Pełne sprawozdanie z obrad

Środa, 11 grudnia 2013 r. - Strasburg

10. Trybunał administracyjny europejskiego mechanizmu stabilności: zaproszenie do zgłaszania kandydatur (debata)

  Elnök. − A következő pont a Tanács és a Bizottság nyilatkozata az Európai Stabilitási Mechanizmus közigazgatási bíróságával kapcsolatos pályázati felhívásról (2013/2984(RSP)).

  Vytautas Leškevičius, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, honourable Members, Commissioner, the European Stability Mechanism is an international financial institution, established through intergovernmental treaty. While the signatories of the Treaty establishing the ESM are 17 – and will soon be 18 – Member States of the European Union, the ESM is a separate intergovernmental institution and is not part of the Union’s legal framework.

It follows that the Council is not competent to discuss matters relating to the set-up of the ESM, and it has certainly not discussed the issue of the establishment of an administrative tribunal for the ESM – the so-called ESMAT. Furthermore, since Lithuania is not a member of the ESM, I am not even qualified to address this issue from the perspective of an ESM member. The ESM itself would be much better placed to answer your questions.

I can simply state that my understanding is that Article 33 of the Treaty Establishing the ESM, which includes an obligation on the ESM Board of Directors to lay down the conditions of employment of the Managing Director and other staff of the ESM, constitutes the basis for the establishment of the ESMAT. In addition to this provision, Article 18 of the ESM By-Laws states that ‘staff rules shall also define appropriate procedures for the consideration of complaints and grievances of individual staff members’. It is therefore the Staff Rules of the European Stability Mechanism which create the basis for the establishment of an independent tribunal.

From my comments at the outset, you will appreciate that I am not in a position to comment on the appropriateness of the establishment of this tribunal. In general, however, it is of course important from a governance perspective that ESM staff are able to address their complaints and grievances to a body which is independent from the ESM. Similar tribunals can be found at other international financial institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank and the EBRD.

I understand that the ESM has taken all necessary measures to minimise the cost-impact of the establishment of this tribunal, since members of the Tribunal will be remunerated for each tribunal meeting and will not receive any full- or part-time salary. The provision on incompatibilities does not exclude Tribunal members from any other office, except at the ESM itself. I should add that the ESMAT would have no impact whatsoever on the EU budget. As regards the ESM budget, this is entirely a matter for the ESM governing bodies.

I am sure that the ESM Board of Directors has contemplated the benefits or otherwise of the ECJ’s Civil Service Tribunal taking over the tasks of the ESMAT. ESM staff are not EU civil servants, and any decision to confer this role on the European Union Civil Service Tribunal could have an impact on the EU budget.

I cannot add to these brief comments. As I said in my opening remarks, this is not a matter for the Council. If you wish to pursue the issue further, I suggest you address directly the ESM and its governing bodies.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, I would also like to start by thanking the four Members of the European Parliament for their questions, because it shows that we all take an active interest in the establishment and development of the European Stability Mechanism. I believe that we would also agree that the ESM is a critical tool in our crisis response, a tool that has shown what kind of progress the EU is capable of and in such a short period of time. It will continue to play an important role in financial stability and in our ability to address sovereign problems should they occur. Therefore, the Commission fully supports all measures to ensure internal best practice befitting the world’s largest international financial institution.

Before turning to the specific issue in front of us today, I think it is important to underline, as the honourable Members have done in their questions, that the ESM is an independent, international financial institution outside the Treaty framework. The Commission is only an observer in the ESM Governance Framework and thus this reply is based on the knowledge and understanding of the situation from the side of the Commission.

The ESM has an employee count of approximately 100 individuals, whose flexibility should enable its structure to adapt to the situation in hand. This includes in relation to employment and in the specific case before us today: employee grievances.

The administrative tribunal under discussion is intended to allow the ESM to address staff-related matters and employee grievances in a manner befitting an international financial institution on the global stage, in a similar way to other global financial institutions such as the World Bank, IMF and EBRD as well, because they have similar administrative tribunals. The staff rules and the statute of the administrative tribunal are in fact documents already approved by the ESM Board of Directors – representatives of all shareholder Member States – and this is fully in line with the ESM government structure and the established responsibility of its governing bodies, as laid out in the implementing treaties.

