2017 Discharge to the Commission

WRITTEN QUESTIONS TO SECRETARY GENERALSELMAYR

Hearing on 20 November 2018Staff matter

1. Could you please provide a table of all human resources broken down by nationality, type of contract, gender and grade for the year 2017, and an overview of how these figures compare with the year 2013?

Commission's answer

Yes, please find the requested table in Annex 1. Since it contains data that may be protected under the applicable EU rules, the Commission is providing the European Parliament with this information in accordance with the provisions of Annex II, 2.1 of the Framework Agreement. The table refers to a population that includes officials, temporary staff, contract staff, special advisers, local staff and staff under national law on an active employment, in accordance with Article 35 of the Staff Regulations.

Concerning the main staff categories, since 2013 the AD population has slightly increased from 13,308 to 13,438, the AST population has been reduced from 10,462 to 8,540, while a new AST-SC category of 445 was introduced. The number of contract agents has increased since 2013, from 5,808 to 7,165. In terms of gender balance, the figures have slightly changed from 46 % of male and 54 % of female over all staff in 2013, to 45 % of male and 55 % of female in 2017.

2. How did your institution assess the impact of staff cuts throughout the years 2013-2017 on the daily workload?

Commission's answer

The Commission has monitored the implementation of the staff cuts in order to ensure continued delivery of results. This has been a challenge but proved to be possible thanks to the management measures taken. These measures consisted of an internal redeployment of resources to new priority areas and the optimisation of horizontal processes.Internal redeployment has become even more challenging in the context of the staff cuts. The Commission has been regularly (twice yearly) redeploying resources so that priority tasks were given sufficient resources. The area of migration is the prime example of successful reallocation of resources when facing immediate new needs (reinforcements of DGs HOME (+93 posts) and ECHO (+32 posts) since 2015).In addition, since the start of the Juncker Commission, the Commission has carried out a targeted analysis of synergies and efficiency gains. That analysis focuses on professional support communities (human resources, logistics, communication, ICT)

1

in view of identifying more efficient ways of working and creating additional redeployment capacity. The Commission has also identified the areas of finance and translation as subjects of potential synergies and efficiency gains.In addition, targeted reviews of particular Commission departments have taken place in 2015-16, which resulted in individual reduction targets to be reached in the mid-term and redeployment of resources to new priority areas (such as migration).The staff reduction has been part of an overall approach to increasing the Commission’s efficiency. Other elements should therefore be taken into account, notably the increased weekly working time as from 2014 (40h/week compared to 37.5h before the entry into force of the new Staff Regulations) – which to some extent mitigated the effects of reduced resources.In terms of the Commission's establishment plan structure, the reduction has affected both AST (59%) and AD (41%) function groups. Other EU institutions have cut proportionally more in the AST function group.

3. How many senior experts and senior assistants were appointed in 2017 and to which grades, and which grades did they have before the appointment? How many further promotions beyond AD 12 without managerial responsibility took place in 2017?

Commission's answer

In line with the provisions of the Staff Regulations, in 2017 the Commission has appointed 65 officials to senior expert positions (involving a promotion from AD12 to AD13) and 70 officials to senior assistant positions (involving a promotion from AST9 to AST10). Furthermore, the Commission promoted 9 AD12 officials to grade AD13 on non-management positions of adviser.

4. How senior officials, and in which functions and grades, were retired in 2017 in the interest of service according to article 50 of the staff regulations? What were the reasons, their last grade, and promotion, respectively?

Commission's answer

In 2017, no Commission officials were retired in the interest of the service according to Article 50 of the Staff Regulations.

5. Can the Commission provide a table with the END by nationality, gender and service in 2017?

Commission's answer

Yes. Please see the annexed document on Seconded National Experts in the Commission on 31 December 2017. Since it contains data that may be protected under the applicable EU rules, the Commission is providing the European Parliament with this information in accordance with the provisions of Annex II, 2.1 of the Framework

2

Agreement.

6. How many trainees worked at the EC in 2017? How many of these trainees were remunerated and what was their remuneration?

Commission's answer

1. The Commission runs two corporate traineeship schemes:

a. The “Blue Book” traineeship scheme, which is reserved to professionals who have completed the first cycle of a higher education course (university education) and obtained a full degree or its equivalent.

The Commission pays them a living allowance in the form of a basic monthly grant (€ 1159.44 in 2017, which may be increased by up to 50% when the person suffers from a disability) plus a travel allowance.

b. A scheme addressed at National Experts in Professional Training (NEPT)1, which is reserved to professionals who have a profile similar to that of Seconded National Experts.

These are "cost free seconded national experts", which means that the Commission does not pay them any grant.

Both schemes are run by sessions (two sessions a year) and have a regulated duration (between 3 and 5 months). The number of participants for each session in 2017 were:

Number of trainees 2017(1) March session October session

Blue Book traineeships 625 623

NEPTs 103 104

(1): Number of trainees when the session starts; subsequent dropouts may occur

2. Other traineeships

In addition, Directorates-General are authorised to host trainees outside the corporate schemes described above. Such hosting can occur under a formalised framework or informally.

To date, only the Joint Research Centre (JRC) has adopted a formal framework2 for traineeships. Under this framework, traineeships are not organised in sessions and can start at any time (provided it is the 1st or 16th of the month) but their duration must be between 3 and 5 months. Trainees benefit from a monthly basic allowance (aligned on

1 Currently governed by Commission Decision of 12 November 2008 C(2008)6866, Title II.2 Decision of the Director General of JRC of 17 September 2013 – Rules governing the traineeship

scheme of the JRC.

3

that of Blue Book trainees, adjusted by the applicable correction coefficient3 or half of that amount if the place of origin is less than 50 km from the relevant JRC site; the allowance may be increased by up to 50% when the person suffers from a disability) plus a travel allowance.

As these traineeships are not organised in sessions and since their duration is very volatile and subject to seasonality, the Commission gives an overview of the total number of trainees at three moments of the year.

Number of trainees 2017(1)

January 30th June 30th September 30th

JRC traineeship scheme 39 43 48Other trainees 133 218 155

(1): Number of trainees when the session starts; subsequent dropouts may occur

7. How many burn-out cases were there among the staff in your institution in 2017? Please specify by gender and category of staff.

Commission's answer

The Commission is not in possession of information regarding the number of burn-out cases, as the indication of pathology is not required on sickness absence certificates.

8. Were there any special leaves requested by members of staff in 2017 because of overworking? In this case how many were there?

Commission's answer

The special leave recorded in the time management system as leave for exceptional work amounted to 219 days in 2017.

9. What is the average overtime of the Institution’s staff in 2017 and in 2013?

Commission's answer

In 2017: 4.51 h average per person worked extra time (neither paid nor recuperated) above the weekly normal working time of 40h.

In 2013: 6.26 h average per person worked extra time (neither paid nor recuperated) above the weekly normal working time of 37.5 h.

In addition to this unpaid extra time, as provided for in Article 55 (4) of the Staff Regulations, compensated overtime under Article 56 of the Staff Regulations may be

3 EUR 1048.14 in Ispra, EUR 1159.44 in Geel, EUR 1078.28 in Karlsruhe and EUR 1252.20 in Petten.

4

granted under specific conditions. 5,241 hours have been paid in total in 2017.

10. What were the costs in 2017 respectively for away days, closed conferences or similar events for staff? How many staff members participated in the respective events? Where exactly did these events take place?

Commission's answer

As a modern, future-oriented organisation that strives for excellence, the Commission is committed to fostering team work and collaboration within and between its departments. Away days, participatory events and similar team building measures are always work-focused and designed to have a direct and positive effect on staff in the medium and longer term. They are addressed at teams at different organisational levels, often as part of larger change management processes. While such events are mostly aimed at giving staff the opportunity to discuss and reflect together on future challenges, strategies and working methods, they also improve the sense of belonging, team spirit, motivation and, ultimately, productivity.

Costs for individual events in 2017 amounted to some EUR 2.1 million. The Commission does not maintain a central record of the number of participants as these events are organised at Directorate-General, Directorate and/or Unit levels, but we estimate that over 12,000 staff were involved. The vast majority of these events were held on Commission premises while some took place at external conference venues.

5

11. To what extent has staff been involved in carrying out activities that would justify a higher function group?

Commission's answer

The tasks assigned to staff in each function group are defined in Annex I to the Staff Regulations, in the conditions of employment of other servants (CEOS) and more in detail for each position in the Job description in Sysper. While they are validated centrally by DG HR for each publication, it is however possible that some tasks allocated to a staff member are in part or for a limited time those of a higher function group. This dynamic approach is good for a healthy organisation and responds to the challenges of a corporate talent strategy based on merit.

However, the Commission is aware that a detailed screening launched for the site of Luxembourg has identified about 30 cases where the tasks executed are inconsistent on a structural basis with the function group of the staff members concerned. More specifically, it concerns a number of Contract Agents in function group I, II and III doing on a recurrent basis tasks of the higher function group. The new implementing provisions for Contract Agents adopted by the Commission at the end of 2017 provide a new mechanism4 to solve these inconsistencies, and a specific measure to solve this situation for the 30 cases will be launched soon.

12. What were the three most important actions taken by the institution in favour of equality?

Commission's answer

When the current Commission took office, President Juncker set the objective to have at least 40% women in management functions by the end of the mandate. The Commission is close to reaching this target. It has put in place a number of specific measures and has seen, as a result, a sharp increase in the number of women in management positions – currently 39%, up from 30% in 2014.

1 November 2014 1 November 2018W %W M Total W %W M Total

Directors-General 5 14% 30 35 11 28% 28 39Deputy Directors-General 3 8% 34 37 22 45% 27 49Directors 75 32% 161 236 80 38% 140 220Total Senior Managers 83 27% 225 308 113 37% 195 308Middle Managers 34

831% 776 1124 456 40% 687 1143

Total 431

30% 1001 1432 569 39% 882 1451

Going beyond mere compliance with the equality and anti-discrimination rules, the Commission also adopted on 19 July 2017 the first comprehensive Strategy about Diversity and Inclusion. The Strategy contains a set of new measures relevant for all

4 Article 13 of the new implementing provisions allows the Commission services to organise a specific exercise whereby contract staff 3(a) may access the immediately superior function group.

6

groups and individuals. Those 'cross-cutting measures' cover recruitment, work-life balance measures such as telework and flexible work arrangements, training for managers and staff, counselling, awareness raising. The Strategy also contains targeted measures for some groups (women, persons with a disability or with a disabled dependent, LGBTI and older staff).

In July 2018, DG HR published a Diversity and Gender Equality Report which focusses on the developments and actions taken since the adoption of the Communication in July 2017. Actions and specific initiatives that were already in place before that time are not explicitly reported upon.

The Diversity and Gender Equality Report lists a total of 28 actions which have been launched or completed:

- 14 actions were launched benefitting all staff, irrespective of their status, function group, age and gender. This includes a new campaign by EPSO in attracting a wider variety of people to the Commission, concrete measures on work-life balance, training on diversity issues and unconscious bias, and, last but not least many measures also at DG level.

- 4 specific measures have been implemented benefiting in particular female talent, with the Female Talent Development Programme as a light-house project. This programme contributes to the objective set by President Juncker to achieve at least 40% female managers.

- 5 projects have been launched to cater better and in a more co-ordinated way to the needs of colleagues with a disability or staff with disabled dependents, inter alia through setting up a central contact point.

- 5 new projects are targeted towards our LGBTI community; the setting up of a contact point for LGBTI issues was of particular importance.

14 new actions are under preparation and will be launched up to the end of the mandate of the present Commission. Those actions are listed in an Action plan which has been discussed with the relevant stakeholders.

13. What were the three most important actions taken by the institution in favour of disabled people?

Commission's answer

The Commission adopted on 19 July 2017 its first comprehensive Strategy on Diversity and Inclusion. The Strategy contains a set of new measures relevant for all groups and individuals but also targeted measures for some groups, including staff with a disability and staff with disabled dependents.

The Strategy identifies information and assistance to staff, accessibility to buildings and communication tools, measures for staff with caring responsibilities, and the review of support schemes as priority areas to create a more inclusive environment for

7

persons with disabilities.

