the Commission proposal and draft report at its meetings of 1 October and 4 November 2003.

At the last meeting it adopted the draft legislative resolution unanimously.

The following were present for the vote: Giuseppe Gargani (chairman),Willi Rothley (vice-chairman), Ioannis Koukiadis (vice-chairman), Manuel Medina Ortega (rapporteur), Maria Luisa Bergaz Conesa (for Michel J.M. Dary pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Bert Doorn, Janelly Fourtou, Marie-Françoise Garaud, Malcolm Harbour, Hans Karlsson (for Evelyne Gebhardt), Carlos Lage (for Maria Berger pursuant to Rule 153(2)), Kurt Lechner, Klaus-Heiner Lehne, Sir Neil MacCormick, Marcelino Oreja Arburúa (for Marianne L.P. Thyssen), Barbara O'Toole (for Fiorella Ghilardotti), Fernando Pérez Royo (for Bill Miller pursuant to Rule153(2)), Imelda Mary Read (for Arlene McCarthy) and Diana Wallis.

The report was tabled on 5 November 2003.

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a Council regulation introducing, on the occasion of the accession of Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia, special temporary measures for recruitment of officials of the European Communities

(COM(2003) 351 – C5-0287/2003 – 2003/0123(CNS))

(Consultation procedure)

The European Parliament,

–   having regard to the Commission proposal to the Council (COM(2003) 351)[1],

–   having regard to Article 283 of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Council consulted Parliament (C5-0287/2003),

–   having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

–   having regard to the report of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (A5-0382/2003),

1.   Approves the Commission proposal;

2.   Calls on the Council to notify Parliament if it intends to depart from the text approved by Parliament;

3.   Asks the Council to consult Parliament again if it intends to amend the Commission proposal substantially;

4.   Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

• [1] OJ C ... / Not yet published in OJ..

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

The purpose of the regulation with which this report deals is to introduce a set of measures, including derogations from the Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, for the European Union's forthcoming enlargement. Given the complexity of this enlargement the derogations to the Staff Regulations are to last until 2010.

As in the previous enlargements of the Community involving Spain and Portugal, and Austria, Finland and Sweden, this regulation lays down the possibility for competitions to be organised which are restricted to nationals of the current Member States or to nationals of the new Member States.

To sum up, the draft regulation will enable the institutions to organise competitions restricted to the new Member States or to the current ones.

The transition period is a little longer than for the previous enlargement (seven years instead of five), but this longer period is justified by experiences with the last enlargement, which showed that five years was not long enough.

The regulation should therefore be approved without amendment.