Let me stop here for a moment and make a few short points of clarification. First, the administrative tribunal is to be made up of five independent members, whose role will be to pass judgment, if you will, on disputes and staff-related matters of contention. These individuals will be restricted from holding another post at the ESM, either before, during or after their tenure on the tribunal. This is clearly to avoid a conflict of interests. They are, after all, supposed to be independent.

Costs associated with their work will indeed be borne by the ESM, but these costs, including pay, will be commensurate with the cases they handle. There are no fixed costs associated with their roles and the pay will not be representative of any formal permanent position. The ESM remuneration is confidential but the fee structure will compare favourably with fees paid to judges by other public international organisations.

Lastly, I reiterate that these individuals will not be barred from holding any position; just any position with the ESM. Consequently, there is neither expectation nor intention of a significant cost related to their job and it would thus not appear to be a disproportionate or inappropriate use of the ESM’s administrative funds. I would remind you, however, that those funds do not carry an EU budgetary impact and are fully under the auspices of the ESM members.

This now brings me back to the first sub-question, as to where or why the administrative tribunal is even possible. Article 33 of the ESM Treaty allows that the Board of Directors, representing all the ESM shareholders, should lay down the conditions of employment for the managing director and all other staff. The Board subsequently adopted the staff rules that govern the ESM, staff rights, and the terms of employment, which in turn provide for the establishment of this administrative tribunal. These various documents just have to be read in conjunction in their entirety.

Third, I would like here to take a moment to point out that the ESM does indeed have the alternative alluded to by the honourable Members, namely to make use of the ECJ Civil Service Tribunal. This option is not as straightforward as it may at first seem. On the one hand, we must remember that the ESM is not an EU institution or agency and therefore has no legal, straightforward access to the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Tribunal. In order for the ESM and its staff to gain such an access an agreement would have to be agreed and established between the ESM and the European Union. This would likely take some time – the indications are approximately 18 months – as there are many actors involved and it is not something that can be done unilaterally by either the ECJ or the ESM. The Pringle case cannot in itself result in the granting of such access.

In the meantime, the ESM has to decide how to proceed. It cannot simply ignore the need for appropriate and legal measures with which to address staff grievances in a timely manner. From the point of view of the ESM, the best legal avenue at this time is, therefore, to establish an administrative tribunal so that the ESM can remain fully compliant with best practice norms. I do not believe the need for timely response in staff-related matters is something we could dispute.

I would make one last point before turning over the floor to the honourable Members. I understand that the ESM has striven to ensure a fair, equitable and appropriate response in this matter, but it remains an independent institution whose governing bodies have agreed to such internal administrative matters in full understanding of what they mean.

  Elmar Brok, im Namen der PPE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident, Herr amtierender Ratspräsident, Herr Kommissar! Ich bin ein wenig geschockt, wie abgestimmt die Erklärung von Rat und Kommission in einer Frage ist, die von Bedeutung für die Anbindung einer Gemeinschaftspolitik – der Euro ist eine Gemeinschaftspolitik – ist. Das Geschocktsein bezieht sich hierbei auf die Kommission, beim Rat kann ich es ja noch nachvollziehen.

Ich bin jetzt nach den Bemerkungen von Herrn Šefčovič doch eindeutig sicher, dass die Nutzung des EuGH möglich wäre. Das Pringle/Ireland-Urteil sagt nicht, dass das bevorzugt ist, aber es sagt, dass es möglich ist. Insofern sind wir genau an der Fragestellung, die wir haben.

Für hundert Leute ein eigenes Verwaltungsgericht einzuführen – egal welche Kostenschätzungen man macht –, ist an sich schon lächerlich. Zweitens muss man sagen: Da beim ESM für das Europäisches Parlament ja der Weg freigemacht worden ist – der Kollege Gualtieri und ich waren ja da Berichterstatter –, gehe ich davon aus, dass dies ein Bestandteil in einem Mechanismus der Europäischen Union ist, wenn auch aus rechtlichen Gründen der ESM selbständig ist, wie richtigerweise dargestellt worden ist.