The following measures have been taken since the adoption of the Strategy in July 2017:

- a central help and contact point for staff with disabilities has been set up, and a dedicated central portal on the Commission’s Intranet has been created. DG HR is working on clarifying the procedures for requesting and granting reasonable accommodation. Meetings with different services involved (OIB/OIL, DIGIT, Medical services) have been taking place.

- PMO organised a conference on 'Recognition of Disability by the Belgian authorities' aimed at staff and former staff with disabilities or a dependent with a disability. Representatives from the Belgian Federal authority on social security as well as a number of organisations which offer support to those with a disability were present.

- A new Centre of Excellence dealing with disability, serious illness and dependence was created in the PMO’s Unit in charge of the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme. This Centre organises monthly sessions which facilitate contacts with the Commission’s relevant services but also with the Belgian authorities on practical issues (such as parking card, reduced transport cost, access to services, etc.). The Centre of Excellence is striving to ensure a personalised and holistic service to staff, ensuring a coherent approach.

- The better accessibility to websites and communication tools is the theme of a working group between DG COMM, DIGIT and DG HR, that has been set up.

- DG HR has reviewed and simplified, together with the different services involved, the procedures whereby financial support is given to staff with disabilities or disabled dependents.

Additional actions continue to be implemented in line with the orientations defined in the Strategy on Diversity and Inclusion. Further actions may in particular be considered, if appropriate, taking into account the recommendations of the Ombudsman concerning the Joint Sickness Insurance Scheme (JSIS).

14. Flexible working arrangements:

a. What flexible working arrangements does your institution offer? b. How often are they used? Has there been a development in the frequency? c. What is the share of men and women respectively using these working

arrangements? d. To what extent does your institution encourage parents to make use of flexible

working arrangements to better combine family life with their career?

Commission's answer

A) The Main flexible working arrangements are:

8

Flexitime

Part-time (50%, 60%, 62.5%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 90% and 95% with and without salary reduction)

Parental and family leave (full or part-time)

Telework

B) Use of the various formulae:

Flexitime

o hours non recuperated per month per person in 2017 (to the benefit of the institution): 4.51h (5h in 2016)

Part-time (50%, 60%, 62.5%, 70%, 75%, 80%, 90% and 95% with and without salary reduction)

o Total number of staff who worked part-time in 2017: 2402

In general, part-time working formulas are requested to take care of children. We noticed a decreasing tendency due to telework facilities.

Parental and family leave (full or part-time)

o Parental leave in 2017: 4618

In general, parental leave is taken after maternity leave and during the summer holiday period.

o Family leave in 2017: 235

Family leave is requested to deal with specific situations linked to the serious illness of a relative.

Telework:

o 6129 (4770 in 2016) structural (regular) teleworkers and 80,424.5 days (84,000 days in 2016) of occasional teleworking approved/registered in SYSPER for 2017.

C) Share of men and women

Part-time 2017: 2032 (85%) women, 370 (15%) men

Parental leave 2017: 3326 (72%) women, 1292 (28%) men

Family leave 2017: 180 (77%) women, 55 (23%) men

D) The Health & Wellbeing Strategy and fit@work Action Plan 2017-2020 include a section on “work-life balance” to provide services and opportunities that help staff better reconcile work and private life. The aim is to enable staff (including, but not exclusively, parents in particular) to have a better work-life balance by offering a range of working arrangements that could suit their needs (see list in 14.a. above) and improving and extending the offer where necessary. It also foresees better communication of these arrangements, which has been done via MyIntracomm, the dedicated working conditions webpages, the fit@work roadshows and presentations given to individual DGs, presentations to newcomers, various training courses (e.g. telework), brochures, and regular meetings with the GECOs who then relay the relevant

9

information onto staff in the DGs.

15. Could the Commission provide the detail of the number and categories of staff (contract agents, officials, temporary external staff) working in the Secretariat General, in 2017?

Commission's answer

On 31 December 2017, the staff of the SG consisted of 802 colleagues in total: 594 officials and temporary agents, 108 contract agents, and 100 external staff, of which 19 were seconded national experts, 3 special advisers, 54 service providers, 7 interimaires and 17 trainees.

16. How many cases of whistleblowing were reported in 2017? What improvements have been made regarding procedures for whistleblowing? How many of these reports have been notified to OLAF? Could the Secretariat General provide an evaluation of the frauds reported?

Commission's answer

In 2017, OLAF has registered one case of whistleblowing coming from the Commission. The Secretariat-General has not registered any cases of whistleblowing in 2017. It should be noted that the Staff Regulations provide for many reporting channels that can be chosen by a staff member. The Commission has the necessary internal rules in place that each institution should lay down under Article 22c of the Staff Regulations. With regard to the evaluation of fraud, the OLAF Report 2017, published in May 2018, and the Commission’s “Annual Report on the Protection of the European Union’s financial interests - Fight against fraud – 2017” adopted on 3.9.2018 (COM(2018)553final) provide a comprehensive overview.

17. Were there any suicides attempted by Commission staff in 2017. Please specify by gender and category of staff. What strategies is putting the Commission in place to address these situations?

Commission's answer

The Commission is not in possession of information regarding suicide attempts.

In terms of strategies in place, the Commission offers a wide range of services in the area of psychosocial support, such as training in developing resilience, healthy living and working (Fit@Work programme), providing professional help and advice (Psychosocial support team), as well as training and raising awareness of management to the prevention of psychosocial risks.

The Commission is in the process of developing an "Integrated approach for promoting mental wellbeing at work". A policy paper is being prepared.

10

18. In addition to the basic salary, officials at the Commission receive an expatriation allowance when they are considered as an expatriate.

a. Can the Commission provide a detailed list of the expenditures related to the expatriation allowance? What costs are paid from the expatriation allowance? Are these actual costs? Please indicate who determines the level of expatriation allowance and on what basis.

b. Moreover, officials receive an education allowance for their children. Can the Commission provide a detailed list of the expenditure related to this allowance? Is this allowance adjusted to the fact that the children concerned go to a European school?

Commission's answer

A) The costs related to the expatriation and foreign residence allowances under the administrative heading of the Multiannual Financial Framework amounted to around EUR 210 million in 2017.

The expatriation allowance is set at 16% of the basic salary, the household allowance and the dependent child allowance.

The expatriation allowance is granted in accordance with the Staff Regulations, which have been adopted by the European Parliament and the Council. Its purpose is to compensate the official for additional burdens resulting from the work outside his country of origin, such as the frequent loss of income on the part of an accompanying spouse or partner, and the need to maintain close links to the home country.

It is the major means to differentiate the compensation offered to locally hired staff and those who have left their country of origin to work for the Commission.

The expatriation allowance is granted only to an extent strictly proportionate to the existence of a situation of expatriation.

B) The expenditure related to the education allowance represented around EUR 25 million in 2017.

Education-related benefits are mainly made up of a pre-school allowance and an education allowance.

The pre-school allowance is set at EUR 98.51 per month. It is generally granted for each dependent child who is less than five years old.

The education allowance is granted for each dependent child who is at least 5 years old and in regular full-time attendance at a primary or secondary school that charges fees. The education allowance is not a flat-rate payment as it is based on real costs subject to a ceiling of EUR 273.60 per month. It is paid until the child finishes or interrupts the studies. For children attending post-secondary education the allowance can be doubled under specific conditions (such as pursuing post-secondary studies in

11

a foreign country).

For dependent children attending a European School the education allowance only consists of a reimbursement of transport costs under certain conditions.

19. The SID labour union has noticed unrest amongst the Commission staff due to the Young Professionals Program, arguing it allows a back door way to an AD post for a select group without passing through the EPSO’s competitions. Can the Secretary-General guarantee that no promotions via the YPP bypass regular promotions of already established staff, and that title III of the Staff Regulations prevail over a pilot program?

Commission's answer

The Junior Professionals programme is a pilot programme in line with the Staff Regulations. It aims at retaining and developing junior talents, with a maximum of three years of professional experience, from the Commission’s own talent pool with proven outstanding performance on the job. It will have the benefit of diversifying the sources of recruitment of the European Commission and enhance the competitiveness of its employment offer vis-à-vis other recruiters who already have such programmes in place.

Its character as pilot programme aims at testing and see what works well and what can be done better.

The scope of the pilot is specific and limited - and so is the number of selected participants: 30. The Junior Professionals programme is mainly a professional development programme aiming at better integrating junior staff. In this regard, “junior” is related to the duration of professional experience, not age. It focuses on the internal pool of talents working at the Commission at the time when the call for interest was launched offering to successful candidates a two-year contract as temporary agents in function group AD, grade 5, i.e. at entry level.

Selected junior professionals will access a programme including two years of mobility, and learning and development trainings. During this time participants will develop skills needed by the organisation.

The pilot Junior Professionals programme does not create a separate career path for AD. It does not offer any guarantee of recruitment as an official to participants. Article 28 (d) of the Staff Regulations is very clear in stating that nobody can be appointed as an official without having succeeded at a competition. This applies also to the participants of this programme.

For the duration of the programme, junior professionals are engaged with a temporary agent contract. Temporary agents are not part of an annual promotion exercise and do not compete with officials for promotion quota. Therefore, they cannot bypass already established staff in their career progression or have a negative impact on the

12

promotion of officials.

20. The Commission recently introduced a ‘Junior Professionals Programme’. Blue Book Trainees (BBT), contract agents (CA FG IV) and AD category temporary agents (TA‐AD) were able to apply for 40 AD posts.

a. Please specify the dates when and where the vacancies were advertised or published and when the deadline for applications passed?

b. How many successful applicants per category (CA FG IV, TA-AD, BBT) have been chosen?

c. How many successful candidates were former cabinet staff members? d. How many successful candidates are relatives of Commission staff??  e. How many officials worked past their normal pensionable age in 2017?

Commission's answer

In June 2018, the College mandated the Directorate-General for Human Resources and Security (DG HR) to organise a pilot for the selection of 40 Junior Professionals (JPs) with the support of DG EAC, EPSO, EUSA and other DGs. The mandate specified that DG HR could engage up to 30 junior professionals as Temporary Agent level AD 5. Up to 10 posts could be filled by selected AD officials.

a. The call was published on the Commission intranet and open from 8 to 19 June 2018. It was accessible to all Commission staff. Multiple channels were used to disseminate the initiative, including an information session open to Commission staff.

b. At the end of the four stage selection process (call with eligibility criteria, preselection by Directorates-General and services, a computer-based test, a panel interview) 30 junior professionals were selected. Among them: 21 blue book trainees and 9 contract agents function group IV. 1 AD official was selected as the 31st participant to the programme, but decided to withdraw.

c. The 30 junior professionals selected were working in 22 different Directorates-General when the call for interest was launched. None of the selected was working in a Cabinet.

d. The selection for this pilot programme is entirely based on merit - any preference given to relatives would, in any event, be illegal and incompatible with the Staff Regulations.

e. Not applicable to Junior Professionals Programme. More generally, the Commission does not record in its IT systems how many officials worked past their normal pensionable age in 2017. However, on 31 December 2017, 49 officials were working beyond 65 years old, in addition to 15 other statutory staff (contract and temporary staff).

13

21. Furthermore, SID states that Contract and Temporary Agents that do the same work as officials receive less than half their basic salary.5 What is the current situation with regard to the Commission’s Contract and Temporary Agents? Will Contract and Temporary Agents become EU officials with equal salaries and allowances?

Commission's answer

Although both Temporary agents and Contract Agents are engaged based on a contract, key differences exist between the two.

Temporary agents are engaged on posts, included in the establishment plan. They can perform the same tasks as officials, with no limitations. They also share the same salary grid as officials, i.e. same salary for the same grade.

Contract agents are not engaged on posts, but based on credits. They can only perform tasks under the supervision of officials and temporary agents. Their salary grid is defined in the Conditions of Employment of Other Agents, with salaries different than those of officials. They can have contracts of indefinite duration (pm: 3a type contracts, in offices, delegations, representations, for manual work in the Commission services, etc.) or definite duration (3b contracts, all function groups but the lowest one in the Commission services)

As concerns the possibility to become Officials, being successful in a competition is the only way foreseen by the Staff Regulations. These competitions may be external or internal. External competitions are organised by EPSO on a regular basis for all function groups. Internal competitions have been organised in 2013 open to Temporary Agents and in 2016 open for the first time to Temporary Agents and Contract Agents. A new internal competition open to both Temporary Agents and Contact Agents will be launched soon.

