Go back to the Europarl portal

Choisissez la langue de votre document :

  • bg - български
  • es - español
  • cs - čeština
  • da - dansk
  • de - Deutsch
  • et - eesti keel
  • el - ελληνικά
  • en - English (Selected)
  • fr - français
  • ga - Gaeilge
  • hr - hrvatski
  • it - italiano
  • lv - latviešu valoda
  • lt - lietuvių kalba
  • hu - magyar
  • mt - Malti
  • nl - Nederlands
  • pl - polski
  • pt - português
  • ro - română
  • sk - slovenčina
  • sl - slovenščina
  • fi - suomi
  • sv - svenska
Parliamentary questions
PDF 104kWORD 25k
13 March 2014
Question for written answer E-002960-14
to the Commission
Rule 117
Amelia Andersdotter (Verts/ALE)

 Subject:  Staff representative contract mismanagement
 Answer in writing 

Article 149a of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (as amended by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 478/2007) and the almost identical Article 162 of Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 state: ‘Implementation of a contract may not start before the contract is signed.’ Paragraph 26 of the General Court Case T‐498/09 P-DEP seems to indicate that at least in one case the Legal Service of the Commission has violated this principle by signing a contract with an external lawyer only after the latter had already finished providing remunerated services requested by the Commission in representing it in a staff case. The Court did not find the delayed signing to be relevant for this specific case. The following questions aim to find out what follow-up action was taken by the Commission and whether there is a systematic problem.

1. Would the Commission classify the behaviour as described in paragraph 26 of Case T-498/09 P-DEP as a breach of the abovementioned laws?

2. Has this case led to actions or investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office, the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission or other Commission bodies? If so, what was the outcome of these actions in relation to:
(a) the responsible acting officials?
(b) the external partner of the concerned contract (external lawyer)?
(c) follow-up measures to avoid and deal with similar situations in the future?

3. Was the situation described in Case T-498/09 P-DEP a one-off event or is the Commission aware of other similar cases and/or circumstances?

 OJ C 333, 24/09/2014
Legal notice - Privacy policy