Aber um das aneinander zu koppeln und nicht auseinander laufen zu lassen, wäre es doch sicherlich besser, dies in die nähere Beziehung zu den Gemeinschaftsorganen zu rücken, um auf diese Art und Weise auch über den Europäischen Gerichtshof eine Einheitlichkeit der Rechtsprechung in dieser Frage zu haben und hier nicht neue intergouvermentale Entwicklungen zu erleben.

Das sind alles Festschreibungen. Festschreibungen in eine falsche Richtung, bei denen ich mich wundere, dass das Gemeinschaftsorgan Kommission diesen Weg so bescheiden mitgeht, obwohl es ja gegen das eigene Interesse ist und Geld kosten würde.

Wenn das so billig ist gegenüber dem Haushalt des ESM, dann wäre es auch billig gegenüber dem europäischen Haushalt, wenn sich diese Richter des Europäischen Gerichtshofs von Fall zu Fall mit Streitfällen von hundert Beamten zu beschäftigen hätten. Deswegen der Hinweis auf die Nichtbelastung des europäischen Haushalts. Das scheint mir auch ein bisschen oberflächlich zu sein, wenn ich dies hier in aller Vorsicht zum Ausdruck bringen kann.

Den ESM in einem Zusammenhang, Herr Ratspräsident, mit Weltbank und anderen zu stellen, das schockiert mich auf der Rats-Seite. Also zu sagen, das ist da irgendwo in der Weite – vielleicht sollte man ihn auch in Washington ansiedeln, dann ist die praktische Nähe zur Weltbank gegeben, das wäre vielleicht ehrlicher.

Dashier ist eine Frage von mangelndem politischen Willen, von Auffassungen von Mitgliedstaaten und natürlich um der Selbständigkeit eines Organs willen, dass man das laufen lässt. Und wenn man so etwas laufen lässt, wird sich das weiter fortsetzen, und wir werden eine weitere Fragmentierung der Politik der Union und der Mitgliedstaaten der Union haben, die sich für eine Unionspolitik – der Euro ist nämlich eine Unionspolitik – ein Organ gegeben haben, das sich auf diese Weise de facto immer mehr und mehr abkapselt. Dass man das nicht zurückführen kann, meine Herren, ich muss sagen, darüber bin ich geschockt, und bei der EU-Kommission kann ich nur noch meine Traurigkeit zum Ausdruck bringen.

  Roberto Gualtieri, a nome del gruppo S&D. – Signor Presidente, onorevoli colleghi, devo dire che anch'io sono del tutto insoddisfatto delle risposte che il Consiglio e la Commissione hanno dato alla nostra interrogazione.

Certo, l'ESM è un organismo intergovernativo, lo sappiamo bene. Ma, allora, se si vuole seguire questa strada di dire che l'Unione europea non c'entra nulla con l'ESM non capisco perché il Consiglio e la Commissione siano entrati in dettagli, ci hanno spiegato perché quell'articolo, quell'altro, perché graverebbe sul bilancio dell'Unione europea, si potrebbe fare con un accordo, però ci vorrebbero 18 mesi.

Se non ha nulla a che fare, l'unica risposta logica sarebbe stata non rispondere. Siccome ha a che fare con l'Unione europea e lo sappiamo bene, perché si appoggia sulla Commissione, le decisioni che prende passano per l'Eurogruppo, è perfino inserito in un articolo del trattato che abbiamo appunto modificato, è del tutto evidente che, vorrei dire, è ridicolo dire: noi non c'entriamo nulla con l'ESM.

Quindi non si può sfuggire a una prima fondamentale questione: come mai il Tribunale amministrativo copre 50 000 persone con sette giudici e per svolgere la stessa funzione ci vogliono cinque giudici per 100 persone? Questo è un uso sensato delle risorse dei contribuenti? E chi è che esercita l'azione di vigilanza e di scrutinio sull'ESM? Il Parlamento no, perché non è dell'Unione europea. I parlamenti nazionali sono in grado di farlo?