22. The Commission’s document on the MFF includes a footnote that introduces the announcement of discussions that would lead to a reform: "In the framework of the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework in 2023, the Commission will reflect on the feasibility of the creation of a capital-based pension fund for EU staff." U4U indicated that during the various meetings with the Commissioner, the trade unions have never been informed of the Commission’s intention to have such discussions.6 U4U has asked the Commission to organise a social dialogue meeting to present the Commission’s intentions and the reasons leading to the proposed creation of a fund referred to in the European Commission’s Communication on the MFF. Please inform us about the outcome of this meeting.

Commission's answer

In accordance with Article 10c of the Staff Regulations, which excludes budgetary issues from the scope of social dialogue, the negotiations and adoption of the Multiannual Financial Framework are not subject to social dialogue with the trade

5 http://sidtu.org/v2/tiki-index.php?page=Perspectives_for_Contract_and_Temporary_Staff.6 http://u4unity.eu/w_pension.htm#capit.

14

unions and staff associations of the European Commission.

Nonetheless, during a meeting held on 20 September 2018 with the staff representation, Commissioner Oettinger addressed this point, explaining that the feasibility of creating a capital-based pension fund for EU staff ought to be envisaged as a means of ensuring the sustainability of the EU pension system.

23. What is the retirement age of Commissioners? What is the retirement age of officials at the Commission? How is this compared to the retirement age of officials, employees and MEPs at the European Parliament? If this varies, how do you explain the difference and do you intend to bring the retirement ages in line?

Commission's answer

The retirement age of EU officials, temporary and contract agents of all institutions (including the European Parliament and the Commission) is 66 years in accordance with the EU Staff Regulations. Since 2016, the Council decided to align the pensionable age of Commissioners with the one of officials; therefore it is now fixed at the age of 66. However, the pensionable age for MEPs is currently fixed at the age of 63, in accordance with the Statute for MEPs that is adopted and can only be amended by the European Parliament.

24. How many former MEPs, Commissioners or high officials (from AD 14) still receive money from the budget of your institution as advisors, contract agents or others? What are their tasks and their respective salaries?

Commission's answer

The Commission has contracts of employment with a total of 21 former MEPs, Commissioners or senior officials as unpaid Special Advisers under Articles 5, 123 and 124 of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants of the European Union. They receive no remuneration but are entitled to the reimbursement of travel expenses. In addition, one former Commissioner and one former senior official have contracts of employment as paid Special Advisers. One is paid 1/22 of a grade AD12/1 salary per day of work (for a maximum of 48 days) and the other is paid 1/22 of a grade AD16/1 salary per day of work (for a maximum of 35 days). They are also entitled to reimbursement of travel expenses. Complete information on the mandates of all the Commission’s Special Advisers is publicly available on Europa at

https://ec.europa.eu/info/about-european-commission/service-standards-and-principles/transparency/special-advisers_en#currentlistofdesignatedspecialadvisers

One former Commissioner is employed by the Commission as Director-General of the Article 50 Task Force. He has a contract as a temporary agent in grade AD16.

25. The Commission has identified an under-representation of staff in pay grades AD5-AD8, including German and French nationals. German nationals are at a mere 61%

15

of the benchmark and those of France are at 72. This deficit is likely to have an impact on the future representation of these groups in higher pay grades and on the recruitment of staff for managerial posts. The European Commission has begun a reflection aimed at identifying appropriate measures to address significant imbalances in the composition of staff. What is the time frame for this?

Commission's answer

The Commission is a supranational institution and therefore does not base its recruitments on nationality. Under Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, no posts shall be reserved for nationals of any specific Member States. Under the same provision, the Commission is asked to monitor the geographical balance of its staff carefully in order to avoid a significant imbalance between nationalities among officials which is not justified by objective criteria.

In this regard, in June 2018 the European Commission adopted a Report pursuant to Article 27 of the Staff Regulations of officials and to Article 12 of the conditions of employment of other servants of the European Union which focuses on the geographical balance of EU staff7.

The report offers a picture of the distribution of nationalities among AD function group occupying non-managerial functions in grade AD5-AD12. Linguistic services are excluded from the scope of the report. UK nationals are excluded.

The report reveals significant imbalances in the AD5-8 and AD9-12 grade brackets, but neither the nationalities nor the grounds of these imbalances are the same.

As concerns the AD5-AD8 grade bracket which is the subject of the present question, the Commission found that 10 nationalities (all from the pre-2004 Member States) were significantly under-represented: Denmark, Germany, Ireland, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and Sweden. The Commission also indicated that a balanced representation in this grade bracket today is a pre-requisite for a balanced representation of nationalities among the higher grades in the longer run.

Article 27 second paragraph of the Staff Regulations provides that each institution can adopt appropriate measures following the observation of a significant imbalance between nationalities among officials which is not justified by objective criteria. The Staff Regulations also point out that those appropriate measures must be justified and shall never result in recruitment criteria other than those based on merit. Furthermore, the adoption of specific measures should follow the adoption of general provisions for giving effect to Article 27 second paragraph of the Staff Regulations by the Appointing Authority of the institution concerned.

The European Commission has started a reflection on which appropriate and justified measures shall be identified to address significant imbalances in the composition of staff, in full respect of the existing legal framework. This reflection will be part of the Communication on the attractiveness of the Commission as an employer that is

7 Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 15.6.2018 as corrected on 24.8.2018, COM(2018)377.

16

currently under preparation.

Some measures do not require the prior adoption of General Implementing Provisions. For example, the Commission already:

- launched a Junior Professional Programme (a programme which consists of offering Temporary Agent contracts to selected trainees, contract agents, temporary staff and officials to work in different Commission departments and eventually take part to internal competitions);

- plans to increase the number of blue book trainees;

- launched the internal process to increase awareness concerning the maximum duration of services that can be rendered as non-permanent staff.

26. What were the costs in 2017 respectively for away days or team building events for the Commissioners’ Cabinets? How many Cabinet Members participated in the respective events? Where exactly did these events take place?

Commission's answer

In 2017, some EUR 73,000 were spent for away days or team building events for the Commissioners’ Cabinets in which 342 Cabinet members participated. Most of the events took place at different Belgian venues, the others in the Commissioners’ Member States.

27. In view of the higher housing prices and costs of life, successful EPSO candidates often avoid affectations in Luxembourg or request transfers at the first opportunity. Does a concertation system exist among EU institutions in order to establish a common strategy to attract qualified staff to Luxembourg? What measures have been taken up until now by your institution and what have been the concrete results?

Commission's answer

The Heads of the administration of all EU institutions which have staff affected in Luxembourg (e.g. the Commission, the European Parliament, the Court of Justice, etc.) meet regularly in the framework of a dedicated working group. The attractiveness of the Luxembourg site for qualified staff is among the main topics of interest for this group.

As far as the Commission is concerned, an agreement was concluded in 2015 between Vice-President Georgieva and representatives of staff in Luxembourg. On that basis, targeted measures have been put in place to improve the working conditions and purchasing power of staff in Luxembourg, especially in the lowest grades. Those include a social measure to align the lowest net salaries with the social standards in Luxembourg, other financial measures (e.g. price reductions in canteens and public

17

transport), additional quotas for promotion of contract agents as well as new legal possibilities for accessing higher function groups. A separate agreement with Luxembourg national authorities was also signed in 2015 on the consolidation of the Commission’s presence in Luxembourg.

28. The disparity of purchasing power in Luxembourg with respect to Brussels has grown dramatically in recent years, even duplicated in the last two years: from - 8.3% in 2016 to - 16.8% in 2018. What is the Commission doing to compensate for this inequality?

Commission's answer

Under the EU Staff Regulations, in particular Article 64 thereof, it is legally not possible to apply a correction coefficient to the remuneration of staff based in Luxembourg and Brussels.

Within the EU Staff Regulations, since the entry into force of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 1023/2013 of European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2013, the evolution of the cost of living in Luxembourg is taken into account in the framework of the annual update of remuneration and pensions, on the basis of a Joint Index combining inflation in Belgium and Luxembourg, weighted according to the distribution of staff serving in those two Member States.

The Commission notes that existing estimates of the disparity of purchasing power between Luxembourg and Brussels were not calculated on the basis of the established statistical methodology applied for calculating correction coefficients under the EU Staff Regulations. This is due to the unavailability of the necessary surveys on staff expenditure in Luxembourg.

29. La Commission a t-elle lancé les Enquêtes Logement et Dépenses au Luxembourg décidées par le Commissaire Oettinger afin de circonscrire officiellement le problème de déficit de pouvoir d'achat au Lux estimé à - 16.8 % en 2018 et lequel a doublé depuis 2016 (toujours au-dessus du seuil de déclenchement d'un coefficient correcteur de 5 % prévu au Statut de la FPE, depuis 2006) ?

Commission's answer

Under the Staff Regulations, the cost of living in Luxembourg is taken into account within a Joint Index combining inflation in Belgium and Luxembourg.

The methodology for calculating this index is statistically sound. It is defined by Eurostat in cooperation with Member States' national statistical institutes. The methodology used for that calculation is based on the consumer price index (CPI) calculated by the Luxembourg statistical institute and does not include conducting surveys on the consumption and housing patterns of staff serving in Luxembourg.

18

That being said, in the overall context of reflection on the attractiveness of the Luxembourg site, the terms of reference of a technical study on the cost of living for EU staff in Luxembourg are currently being drafted.

30. Quand la Commission envisage-t-elle de dénoncer la Convention de Surtarification avec les Hôpitaux, pratique qui a été sanctionnée par la Cour européenne en 2000 (Affaire Ferlini) et a fortiori en contradiction avec la Directive européenne 2011/24 ? Pourquoi la CCE n'a-t-elle pas dénoncé simultanément cette Convention avec celle des Médecins et Médecins dentistes ?

Commission's answer

Dans le cadre de la convention entre le Régime commun d’assurance maladie (RCAM) et les hôpitaux luxembourgeois, et notamment de l’article 4 de ladite convention, la « commission technique » a été activée. La Commission, et notamment le PMO en tant que service en charge de la gestion du RCAM, ont donc engagé une discussion avec les représentants des hôpitaux luxembourgeois et les autorités nationales sur la révision des tarifs hospitaliers appliqués aux affiliés du RCAM. Dans ce contexte, la Commission souhaite en premier lieu permettre aux discussions en cours d’aboutir, tout en se réservant la possibilité de prendre toutes les mesures nécessaires, en tenant compte du cadre juridique applicable, de la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice de l'Union européenne et des risques inhérents à la dénonciation des conventions existantes.

31. Quand la Commission se décidera-t-elle à appliquer au CPE (Centre polyvalent de l'enfance) les mêmes règles nationales, en l'occurrence la Convention collective SAS, à l'ensemble du personnel éducatif et couper court à la Jungle sociale qui y règne (divers types de contrats pour le même métier d'éducateur) ? Est-il normal que la CCE en tant qu'employeur n'applique pas au minimum les règles sociales du lieu de travail à l'intérieur de l'UE, alors qu'elle le fait Hors UE cf. art. 121 du RAA ?

Commission's answer

Le Centre polyvalent de l’enfance interinstitutionnel (CPE) est géré par le Parlement européen pour les crèches, et par la Commission européenne (OIL) pour la garderie et le centre d'études et de loisirs.

Dans les structures gérées par la Commission, le personnel éducatif a le statut d’agent contractuel de groupe de fonctions II (ci-après les "AC", actuellement environ 65 personnes) ou de salarié de droit luxembourgeois (ci-après "SDL", environ 40 personnes). Il n’y a pas d’indépendants ou de prestataires de service parmi le personnel éducatif.

Les agents contractuels employés en vertu du régime applicable aux autres agents de l'Union européenne sont couverts, dans les conditions prévues au chapitre 8 dudit régime, par le système de sécurité sociale propre des fonctionnaires et autres agents de l'Union (adopté sur la base de l'article 14 du Protocole sur les privilèges et immunités

19

annexé aux traités).