Cos'è questo ESM? Rischia di diventare davvero un corpo fuori controllo e questo piccolo esempio, piccolo episodio – che poi non è così piccolo – in realtà è un preoccupante sintomo di una tendenza che noi, quando abbiamo fatto il parere, esattamente sulla modifica del 136, l'ESM abbiamo chiaramente detto che non era la strada che si sarebbe dovuta seguire e c'è stata anche una chiara indicazione nelle conclusioni del Consiglio europeo.

La strada è quella di una progressiva integrazione dell'ESM nel quadro giuridico e costituzionale dell'Unione europea e non di un suo allontanamento e quindi, di fronte alla possibilità che in realtà il Vicepresidente Šefčovič ha confermato di un utilizzo del Tribunale amministrativo, risulta davvero incomprensibile la scelta degli Stati membri di autorizzare questo organismo ad andare nella direzione opposta.

E risulta, lo devo dire con rammarico, davvero risibile la giustificazione espressa dal rappresentante del Consiglio secondo cui cinque giudici per 100 persone rappresentano un risparmio, invece utilizzare i sette giudici che ne coprono 50 000 avrebbe avuto un costo per il bilancio dell'Unione europea, che poi è alimentato con le stesse risorse perché se chiaramente non tutti i membri dell'Unione europea sono membri dell'ESM, tutti i membri dell'ESM sono membri dell'Unione europea.

Quindi, davvero, vorrei dirlo chiaramente: non ci siamo. Il Parlamento europeo non cesserà di svolgere una sua funzione di controllo e di scrutinio verso l'ESM e chiamerà gli Stati membri, anche attraverso una collaborazione con i parlamenti nazionali, a rispondere di una scelta politica che in realtà è un preoccupante indizio di una direzione assolutamente opposta a quella che la governance dell'eurozona dovrebbe percorrere.

  Sven Giegold, im Namen der Verts/ALE-Fraktion. – Herr Präsident! Zunächst muss ich auch meiner Verwunderung über diesen Vorgang Ausdruck verleihen: 100 Mitarbeiter, fünf Personen in einem Tribunal, um arbeitsrechtliche Fragen zu klären. Dabei haben wir einen Europäischen Gerichtshof und dort eine spezielle Einrichtung für arbeitsrechtliche Probleme. Als Antworten auf unsere Frage, warum das nötig ist, wieso das in dieser Form beim ESM aufwachsen muss, bekamen wir vom Rat die Auskunft: Wenden Sie sich doch bitte an den ESM.

Das steht aber im offenen Widerspruch zu den Zusagen, die uns der Rat gegeben hat, als der ESM in den europäischen Verträgen faktisch verankert wurde. In den Schlussfolgerungen des Rates vom 24./25. März 2011 haben Sie uns zugesagt, dass das Europäische Parlament von Rat und Kommission – Rat und Kommission! – regelmäßig über die Arbeit des ESM informiert wird. Das heißt, Sie als Rat sind nach wie vor in der Verantwortung, Sie haben damals die Verantwortung übernommen, uns hier Rede und Antwort zu stehen. Damit, dass Sie uns deshalb an den ESM zurückverweisen, nehmen Sie Ihre Verantwortung nicht wahr, die Sie damals eingegangen sind, um uns zu überzeugen, dem ESM als intergouvernementaler Einrichtung zuzustimmen.

Am 24.9.2013 hatten wir im ECON-Ausschuss Herrn Regling zu Gast. Da ging der Verschiebebahnhof weiter. Herr Regling weigerte sich, einige der Fragen präzise zu beantworten, was Auskünfte an unser Haus angeht, und verwies uns wiederum auf die Eurogruppe. Da beißt sich dann die Katze in den Schwanz.

Das bedeutet also: Ich erwarte von Ihnen eine klare Aussage als Rat dazu, wie Sie dazu stehen, dass dort eine weitere Einrichtung geschaffen wird. Und von der Kommission würde ich mir wünschen, dass Sie uns schriftlich darlegen, welche rechtlichen Prozesse, welche Entscheidungen getroffen werden müssen, um dieses Tribunal, letztlich die Funktionen dieses Tribunals, beim EuGH ansiedeln zu können. Damit wäre uns allen geholfen. Der Steuerzahler würde Geld sparen, und Europa würde nicht noch weiter in eine demokratieberuhigte Zone des Intergouvernementalismus abgleiten.