Pour mémoire, cela n'est pas le cas de la catégorie des agents locaux employés en dehors de l'Union dont les conditions d'emploi sont prévues à l'article 121 du régime applicable aux autres agents, qui sont de manière primaire soumis au droit social national et où un système de couverture sociale complémentaire peut être prévu uniquement dans les cas où cette couverture nationale est inexistante ou insuffisante. Par définition, quand le statut est voté par les co-législateurs, il est entendu que les normes prévues respectent en principe les minima sociaux nationaux, même si ceux-ci ne s’appliquent pas directement au personnel statutaire de l’Union.

Lors de la réforme de 2004 du statut de la fonction publique européenne, les SDL employés par la Commission se sont vu offrir un contrat d’AC. Certains ont accepté et d’autres ont préféré rester sous le statut de SDL. Depuis 2004, la Commission ne recrute plus de SDL pour le CPE. La coexistence de ces deux statuts différents est donc le résultat d’un choix qui a été laissé aux intéressés et cessera avec le départ à la retraite du dernier SDL. La convention collective (CCT-SAS) s’applique à tout le personnel éducatif SDL.

32. Unacceptable situation of the Local agents employed by the EC/EEAS in the Delegations outside the EU: This attitude maintained by the EC/ EEAS not only contradicts art. 121 of the RAA, but also ILO Convention 102 and the European Charter of fundamental social rights, and also other instruments of key political social content subscribed by the EU and the MS. Why the EC/EEAS refuses to these Local Agents:• to offer them adequate protection against disability, especially in the case of

accident at work and occupational disease and• to offer medical coverage to former employees (retirees) unless they accept to

pay 100% of the contribution (for actively employed 1/3 corresponds to the local agent and 2/3 to the institutions)?

Commission's answer

Local agents engaged by the European Commission and the EEAS in Delegations outside the EU are employed under the national law of the country where they perform their duties and are covered by their national primary social security scheme, to which both EU Institutions pay the employer’s share of social security contributions.

In addition, local agents benefit from the EU Framework rules laying down conditions of employment of 22 June 1990, which establish minimum standards for all Delegations alike, and from a complementary sickness insurance scheme as well as a provident fund set up in 1996. The European Commission and the EEAS are currently reviewing this legal framework with the aim, notably, to modernise and improve further the social security benefits granted to local agents. In this respect, the two issues raised under this question (32) are subject to a political concertation request in the context of the pending social dialogue.

20

33. How many Commission officials are assigned to the external UE Delegations? Indicate by DG please.

Commission's answer

On 31 December 2017, 598 officials were assigned to the external EU Delegations. The allocation by DG is given in the table below:

DG Number of officials

AGRI 3CNECT 4DEVCO 351ECFIN 3ECHO 3ENER 2ENV 1FISMA 2FPI 10GROW 4HOME 2MOVE 2NEAR 118RTD 6SANTE 5SJ 3TRADE 79Total 598

Harassment

34. What were the expenditures in 2017 for the management/Court sentences of harassment cases?

Commission's answer

In 2017 the Commission did not incur any expenditure to manage the consequences of Court sentences related to harassment.

35. How many a) new b) ongoing c) closed harassment cases were there at your institution in 2017? What were the total expenditures in 2017 for the management/ Court sentences of harassment cases at your institution?

Commission's answer

In 2017 there were 12 new reported cases and 2 pending cases from previous years of

21

alleged harassment.

Out of the 12 newly reported cases, 6 were closed as non-cases after the preliminary assessment. In the 6 other cases, an administrative inquiry was opened (4 cases are still pending, 1 case was closed without follow-up and in one the pre-disciplinary procedure was opened after the inquiry).

In 2017, 3 sanctions were applied by the Appointing Authority for inappropriate behaviour (for cases opened in previous years), in connection with initial allegations of harassment.

In 2017 the Commission did not incur any expenditure to manage the consequences of court sentences related to harassment.

36. Which actions have been carried out to discourage the harassment in the working environment?

Commission's answer

The Commission is committed to providing a work environment that is free of harassment, where all people are treated with respect and dignity.

The Commission's anti-harassment policy, which derives from a decision adopted in 2006, is based on both a preventive approach and reactive measures.

Prevention encompasses general information made available to all staff and training. Information regarding assistance offered to staff is widely communicated, through various means. Reactive measures include two procedures (one informal and one formal) to deal with situations of workplace conflict and alleged harassment.

Proposing formal and informal procedures, setting up a network of confidential counsellors, creating specialised services to handle potential cases, the role of the Commission’s Mediation Service, organising training courses and issuing brochures for staff and managers are key elements of the anti-harassment framework.

The Commission continues its preventive actions and carry on promoting a respectful working environment. For instance, the Diversity and Inclusion strategy reaffirms the importance of awareness-raising actions in the field of harassment prevention and sets out accordingly a series of measures whereby the Commission will continue to develop the existing conflict and harassment prevention framework.

The 2006 decision is currently under review. The review mainly aims at taking into account the substantial experience acquired since 2006 and the case law, which - even if already applied in practice - has not been yet formalised in the relevant decision.

37. What measures is your institution taking to raise awareness about the possibility to file harassment complaints?

Commission's answer

22

The Commission staff is widely informed about the possibility to use anti-harassment procedures.

Exhaustive information is available to all staff on the Commission’s intranet. Moreover, regular training is offered throughout the year to staff and managers specifically on protection against harassment. Relevant information is also available in training for newcomers. Local training and events (such as lunch-time conferences) are also organised at local level in Commission Directorates-General and Services.

38. Could you please specify the composition of the entity responsible for concluding harassment cases and sanctions or follow-up measures where applicable? What sanctions or follow up measures are foreseen for these cases?

Commission's answer

In case of allegations of harassment/inappropriate behaviour, the Director-General of DG HR, with the agreement of the Secretary-General, in their capacity of Appointing Authority, decide on the opening of an administrative inquiry. If the facts are established by the inquiry, the pre-disciplinary and disciplinary proceedings could be launched, with or without the involvement of the Disciplinary Board.

In cases without the Disciplinary Board, the Appointing Authority which may impose one of the non-financial sanctions of written warning and reprimand is the Director-General of DG HR.

In cases with the Disciplinary Board, the Appointing Authority for the sanction is composed of three Directors-General. Financial sanctions can range from a deferment of advancement to a higher step to removal from post.

Organisation of the Secretariat-general

39. Could you please describe the reorganisation process of the Secretariat-General since you have been in office? What will be the effects for the staff of the Secretariat-General?

Commission's answer

On 10 October 2018, the College of Commissioners adopted a new organisation chart for the Secretariat-General, which entered into force on 16 October 2018. With the experience gained, in particular through the delivery of the ten priorities and the close support provided to the Vice-Presidents and their Project Teams, the time had come to further adjust the structure of the Secretariat-General by a number of targeted changes to its organisation chart, which last change dated back to 1 January 2014.

The modifications to the organisation chart have been extensively consulted, through a process which was launched in July 2018. A first draft organisation chart was presented by the Secretary-General to all levels of management on 14 September 2018, followed by discussions at Directorate and Unit levels thereafter. A discussion with Representatives from the Staff Committee took place thereafter and a Staff

23

Assembly was convened on 10 October.

The result of these reflections and discussions is a new organisation chart of the Secretariat-General that includes a number of targeted changes, in line with the objectives, priorities and working methods set out by President Juncker and the College. These targeted changes are the next step for continuous improvement, seeking better and more efficient ways to deliver on the Secretariat-General’s mission. Their purpose is to make the whole Secretariat-General a stronger team, well in tune with the work rhythm of the College. The changes take account of the recent strategic decisions of the College for the next Multiannual Financial Framework in our policy coordination work and ensure that the principles of better regulation are, from the very start, part of the strategic preparation of political priorities and the work programme. They also better reflect the principle of collegiality in the work with the European Parliament and the Council as well as during comitology procedures. Finally, the organisation of the external side of our work has been updated, factoring in the decisions taken by this Commission in the coordination of foreign policy, security and defence policy implementation, as well as the close cooperation with the European External Action Service on these files.

Senior position appointment procedure

40. Given the important functions of decision, coordination, initiative, etc. of the figure of the Secretary General of the European Commission and the consequent political repercussions, does the Secretary General not consider that candidates for this position should be heard by the European Parliament prior the appointment decision?

Commission's answer8

By virtue of its administrative autonomy and in line with Article 335 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, it is for each institution to decide independently on the appointment of its managers, including its Secretary-General. On that basis, and taking account of the Secretary-General’s responsibilities in accordance with Article 20 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure, it is the Commission’s view that it is appropriate for the College of Commissioners to act autonomously to appoint its Secretary-General upon a proposal from its President, in agreement with the Commissioner in charge of Budget and Human Resources.

41. Recent findings have shown that the Commission does not have open procedures to fill the position of the Secretary General. In addition, Director General posts get reassigned without publication of posts (Article 7 of the Staff regulations as interpreted by the Court for very exceptional cases). Further research has shown that a substantial number of DG posts were assigned without publication since 2013. These issues impact on the working of the Commission as a whole, and in particular

8 See with regard to questions relating to the appointment of the Secretary-General the detailed answers provided by the Commission in response to the follow up questions of the Budgetary Control Committee: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/answers-follow-up-questions-appointment-new-secretary-general.pdf.

24

on its management of the EU budget with due professionalism, in all transparency and to proper purpose.

Could the Secretary General clarify what the financial impact of the systematic virtual-redundancy of Director-Generals is; and more particular, what were the additional administrative costs involved with the allocations of Director Generals positions for 2017?

Commission's answer

The Commission operates within the limits of the establishment plan approved by the Budgetary Authority and assigns all the officials at Director-General level or equivalent in a transparent manner to specific functions with defined tasks.

In this context, neither transfers in the interest of service under Article 7 nor appointments under Article 29 of the Staff Regulations have any additional financial impact nor do they create additional administrative costs. Both these procedures - appointment under Article 29 of the Staff Regulations or transfer in the interest of service under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations - have equal legal standing and are alternatives. It depends on the specific circumstances of each case whether a selection procedure or a transfer is considered by the College of Commissioners to best correspond to the interest of the institution.

42. Which measures have been taken since the appointment procedure of high ranking officials at the European Commission has fallen into disrepute earlier this year?

Commission's answer

Throughout this mandate, and indeed in previous mandates, the Commission has run the selection and appointment procedures for senior officials according to the rules and guidance set out in its publicly available policy documents. This continues to be the case and the Commission believes that the procedures in place to ensure a fair and transparent selection and appointment process, even though their practical implementation needs to be continuously monitored by the College.

In addition, in line with its commitment to the goal of a European Public Administration of excellence, the Commission remains open to a constructive discussion about the application of the existing legal framework. With a view to assess whether and how the application of the current rules and procedures might be improved in the future, Commissioner Oettinger chaired an interinstitutional round table on 25 September 2018, with representatives from all institutions which allowed the institutions to describe their practice and to exchange views on how best to guarantee the excellence and independence of the EU civil service working for the benefit of and in the common interest of EU citizens.

43. The lack of openness about relocations and the associated costs have led to a reduction in trust of European citizens in the European Union. How do you propose to repair transparency and commensurably restore trust in your senior management?

25

Commission's answer

The European Commission does not see how an internal procedure, carried out in accordance with both the EU Staff Regulations, as interpreted by the EU jurisdictions' case law and with its Rules of Procedure, could be considered as having affected the trust of European citizens in the European Union. Neither is this assumption supported by recent Eurobarometer surveys. The Eurobarometer shows the highest support for the EU in 35 years with 67% of EU citizens being convinced that their country has benefitted from EU membership9. In addition, Eurobarometer figures also show that trust in the European Commission has in fact increased by 4 percentage points compared to last year with a larger percentage of people expressing their trust in the European Commission (46% tend to trust versus 39% who tend not to trust)10.

44. As regards the senior position appointment procedures, does the Secretary General believe that the Commission and the other EU institutions should harmonise their procedures?

Commission's answer

All institutions are bound by the Staff Regulations which, supplemented by case-law, provide a solid legal framework by reference to which each Institution has the autonomy to organise its departments and assign its staff in the interest of the service so as to make the best use of their talents. This is recognised in point C of the Resolution of the European Parliament of 18 April 2018 on the integrity policy of the Commission, “under the Treaties, all EU institutions are autonomous in matters related to their organisation and personnel policy, including when choosing their top civil servants on the basis of merit, experience and trust, in line with the Staff Regulations and their respective rules of procedure”. On 25 September 2018, Commissioner Oettinger chaired an interinstitutional round table on senior management selection and appointment which brought together representatives of the Institutions at political or senior management level. The discussions confirmed that the way in which the different institutions implement the rules is both adequate and fit for purpose and that there is much in the way of common best practice. Although the procedures may differ in certain respects, all the institutions have the same objective – to recruit, appoint and promote talented individuals on the basis of skills, qualifications and experience. This serves the common goal of building and maintaining a European Administration of Excellence.

45. What was the reason for the Commission to use different procedures for the appointments of Secretary General and Deputy-Secretary-General for the same candidate and during the same College meeting on 21 February 2018?

Commission's answer

Articles 4 and 29 of the Staff Regulations were followed for the procedure for the

9http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/eurobarometre/2018/oneyearbefore2019/ eb89_one_year_before_2019_eurobarometer_en_opt.pdf

10 Flash Eurobarometer, survey conducted 17-26 March 2018.

26

appointment as Deputy Secretary-General. Article 7 of the Staff Regulations was followed for the procedure for the transfer to the post of Secretary-General.

The two procedures, appointment under Article 29 of the Staff Regulations or transfer in the interest of the service under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, have equal legal standing and are alternatives. Where a post needs to be filled, the Staff Regulations allow the Appointing Authority, in this case the College of Commissioners, to choose between the organisation of a selection procedure pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations and a transfer in the interest of the service pursuant to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations. It depends on the specific circumstances of the case at stake whether, in the view of the College of Commissioners, a selection procedure or a transfer is considered to best correspond to the interest of the institution.

46. According to the internal procedure of the Commission, how early before College’s meetings should agendas and relevant documents related to their items be distributed to the Commissioners? In what kind of cases has the period of sending in advance the agenda and relevant documents been not respected? How the agenda of College’s meetings is set up and how preparedness of the Commissioners is ensured in case an urgent item should be added? How early in advance is an inclusion of urgent items communicated to the Commissioners before their meeting? How many items not included in the agenda of College’s meetings have been considered during such meetings in 2017-2018?

Commission's answer

Pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, as they result from Commission Decision 2010/138/EU of 24 February 2010 (and amended by Decision 2011/737 of 9 November 2011) and pursuant to the corresponding provisions of their implementing rules, the President adopts the agenda of each Commission meeting.

The Members of the Commission submit their proposals to the President, but the draft agenda is drawn up under the authority of the President alone, taking into account:

i. the opinions of the Commissioner(s) and Vice-President(s) responsible as well as of the First Vice-President;

ii. the recommendations of the Heads of Cabinet who meet every week to prepare the Commission meeting and assess the state of preparation of the dossiers, the Commission's communication strategy, but also the time available for discussion;

iii. planning of Commission's activities.In compliance with point 6-4.1 of the implementing rules of the Commission’s Rules of procedure, the agenda for each Commission meeting, as adopted by the President, is circulated to the Members of the Commission by 17.00 on the day before the meeting.

At any time, the President can add or withdraw an item from the agenda11. In particular, the President may always decide to add an item for discussion, even at the very beginning of the Commission meeting (based for example on the evolution of the

11 Article 6 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure.

27

political situation, natural disasters, etc.).

The Commission approves the final agenda at the beginning of each Commission meeting.

Point 6-4.2 of the abovementioned implementing rules provides, as a general rule, that in order for an item to be confirmed on the agenda, the relevant documents should be made available to the Cabinets no later than four working days before the Commission meeting, or at least 48 hours before the first preparatory meeting convened at Cabinet level (special or weekly Heads of Cabinet meetings).

It follows from point 6-3.4 of the abovementioned implementing rules that, except where the President decides otherwise, the requirements set out in the preceding paragraph does not apply in the case of:

i. the fixed items on the agenda of every Commission meeting (from item 1 to item 7 including in particular agendas, approval of minutes, interinstitutional relations, as well as administrative and budgetary matters);

ii. very sensitive or urgent questions that deserve either thorough contacts with the Vice-Presidents and Commissioners in charge before being issued, or a specific protection regime with limited period of examination and action. The adoption of decisions related to those questions are prepared and preceded by orientation debates or exchange of views at College meetings (as has been the case for example on the European Semester, the Multiannual Financial Framework, the compliance with the rule of law principle or packages of sectorial proposals). The President may also convene an extraordinary Commission meeting at any time;

iii. the "Any Other Business" items for information purpose or informal exchange of views.

The President remains entitled to propose to the Commission to discuss any question which is not on the agenda and for which the necessary documents have been distributed late (see Article 6(5) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure).

In 2017-2018, 50 items not included in the agenda of the College circulated on the day before the meeting gave rise to a Commission decision.

47. How many procedures for assignment of high-official/senior management posts (directors, deputy-directors, director generals, deputy-directors generals) took place with open procedure and how many without publication of vacancy in 2017-2018? Who is responsible for taking the decision of the type of appointment procedure?

Commission's answer

In 2017-2018 the Commission appointed 67 senior officials (Directors, Principal Advisers, Deputy Directors-General and Directors-General) following the organisation of a selection procedure pursuant to Article 29 of the Staff Regulations and transferred 44 in the interest of the service pursuant to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations.

28

It is for the Appointing Authority, which, in the case of senior officials, is the College of Commissioners, to decide whether the organisation of a selection procedure pursuant to Article 29(1) of the Staff Regulations or a transfer in the interest of the service pursuant to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations best corresponds to the interest of the institution.

48. How does the Commission ensure that the staff representative bodies in the Commission take part in high-official/senior management selection panels?

Commission's answer

The Commission’s rules and guidance for selection and appointment procedures for senior officials are set out in publicly available policy documents. These procedures do not include a role for staff representatives.

49. How could the Commission ensure gender balance in cases of reassignment and not-opened procedures?

Commission's answer

In the Commission’s experience, deciding to fill a function via a transfer in the interest of the service in accordance with Article 7 of the Staff Regulations generally provides the appointing authority with a greater choice of candidates since the pool is widened beyond those who might apply when a function is published, allowing, in effect, all officials at the equivalent level to be considered. This can facilitate decisions which take account of elements such as gender balance. The Commission has, in recent years, focused on ensuring that women are adequately represented in management functions, including at senior level. When the current Commission took office, President Juncker set the objective to have at least 40% women in management functions by the end of the mandate. To reach this goal, the Commission has put in place a number of specific measures and has seen, as a result, a sharp increase in the number of women in management positions – currently 39%, up from 30% in 2014.

1 November 2014 1 November 2018W %W M Total W %W M Total

Directors-General 5 14% 30 35 11 28% 28 39Deputy Directors-General 3 8% 34 37 22 45% 27 49Directors 75 32% 161 236 80 38% 140 220Total Senior Managers 83 27% 225 308 113 37% 195 308Middle Managers 34

831% 776 1124 456 40% 687 1143

Total 431

30% 1001 1432 569 39% 882 1451

50. How could the Commission ensure the nationality balance in these cases?

Commission's answer

The Commission is a supranational institution and therefore does not base its recruitments on nationality. Under Article 27 of the Staff Regulations, no posts shall

29

be reserved for nationals of any specific Member States. Under the same provision, the Commission is asked to monitor the geographical balance of its staff carefully in order to avoid a significant imbalance between nationalities among officials which is not justified by objective criteria.

Decisions to appoint officials to senior management functions are based on merit, taking into consideration the Commission’s policy on gender balance in management functions and respecting an adequate geographical balance. The Commission aims to maintain a broad geographical balance to ensure a fair spread of all the nationalities within the Institution. It does not apply quotas at any level of posts for its officials other than in specific circumstances such as enlargement of the Union.

51. What is the current state of play of revision of the Commission’s administrative procedure for appointment of senior officials?

Commission's answer

The Commission is confident that its current procedures, which are based on the Staff Regulations as interpreted by the EU jurisdictions’ case law, are a robust framework guaranteeing an equitable and transparent selection and appointment process for senior managers.

Participation of the Commissioners in events outside the European Union

52. Could you please list the events outside of the European Union in 2017 in which more than three Commissioners participated?

f. For which reasons were the presence of more than three Commissioners needed?g. What were the i) travel costs and ii) accommodation costs per Commissioner?

Commission's answer

With regard to 2017, the Commission services identified three occasions when four or more Commissioners were at the same third country destination at the same time: The World Economic Forum in Davos in January, Kiev in July for the EU-Ukraine summit, and New York in September related to the 72nd UN General Assembly, each of which policy events covered three or more days. The wide range of policy areas to be discussed explains the attendance of more than three Commissioners and underlines the European Union’s strong international engagement and leadership in numerous policy areas. There have also been many bilateral engagements in the margins of these meetings. As regards travel costs, it must be borne in mind that Commissioners optimise travel expenses by combining different business purposes and destinations in what is considered a single journey. Therefore it would be misleading to ascribe particular travel costs to each of these individual destinations. Regarding accommodation, the costs were as follows: for Davos (FVP Timmermans, VP Mogherini, VPs Ansip, Šefčovič, Dombrovskis and Commissioners Oettinger, Hahn, Malmström, Bulc, Navracsis and Moedas, ), a total of EUR 13,252; for Kiev (President Juncker, VP Dombrovskis and Commissioners Malmström and Hahn), a total of EUR 1,815; for New York (FVP Timmermans, VP Mogherini, VP Ansip, and

30

Commissioners Hahn, Malmström, Mimica, Arias Cañete, Avramopoulos Moscovici, Stylianides and Vestager), a total of EUR 18,160 which also reflects the impact of the event on local accommodation prices.

In line with Article 6(2) of the new Code of Conduct for Members of the Commission, adopted in 2018, detailed information on missions is now being published every two months on the websites of the respective Commissioners.

53. How many Commissioners participated in the 73rd Session of the UN General Assembly in New York, which took place from the 18th of September until the 5th of October 2018?

h. What were the exact dates that these Commissioners attended and participated in the General Assembly?

i. What were the exact dates, respectively, that they were in New York for, but were not attending and participating in the General Assembly?

j. What were the reasons for each Commissioner to attend the General Assembly and what role did each Commissioner specifically play in the proceedings of the General Assembly.

k. What were the i) travel costs and ii) accommodation costs per Commissioner?

Commission's answer

This General Assembly came at a time when multilateralism was being tested and challenged, and it was important for Europe to demonstrate a strong stance on multilateralism in the United Nations. This year's visible European Union presence – with the European Commission delegation led for the first time in this mandate by President Juncker – made a strong statement in itself and attested to this engagement, underlining how important the global dimension of European policies is for the European Union, from trade and migration to climate change and foreign affairs. During the high-level week from 23 to 28 September 2018, the President of the Commission, five Vice-Presidents and six Commissioners attended close to 100 key events and bilateral meetings related to their portfolios.

In line with Article 6(2) of the new Code of Conduct for Members of the Commission, detailed information are regularly being published on their websites.

Ethics and integrity

54. What is the state of play of the update and provision of clarification in the Commission’s Rules of Procedure for guaranteeing the neutrality of the role of the Secretary-General in a (party) political environment?

Commission's answer

The Staff Regulations apply to the Secretary-General of the Commission as to any other official. Article 11 provides that officials shall carry out the duties assigned to them objectively, impartially and in keeping with their duty of loyalty to the Union.

31

Article 21 provides that officials, whatever their rank, shall assist and tender advice to their superiors and be responsible for the performance of the duties assigned to them. This applies also to the work of the Secretary-General in relation to the President, the Vice-Presidents and the College of the Commission as reflected in the current Rule of Procedure of the Commission.

55. In the answers of the Commission to the inquiry of the CONT committee on the Integrity Policy of the Commission dated 24 March 2018, the Commission argues that the publication of the meetings in their meeting register does not imply that interest representatives were lobbying, as in the case of the meeting of Mr Barroso, an advisor to Goldman Sachs, with Mr Katainen. What percentage of the meetings in the Register of Commissioners concern actual meetings with interest representatives and what percentage concern informal meetings?12 What is the definition of a meeting for the Commission? What are the requirements for a meeting to be registered in the meeting register of Commissioners? When can a meeting be defined as friendly, so that it does not have to be registered, and when is there a real lobby meeting? Are reports made of the latter, and if not, why not?