  Maroš Šefčovič, Vice-President of the Commission. − Mr President, what we have here is an institution which was established at great speed and which is also the largest international financial institution. It must therefore make absolutely sure that every step it takes is in full conformity with the law and with the best practices that govern the work of similar international financial institutions. From that point of view, I understand why the ESM decided to create this administrative tribunal. There was simply a lack of best practice and there was no body to address the issue of employees’ grievances or disputes which may arise between employees and the ESM.

At the same time, I also agree with you that, when you compare the work of the administrative tribunal and the number of employees it serves with the work of the European Court of Justice which serves not 100 but more than 50 000 EU officials, it strikes us as evident that the best possible solution would be to get the European Court of Justice to cover these 100 employees.

It might take time and, for this reason, I agree with the decision of the ESM to try to minimise costs and do it in the most cost-effective way. The fact that it does not have any negative impact on the administrative budget should be highlighted and appreciated as well.

In terms of a permanent solution, however, I think that we should suggest that the ESM start the preparatory work to see how the cases of employees’ grievances could be covered by the European Court of Justice. That, as I said, is one possibility. It would require the signature of the agreement between the ESM and the European Union and, of course, we can provide you with the details of what would be the legal requirements of such an agreement. Based on our analyses so far, it could take up to 18 months, as I said in my introductory remarks.

So it would very much depend on the decision of the members of the governing boards of the ESM – where the Commission has only observer status – if they would like to proceed in this way or not. I hope that they would see such a possibility as a reasonable one.

  Vytautas Leškevičius, President-in-Office of the Council. − Mr President, I would like to thank the honourable Members for all their comments. I can assure you that all your remarks and comments will be relayed to my ministerial colleagues.

It appears that a decision to establish the ESMAT offers some protection for the rights of ESM employees. Having appropriate labour protection is very important. At national level, labour laws are enforced by national courts. For international institutions, whether financial or otherwise, alternative arrangements are needed. The ESM has chosen to establish the ESMAT. This is a decision taken by the ESM governing bodies, but the ESM has not excluded the possibility of making a request to the European Court of Justice to make its civil service tribunal the competent tribunal. However, that again is a decision for the ESM governing bodies. I am confident that the ESM and its governing bodies took due account of all relevant factors before deciding to establish the ESMAT, but I am also absolutely sure that the ESM will be fully aware of the views expressed here by the honourable Members of this House.

As this seems to be my last appearance before this House on behalf of the Council, may I use this opportunity to thank you all for your patience, for your attention during this debate, and for your cooperation during the Lithuanian Presidency of the Council of the EU.

  Elnök. − Mi is köszönjük a litván elnökség munkáját, s ha olykor-olykor voltak kritikus hangok, általában az a vélemény a Parlamentben, hogy a litván elnökség elég aktívan vett részt a vitáinkban, amiért külön köszönetet szeretnék mondani.

A mostani vitát azzal zárom le, hogy a magam részéről nagyon remélem, hogy a következő kampányban nem fogok olyan kérdéseket kapni az emberektől, hogy most is hogy is van ez a stabilitási mechanizmus, bíróság és minden egyéb. Elég komplikált az Európai Unió szerkezete, most sikerült egy kicsit még bonyolultabbá tenni. Köszönöm a vitában való részvételt.

A vitát lezárom.

Írásbeli nyilatkozatok (149. cikk)

  Nuno Teixeira (PPE), por escrito. – O Mecanismo Europeu de Estabilidade tem assumido uma importância fundamental na resolução da crise da moeda única e reveste-se de enorme importância nos anos vindouros através da criação da União Económica e Monetária. No entanto, é necessário nomear os membros do Tribunal Administrativo, assumindo assim alguma preponderância a apresentação de candidaturas completas e de forma antecipada, por forma a serem devidamente analisadas e esclarecidas.

PRESIDE: ALEJO VIDAL-QUADRAS
Vicepresidente