Commission's answer

The Commission operates a Transparency Register jointly with the European Parliament to shed light on activities and actors aiming to influence the formulation or implementation of policy and the decision-making processes of the institutions of the Union.

In addition, the European Commission as of November 2014 was the first EU institution to take the unilateral step to publish information on meetings between interest representatives with Commissioners, their Cabinet members and Director-Generals. These meetings are published on the respective websites of Commissioners and Directors-General.

Furthermore, for meetings that would fall within the scope of the Transparency Register, the Commissioners, their Cabinet members and Director-Generals apply the rule 'not on the register, no meeting'.

A meeting is defined as ‘a bilateral encounter organised at the initiative of an organisation or self-employed individual or a Member of the Commission and/or a member of his/her Cabinet with the objective of directly or indirectly influencing the formulation or implementation of policy and the decision-making processes of the EU institutions.’

The rules underpinning these transparency policies do not distinguish between 'informal’ or 'friendly’ meetings; meetings of a 'purely private or social character’ are not covered as by their very nature they do not involve any lobbying activity. In case of doubt, the individuals concerned err on the side of caution.

However, even meetings not falling within the scope of the Transparency Register are normally published on the agenda webpage of a Commissioner (e.g. meetings with

12 https://euobserver.com/institutional/141144.

32

Member State representatives, academics, etc.).

As regards the establishment of reports, this is not an obligation. Many meetings are of purely courtesy or introductory nature and do not require minutes. In other meetings, registrants merely repeat their publicly known views. It is the Commission’s standard administrative practice to keep a written record of meetings in which important information was exchanged that is not short-lived and/or may require action or follow-up on the part of the Commission.

56. The opinions of the Ethical Committee are important the moment they are given since that is when public discussions take place. Will these opinions be made public when they are issued, in order to allow for an informed public debate? Will the Commission evaluate the work of the Ethical Committee, in particular with regard to a possible right of inquiry and number of independent experts present in the Committee? Please explain.

Commission's answer

The decisions of the Commission on post-term of office activities of former Members of the Commission and the related opinions of the Independent Ethical Committee will be made public in line with Article 11(7) of the Code of Conduct for Members of the Commission. Other opinions can be made public on an ad-hoc basis.

The Commission will publish an annual report on the application of the Code including the work of the Independent Ethical Committee.

57. Following Article 11(4) of the Code of conduct for Commissioners, former Commissioners shall not lobby Commissioners or their staff on behalf of their own business, that of their employer or client, on matters for which they were responsible within their portfolio for a period of two years after ceasing to hold their office. Will this cooling off period be brought in line with that for the President, i.e. three years? Please explain.

Commission's answer

In 2018, the Commission has increased the above-mentioned “cooling off period” from 18 months to two years for Members of the Commission. This period is in line with the maximum period for the payment of the transitional allowance to former Members of the Commission established by the Council in Council Regulation 2016/300.

This specific period is without prejudice to the fact that former Members of the Commission remain bound, without any limit in time, by Article 245 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, notably as regards their duty to behave with

33

integrity and discretion.

The Commission considers it therefore as an appropriate period which strikes the balance between the public interest and the individual rights of persons who have engaged in public office at the Commission for a certain period of their career.

58. Officials within the European Commission are involved in legislation and regulation. It often happens that officials transfer to a paid position in a private company that operates in exactly the same sector, or vice versa, also known as the revolving doors.

a. According to a CEO study one third of the top officials went from the Commission to the financial industry.13 What are the requirements to meet a former employer or former colleagues at the Commission? Please indicate how often this happened in 2017.

b. What steps will be taken to balance the recruitment policy by not largely hiring officials from the sector concerned, in order to improve the independence of the civil service? Please indicate how often this happened in 2017.

Commission's answer

Any move of a staff member between the Commission and the private sector and vice versa needs to be scrutinised very carefully to make sure that there is no real, potential or even apparent conflict of interest. However, the Commission also wishes to underline that individuals have a right to work and that it is also in the interest of the Commission to allow its staff, for example during leave on personal grounds, to gather relevant and valuable experience that will benefit the Commission at a later stage. For these reasons, all decisions taken by the Commission are measured strictly against the standard of proportionality.

The applicable rules are strong and are actively implemented, as each such move is carefully examined. The legal framework for the ethical obligations applied by the Commission is regularly revised. On the occasion of the latest revision of the Staff Regulations, several new provisions have accordingly been introduced to reinforce the rules and to prevent further the risk of conflict of interest.

The revised Staff Regulations have for example introduced the obligation, before recruiting an official or before reintegrating an official after a period of leave on personal grounds, to examine whether the concerned official has any personal interest such as to impair his/her independence or any other conflict of interest. Mention should also be made to the prohibition for officials on leave on personal ground to engage in an occupational activity involving lobbying or advocacy vis-à-vis his/her Institution and which could lead to a conflict with the legitimate interests of the Institution. Furthermore, the revised Staff Regulations contain an explicit prohibition for senior officials, in the twelve months after leaving the service, to engage in lobbying or advocacy vis-à-vis the staff of their former Institution on matters for

13 https://corporateeurope.org/power-lobbies-revolving-doors/2018/04/financial-regulators-and-private-sector-permanent-revolving.

34

which they were responsible during the last three years in the service.

Moreover, the Commission has revised its internal decision on outside activities and post-employment activities (new Decision adopted on 29 June 2018). This decision reiterates that, when taking a decision in relation to the envisaged post-employment activity of a former senior official, the Appointing Authority may impose a ‘cooling off period’ excluding the former staff member from, for example, professional contacts with former colleagues or from representing opposing parties. The duration of the cooling off period, and the measures to be imposed in that framework, depends on the risk linked to different factors (e.g. time elapsed since previous employment, same or linked domain, grade etc.).

In addition, as part of the Commission’s commitment to transparency, Directors-General are required to publish information on meetings held with organisations or self-employed individuals. The Commission however does not hold a specific register of meetings between all its senior managers and their former employers.

Finally, the Commission would like to make it clear that it does not hold a specific register of recruitment based on previous sector of employment.

59. Is it established that in order to compensate more strict provisions inserted in the code of conduct regarding the cooling off period of the commissioners the Secretary general has considered the possibility to offer them new practical facilities (offices, IT, chauffeur) after the end of their mandate?

Commission's answer

As the Commission has already pointed out, there were internal discussions between different Commission services on the status and limited administrative support to candidates, designated and, in line with the practice in many Member States, former Members of the College.

These internal discussions did not, to date, result in any validated draft proposal which has been brought to the attention of the Commission.

Annual management and performance report

60. What is the view of the Secretary-General as regards the role of the Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR) in the managerial and financial governance of the European Commission?

Commission's answer

The Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR) is an essential part of the Commission's financial accountability structure. Through this Report, the College takes overall political responsibility for the management of the EU Budget. It is based on the assurances and reservations in the Annual Activity Reports.

35

61. What is the mission of the EC Secretary General services in the preparation of the AMPR?

Commission's answer

The mission of the Secretary-General is to ensure that the College is adequately informed in order to take overall political responsibility for the management of the EU budget, through adoption of the Annual Management and Performance Report (AMPR).

Together with DG BUDG, the Secretariat-General is doing so in different ways:

- It provides guidance to the Authorising Officers by Delegation for drawing up their Annual Activity Reports. This guidance contributes to the quality and the harmonisation of these reports. This is essential for allowing a consolidated presentation in the Annual Management and Performance Report. The guidance takes the form of the issuing of the standing instructions, desk reviews, peer-reviews, etc.

- Via the Corporate Management Board, the College is regularly updated on matters of financial control, including follow-up of the reservations made in the Annual Activity Reports.

- It is coordinating the development of the report, including the different procedural steps required ahead of collegial adoption.

- It is coordinating the Strategic Planning and Programming cycle within the Commission.

- It is coordinating the evaluations and studies within the Commission, including the mid-term review of the Multiannual Financial Framework. These sources have been essential in drawing up the 2017 edition of the report.

62. Instructions were given by the Secretary General as to the preparations of the 2017 annual Activity reports on 30 November 2017. How is it possible that the DGs have adopted divergent methods as to the calculation of the error rates? In particular DG DEVCO and NEAR use residual error rates studies made by external companies whilst other DGS as the DG AGRI calculate separately error rate at payment and residual error rates.

Commission's answer

As in previous years, the instructions issued by the Secretariat-General and the Directorate-General for Budget for the 2017 Annual Activity Reports require all Directorates-General to report the same error rates according to a common overarching methodology.

In all cases, Directorates-General are required to produce the ‘detected’ (at the moment of payment - after ex-ante controls) and the ‘residual’ (at the moment of reporting - after ex-post controls) error rates or their ‘equivalent’. These “equivalents” are duly provided for in the template provided (‘Table X’ and its footnotes) and fully

36

disclosed in the Annual Management and Performance Report (cf. 2017 Annual Management and Performance Report, Annex 3 with footnote 178).

The application of the common overarching methodology across the Commission provides for appropriate tailoring as required in function of differences in management modes (e.g. shared vs direct management), policy area (e.g. external counterparties in third countries) and/or specific programmes’ funding modalities.

For example, in shared management some corrections have already been made by the Member States when they submit their cost claims to the Commission and thus before the Commission makes the corresponding payments. Therefore, the Directorates-General in question use the “adjusted” or “reportable” error rate as best equivalents to the detected error rate.

In external relations, the “residual error rate studies” used by DGs DEVCO and NEAR have been recognised by the European Court of Auditors as fit for purpose. Given that these studies are based on a representative examination of closed contracts (after the implementation of all ex-ante and also ex-post controls), these studies calculate the residual error rate (which takes into account the ex-post corrections already made). Taking the residual error rate as a starting point, these Directorates-General add again the ex-post corrections to get back to a detected error rate equivalent.

63. Why did the Commission introduce new kinds of error rates, as for instance, the reported error rate instead of trying to harmonise the methods of the DGs?

Commission's answer

The Commission did not introduce new kinds of error rate.

As for the previous years, all DGs were requested to report in their 2017 AAR two error rates: the ‘detected error rate (DER)’ (at the moment of payment - after ex-ante controls) and the ‘residual error rate (RER)’ (at the moment of reporting - after ex-post controls) – or their ‘equivalent’. These “equivalents” are duly foreseen in the AAR Instructions Template (‘Table X’ and its footnotes) and fully disclosed in the AMPR (Cf. 2017 AMPR Annex 3 with footnote 178).

Indeed, whereas all DGs follow the same overarching methodology to calculate these error rates, the application of the methodology across the Commission duly foresees the appropriate tailoring which is required in function of the DGs’ differences in management modes (e.g. shared vs direct management), policy area (e.g. External Relations’ counterparties in third countries) and/or specific programmes’ funding modalities.

For example, in shared management some corrections have already been made by the Member States when they submit their cost claims to the Commission and thus before the Commission makes the corresponding payments.

37

64. Why did the Commission refuse to follow the recommendation issued by the Parliament and the ECA to identify the financial year concerned by the financial corrections and/or recoveries, which is the only one method to make possible the calculation of definitive residual error rate?

Commission's answer

Due to the multi-annual nature of EU spending, along with the complexity of the systems in place, financial corrections usually take place in the years after the original expenditure was made from the EU budget. Furthermore, financial corrections often cover several years of payment, not just one single year. For all these reasons, it is simply not feasible, also given the cost-benefit constraints, to link the financial corrections to the original year of payment. The annex of the Annual Management and Performance Report includes a dedicated chapter on the cumulative (multi-annual) financial corrections, thereby providing the reader with this more relevant information.

For example in cohesion: For a multiannual programme in cohesion in case a systemic weakness (e.g. missing control in the management and control system in a Member State) has been detected as a result of a Commission ex-post control/audit, the Commission can apply flat-rate corrections, i.e. a fixed percentage correction of all previously accepted expenditure relating to the same programme is applied (until the deficiency is resolved).

65. Does the Secretary-General consider that financial accounting reliability is an important dimension of the democratic legitimacy of the European institutions?

Commission's answer

The Commission places great importance on the reliability of its financial accounting as it is not only a key input for accountability purposes as regards the implementation of the EU budget, but it also provides useful information for decision-making purposes. The Commission is thus satisfied that the EU annual accounts have received a fully clean (unqualified) opinion from the European Court of Auditors for the past eleven years. This is a result of the continuous efforts made by the Commission services and the other EU bodies in this area, going back to the modernisation of the Commission’s accounting system project launched in December 2002, as part of the wider reform actions of that period. Reliable financial information is essential for reporting to the EU’s stakeholders (citizens, Discharge Authority, Member States, etc.) on how the EU budget has been spent and the current financial position of the EU.

38

Conflict of interests- Czech Republic

66. Commissioner Hogan explained to the CONT members that the investigation of the Commission into possible Conflict of Interests of the CZ Prime Minister Andrej Babis is now a joint investigation by the DG AGRI, DG REGIO, DG EMPL and DG BUDG.

We believe that as such the investigation is to be properly managed and coordinated.

Could you please provide us with answers to the following questions:

How is EC's Secretariat and the Secretary general involved in this investigation?

Commission's answer

There is no joint investigation such as claimed in the question. The Commission has registered a complaint and this is being processed in accordance with the formal procedure for handling complaints by the relevant Commission services, who will keep the Secretariat-General informed as always in such cases.

67. Which DG has taken a lead in the investigation or is it coordinated by the Secretary General of the Commission? How good is the cooperation on this issue between the different DGs?

Commission's answer

There is no joint investigation such as claimed in the question. The Commission has registered a complaint and this is being processed in accordance with the formal procedure for handling complaints by the relevant Commission services, who will keep the Secretariat-General informed as always in such cases.

68. When does the Commission plan to present the findings / report of the investigation to the European parliament and the Council?

Commission's answer

The Commission will keep the European Parliament informed in a timely manner.

Relations with the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC)

69. How does the EC Secretary General assess the impact of the relations between the Commission and the EESC? What is the added value of this interinstitutional relation?

Commission's answer

39

The collaboration with the EESC is well structured and always subject to follow-up actions. The Commission considers the contributions of the EESC as fundamental as it represents the views of a wide variety of industrial and social economic stakeholders.

The Commission participates at all stages (from working groups to plenary sessions) of the preparation of the EESC opinions with the presence of the responsible lead services coordinated by the Secretariat General (SG).

Once the EESC is issuing an opinion (being it mandatory, optional, exploratory or own initiative one) the SG is coordinating the reply (suites à donner) with the lead services and is processing the Commission final reply to the EESC through the GRI to ensure the collegiality and therefore the highest institutional value to the reply given to the Committee.       

Moreover, the Commission services highly value other forms of cooperation, for example, various fora and conferences organised by the EESC, in which different socio-economic stakeholders and experts express their views. The EESC also contributes to selected fitness checks and ex-post evaluations of legislation.

The President (in particular at the occasion of the State of the Union) and the First Vice-President (at numerous occasions including the presentation of the annual Commission work programme) as well as Members of the Commission are regularly engaging with the EESC in Plenary.

70. To which extent have the opinion of the EESC been taken on board in the impact assessment and/or incorporated in the draft proposals made by the Commission in 2017?

Commission's answer

The EESC normally delivers its Opinions on adopted Commission proposals. However, in the process of developing and drafting legal proposals, the political positions of the Committee are taken into account mainly in three ways:

1. When analysing the policy context, relevant recent publications and previous Opinions from the EESC on the topic at hand will be considered. As a standard practice, the first chapter of the impact assessment describes the policy context.

2. As any stakeholder, the EESC has the opportunity to provide input during the 12-week consultation period and the 4-week feedback periods to the inception impact assessment and the published legislative proposal. In this context, the Protocol on the Cooperation between the European Commission and the European Economic and Social Committee provides that the Commission shall forward the Committee a list of proposals for optional consultation based on the Commission’s work programme.

Additionally, being a valued partner, the EESC may be invited to additional consultation activities, such as workshops and conferences. The inception impact assessments set out the consultation strategy specific to each initiative.

As a standard practice, any input from these consultation activities is integrated into

40

the impact assessment, including a required annex (Annex 2) summarizing all consultation activities and their results.

3. In line with Article 9 of the Protocol on the Cooperation between the European Commission and European Economic and Social Committee, the Commission may call on the Committee to draft explanatory opinions in the areas of particular importance to organised civil society, where it takes the view that the Committee has the competence and expertise.

Following up on the findings of the Task Force Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing less more efficiently", the Commission is currently exploring additional ways of facilitating the contribution of advisory bodies, including the EESC in Union law-making.

4. All opinions (mandatory, optional, exploratory or own initiative ones) of both Consultative Committees are individually answered by the Commission within a self-imposed deadline of 4 months; the opinions are processed to the lead services , then coordinated by the SG and processed to GRI (suites à donner), and sent to the committees as feedback.

The President (in particular at the occasion of the State of the Union) and the First Vice-President (at numerous occasions including the presentation of the annual Commission work programme) as well as Members of the Commission are regularly engaging with the Committee of the Regions in Plenary.

71. To which extent has the expansive and bureaucratic practice of the experts groups replaced the consultation of the European economic and social partners by the Commission?

Commission's answer

The Commission is consulting social partners, on social policy issues, in the framework of the European social dialogue. This dialogue is laid down in the Treaty and therefore provides a binding legal framework. In contrast, Commission expert groups have a different purpose which is to provide the Commission with non-binding technical expertise on basically all policies which the Commission is working on. Commission expert groups do not and cannot replace the consultation of social partners. This is legally not possible. They can, however, depending on the subject matter, complement each other.

Relations with the Committee of the regions (CoR)

72. To which extend does the Secretary General ensure that the opinions of the Committee of the regions are taken on board by the Commission services during the impact assessment or when they draft legislative proposals?

Commission's answer

The Committee of the Regions normally delivers its Opinions on adopted

41

Commission proposals. However, in the process of developing and drafting legal proposals, the political positions of the Committee are taken into account mainly in three ways:

1. When analysing the policy context, relevant recent publications and previous Opinions from the Committee of the Regions on the topic at hand will be considered. As a standard practice, the first chapter of the impact assessment describes the policy context.

2. As any stakeholder, the Committee of the Regions has the opportunity to provide input during the 12-week consultation period and the 4-week feedback periods to the inception impact assessment and the published legislative proposal. In this context, the Protocol on the Cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions provides that the Commission shall forward the Committee a list of proposals for mandatory and optional consultation based on the Commission’s work programme.

Additionally, being a valued partner, the Committee of the Regions may be invited to additional consultation activities, such as workshops and conferences. The inception impact assessments set out the consultation strategy specific to each initiative.

As a standard practice, any input from these consultation activities is integrated into the impact assessment, including a required annex (Annex 2) summarising all consultation activities and their results.

3. In line with Article 9 of the Protocol on the Cooperation between the European Commission and the Committee of the Regions, the Commission pledged to specifically consult the Committee on measures that for example are likely to have a direct impact on local and regional budgets or have an impact on economic, social and territorial cohesion.

In the context of the Task Force Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing less more efficiently", announced by President Juncker in his 2017 speech on the State of the Union and chaired by First Vice-President Timmermans, the Commission has engaged in an intensive and productive dialogue with the Committee of the Regions and national Parliaments about how to improve the respect for Subsidiarity and Proportionality in the preparation and implementation of Union legislation. Its recommendations include suggestions, largely supported by the Commission, for how to better tap into the experience of local and regional actors when evaluating programmes and policies and preparing impact assessments and new legislation. Already today, as a standard practice the third chapter of any impact assessment is dedicated to a discussion of subsidiarity and proportionality to argue for taking action at EU-level.

4. All Opinions (including mandatory, optional, exploratory or own initiative ones) of both Consultative Committees are individually answered by the Commission within a self-imposed deadline of 4 months; the opinions are processed by the lead services, then coordinated by the SG and processed to GRI (suites à donner), and sent to the committees as feedback.

42

73. Has the CoR being specifically consulted as to the draft common provision regulation and wat has been its specific influence in the preparation of this legislation?

Commission's answer

Prior to the Commission proposal adopted on 29 May, a public consultation was undertaken where all stakeholders (citizens, regions, socio-economic partners, NGOs etc) had the possibility to formulate suggestions as regards cohesion policy post-2020. At this stage the Committee of the Regions was not specifically consulted (as an institution).

According to the Treaties, it is for the co-legislators (ie Council and the European Parliament) to consult the Committee of the Regions on the adopted Commission proposal. The result of the consultation is taken into account by the co-legislators in the legislative process.

The opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the proposal for the 2021-2027 period will be adopted in the Plenary on 5 December.

The Committee of the Regions have produced a number of opinions and organised public hearings on various Commission proposals and initiatives over the past years. The structured follow-up of these opinions undertaken by the Commission ensured that the Committee’s proposals and recommendations were fed into the Commission’s reflection process in the run-up to its proposals.

Relations with National parliaments

74. What has been the major achievement of the cooperation between the national parliaments and the Commission in 2017?

Commission's answer

The Commission continues to have an intensive dialogue with national Parliaments. All opinions (100%) from national Parliaments, including reasoned opinions submitted under the subsidiarity control mechanism, receive a substantive reply from the Commission in the framework of the Commission's Political Dialogue with national Parliaments. The same normally applies for opinions from regional Parliaments with legislative powers who comment on the Commission's initiatives.

In 2017, the Commission has received 576 Opinions of national Parliaments for reply. [NB: some replies were given to Opinions received in late 2016, some Opinions received in late 2017 are replied to only in 2018].

Moreover, Members of the Commission had 215 visits and meetings with national Parliaments in 2017, either during visits in Member States or when parliamentarians visited Brussels. Since the beginning of the mandate 851 such meetings have taken place.

The political dialogue with national Parliaments is not only intensive in terms of

43

numbers, but the Commission has also clearly improved the quality of its replies, which target often in a very detailed way the specific concerns of the national Parliaments concerned. This is acknowledged by the national Parliaments.

In the context of the Task Force Subsidiarity, Proportionality and "Doing less more efficiently", announced by President Juncker in his 2017 speech on the State of the Union and chaired by First Vice-President Timmermans, the Commission has engaged in an intensive and productive dialogue with national Parliaments – and the Committee of the Regions – about how to improve the respect for subsidiarity and proportionality in the preparation and implementation of Union legislation.

The result was encouraging, and the Commission is already adapting its ways of working to improve the input of national Parliaments –and other institutional actors – into the preparation of Union legislation. It will also reply in a more comprehensive way to the Opinions of national Parliaments and give better visibility to both Opinions and Commission replies.

75. As to the follow-up of the national parliament’s opinions, the results are poor in 2017 with 48 % of proper follow-up given within the self-imposed deadline of 3 months (56% in 2016). Why is it not possible to reply to a national parliament within a delay of 3 months? How does the Commission Secretary General intend addressing this weakness in the future?

Commission's answer

The Commission has set itself a deadline of responding to national Parliament's Opinions within three months after their reception. The Commission could not always meet this deadline, given the continuously high number of opinions received from national Parliaments in 2017, and the fact that more comprehensive, high-quality replies are more time-consuming, often involving several Commissioners and Commission services.

Following up to the recommendations of the Task Force Subsidiarity, the Commission is preparing an adaptation of its internal procedures, whereby replies to national Parliaments' Opinions would in certain cases be aggregated and made available to the public and the co-legislators in an even shorter time-period than three months. The Commission will also simplify its procedures for courtesy replies to national Parliaments' opinions that express no subsidiarity concern whatsoever and express full support for the Commission proposals.

Ombudsman

76. What is the added value of the interinstitutional relation between the Commission and the European Ombudsman?

Commission's answer

As indicated in the Treaties and in particular Art. 228 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Ombudsman investigates complaints about

44

maladministration by the institutions, bodies, offices or agencies of the European Union. Therefore, the Ombudsman plays an essential role in the whole European Union framework as a “watchdog” who seeks and finds solutions to individual cases, as well as to resolve, together with the institution or body concerned, as far as possible, systemic failings. The Commission does, in particular, appreciate that the Ombudsman's first aim is clearly to identify where problems exist and to mediate but not to condemn.

The Ombudsman also promotes the principles of good administration on a more general basis. In 2017, for example, the Ombudsman celebrated her first Award for Good Administration. 90 projects were nominated from the main institutions, agencies and bodies. Over half of the nominations concerned the Commission.  Prizes were awarded in several categories. Not only did the Commission get the overall Award (DG SANTE), but it also got the first prize in 4 out of the 7 categories (DG Environment, DG Climate and the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) worked with regional authorities and civil society to help the Małopolska region implement an air quality plan for the benefit of its 3.4 million citizens; DG REGIO for its Open Data Platform on EU funds informing the public about the planning, implementation and achievements of EU policies for cohesion, employment, fisheries, and rural development; DG GROW for its movable European space exhibition providing key information on the European space programmes – from satellite navigation (Galileo and EGNOS) to Earth observation (Copernicus); DG ECHO for its Emergency Response Coordination Centre monitors and coordinates the EU's response to emergencies around the clock every day).

77. Does the Commission generally accept the opinions and recommendations made by the European Ombudsman? Could the Secretary General provide the EP with statistics in this regard: positive follow-up, negative reactions, friendly solutions?

Commission's answer

The Commission as by far the biggest institution is the main addressee of the Ombudsman's inquiries (57.3% in 2017).

The Commission takes the Ombudsman’s recommendations and remarks very seriously and examines them with due attention and care.

For various reasons, it is not always possible to follow the Ombudsman's proposals. Indeed, there are cases in which the Commission does not agree with the Ombudsman position. In these cases, the Commission makes sure that the reasons are duly explained in the Commission’s replies.

The compliance rate of the Commission with the Ombudsman's proposals is usually high (77% in 2016 and 76% in 2017). The rate of closing decisions without a finding of maladministration or indicating that the case has been settled or the inquiry stopped is very high (92.2% in 2017).

45

78. Does the Secretary General consider that the Commission reaction vis-à vis the recommendations issued by the Ombudsman as to the Code of conduct of the Commissioners and the Selmayr case was in line with the institutional balance?

Commission's answer

With regard to the first case, the Commission has taken the Ombudsman recommendations into consideration. The suggestions had already been part of the public discussion on the Commission’s Code of Conduct before. The Commission concluded its reflection by the adoption of a new Code of Conduct on 31 January 2018 after consultation of the European Parliament in line with the Framework Agreement on relations between the European Parliament and the European Commission.

With regard to the second issue, the Commission will respond to the recommendation of the European Ombudsman within the deadline set.

79. When will the Commission be able to react to the recommendation of the European Ombudsman in joint cases 488/2018/KR and 514/2018/KR on the European Commission’s appointment of a new Secretary-General?

Commission's answer

The European Ombudsman issued her recommendation on 31 August 2018 and set a deadline for reply on 4 December 2018. The Commission’s reply will be sent on time.

Written parliamentary questions

80. There was a consulting engagement on the efficiency of the workflow for written parliamentary questions in the Secretariat-General. It resulted in a number of issues of consideration. Could the SG please inform the Parliament about these issues of consideration? What is the follow-up on this engagement within the SG?

Commission's answer

The Commission makes every effort to reply in good time and to provide high-quality and politically pertinent replies.

In 2017, the average reply time for non-priority written questions was 60 calendar days (2016: 65 days; 2015: 62 days) while that of priority written questions was 50 calendar days (2016: 56 days; 2015: 52 days). The European Parliament expects replies to non-priority questions within 42 calendar days (6 weeks) and to priority questions within 21 calendar days (3 weeks). These targets are not binding on the Commission, but the Commission does aim to meet them whenever possible.

The consultancy engagement included several suggestions focusing on an efficient workflow management, spreading of best practices and addressing the weaknesses of the current IT-tool managing parliamentary questions. These suggestions were

46

incorporated in revised guidelines on the management of parliamentary questions.

Furthermore, the services of respective Institutions are actively engaging one another on these questions also promoting informal crosscutting training sessions.

Last but not least the European Commission is engaging in a major effort of modernisation in the processing of the EP question soon migrating to a new IT tool called DECIDE.

External communications

81. What has been done to improve the communication in relation with Union citizens?

Commission's answer

Coherence and synergies

Since 2014 synergies and coherence in communication activities have been reinforced across the European Commission, including through new mechanisms to pool financial and human resources in order to communicate overarching messages more effectively.

The communications "family" in the Commission is composed of the Spokespeople, the information and communication units in each Directorate-General of the Commission, the communications advisors in each Cabinet as well as the central Directorate-General for Communication with Representations in the Member States.

The communication governance has been made more efficient and effective and the Commission communication on synergies and efficiencies14 established new ways of working. Two governance bodies deal with communication, the Corporate Communication Steering Committee (at the level of Directors-General) and the Communication Network, gathering Communication Heads of Unit and meeting in various configurations according to the needs. The Directorate-General for communication, which is a Presidential service since 2014, is 'Domain leader' for communication and is coordinating communication activities across the Commission.

This new approach led to significant results, e.g. an increased outreach for the State of the Union Address by President Juncker, now accompanied by quality communication products.

The objective is to speak to hearts and minds, like we did on the occasion of the Ceremony of Honour for Helmut Kohl (155 television channels using images provided by Europe by Satellite to produce 43 hours and 6.400 television reports).

The relations with the media

The Spokesperson's Service communicates on behalf of the Commission and on its political priorities with one voice with citizens and the institution at the heart of our communication.

14 SEC (2016)170 of 4 April 2016.

47

There are no more individual spokespeople for Commissioners; 15 spokespeople from 13 nationalities handle the 22 thematic portfolios (compared to previously 38 spokespersons, speaking on behalf of Commissioners).

The number of press releases has been reduced (685 in 2017, compared with 1,293 in 2014) but the number of on-line views has increased (6,450,000 views in 2017). Emphasis is put on core messages, staying focused on the issues that count and communicating on results (with facts, figures, stories), not (only) intentions.

And - most of all - we have the Commissioners themselves, who communicate directly with the public and the journalists, coherently with simple messages. They engage, reply and rebut quickly negative news when necessary. Our Commissioners appeared in the pressroom on average four times a week. They have attended 557 press conferences and 170 press point over the last four years.

Closer to the citizens

The 28 Representations (one per Member State, with nine regional offices in the six most populated countries) have seen their role reinforced under the Juncker Commission. The Heads of Representation, who are now considered as 'Ambassadors' for the European Commission are our ears and our voices in the Member States. The Representations have organised 18,525 events in 2017, vs. 10,898 in 2014.

The Europe Direct Information Centres (currently 440) also play a key role in the regions to promote the European Union and to engage with citizens.

A permanent dialogue with citizens

Citizens Dialogues offer citizens opportunities to interact with EU representatives in town hall meetings and other local gatherings and efforts have been intensified since the publication of the White Paper on the Future of Europe on 1 March 2017, which contained a call to action to submit ideas about what kind of future citizens expect for the Union.

53 Citizens' Dialogues have taken place in 2015, 73 in 2016, 317 in 2017 and 726 in 2018 (as of 13 November). 150,000 citizens have directly participated to these events, one million engages via web-streaming and more than 35 million impressions were generated on social media.

Since 2015, President Juncker and all Members of the College have participated to 434 Citizens' Dialogues and senior civil servants of the Commission have participated to 735 additional ones, in over 400 cities across the Union.

On May 9, 2018 the European Commission launched an online public consultation on the Future of Europe, based on questions drafted during two days by a panel of 96 citizens coming from all Member States (except the United Kingdom) and reflecting the diversity of Europe in terms of socio-demographic profiles and opinions. This complements thematic consultations which are regularly organised on a wide range of topics: all citizens can express their views and expectations online.

In addition, the Europe Direct Contact Centre allows citizens to ask questions related to

48

Europe. It answers to around 100,000 questions each year.

The Visitors' Centre in Brussels welcomes citizens from all over Europe. Each year, around 50,000 citizens participate to conferences organised by the Visitors' Centre. In 2018, 90% of them said that it increased their knowledge of the Commission and its ten priorities (answer 8 to 10 on a scale from 1 to 10)

Three corporate campaigns

Three corporate campaigns have been launched and are currently running in parallel: (#InvestEU, #EUandME and #EUProtects), that are tailored for each Member State, researched through focus groups (53 in total) and regularly evaluated. These campaigns engage directly with citizens through concrete examples.

- InvestEU (March 2017-March 2018): potential reach: 240 million citizens

- EUandME (May 2018-October 2018): potential reach 31 million citizens

- EUProtects: the campaign was launched on 22 October 2018 and the first results will be available towards the end of November

Investing in new forms of communication

The Commission also has professionalised its approach to social media, with an active presence on the top platforms (see Question 82). The size of the European Commission’s community on social networks has increased by 2 million members, from 10.39 Million fans/Followers at the end of 2017, to 12.24 Million fans/followers in November 2018. The central Commission account is close to having one million followers on Twitter.

Based on research among users, the Europa portal has been made more effective and user-friendly. The Commission built a new corporate website including a political and an informational part. It is building on solid research on user needs to ensure that the citizens find the information or online service they need the fastest possible way.

Contrary to the previous way, where the information was presented mirroring the organisation structure of the Commission – difficult to understand for the citizens – currently the information is organised in a thematic way, easy to navigate for the citizens. In October 2018, the number of monthly unique visitors to the political and the informational sites of the Commission has increased to 1,713,846.

The Juncker College led by exampled by abolishing individual websites for Commissioner and replacing them by one single website. It is communicating the collegiate nature of the leadership instead of the collection of 28 individuals, it is user-centred and is cost-effective as all reuse the same template.

Finally, the Audiovisual Services Unit of the European Commission seek to illustrate EU policies, to help the media cover EU current affairs, and to disseminate and preserve the European Union's audiovisual archives. The Unit provides audiovisual coverage (photographic, video and audio) of EU activities, technical assistance to radio

49

and television journalists, dissemination by all appropriate means (Europe by Satellite, online - http://ec.europa.eu/avservices, and via social media platforms). It is also responsible for the acquisition, analysis, archiving and dissemination of film, video, audio and photographic material since the start of EU integration. The audiovisual portal contains 12,400 published videos and was consulted 16.5 million times in 2017 (+68% compared with 2016).

Tackling disinformation

The Commission is tackling disinformation via a twofold approach with policy and strategic communication actions. The Communication on tackling online disinformation in April 2018 has been followed by the signature of the Code of Practice by internet platforms and advertisers, in an effort to promote further self-regulation in the area of disinformation. The Commission and European External Action Service are also preparing an Action Plan on Disinformation, which will be presented to the European Council in December and illustrate the progress on the above initiatives, as well as make further commitments to act against disinformation.

On the Strategic Communication front, the European Commission has put in place a strong and agile network of mythbusters, which works collaboratively across our Spokesperson’s Service, Directorate-Generals and Representations in Member States. We have recently joined our efforts with the European Parliament and the East StratCom Task Force to build on already existing synergies.

Citizens feel better informed

These efforts are paying off and we need to continue on this path. According to the Eurobarometer, 42% of European citizens felt very well or fairly well informed about European matters in November 2017 (to be compared with 29% in November 2013) and 44% agreed that their voice counts in the European Union (29% in November 2013).

82. How do you reach out for specific target groups via social media channels? Based on available insights and/or social media analytics can you tell whether this target group has been reached? What difference do you observe in this regards among the different social media channels?

Commission's answer

The Commission adapts its social media messages and content to the different specificities of the platforms. This Commission has put communication to citizens at the heart of its day-to-day business. It is continuously striving to adapt and improve its communication to respond to the changing needs and habits of Europeans, for example, we have launched our Instagram account in November 2015 to follow a growing trend of young audiences joining and using the platform and are now considering launching a presence on Steemit, a blockchain based social network. Blockchain is a disruptive innovation. It is a technology we need to follow closely, supporting a vibrant startup community in this field. Social media is a natural channel to do it. One new venture the Commission has embarked upon is a series of three corporate communications campaigns, which aim to inform a broad range of EU

50

citizens what the EU invests in and what it does to empower and protect them.

In this context, the Commission developed the #EUandME campaign targeting 17-35 years old around engaging videos, GIFs, personal digital and on-site Instagram stories showcasing the rights and benefits that all young Europeans in the EU enjoy. 62% of our 875,000 followers on Facebook are today aged between 18 and 34 years old. The number of young people (13-34) following the Commission on Instagram has more than doubled in the last year, moving from 58 127 to 122 653. Young people represent now over 74% of our total Instagram audience. We are therefore effectively reaching the defined target group through our specific campaign material crafted for this age group.

More generally, social media is also a fundamental tool to engage with a younger audience who is more likely to use this type of platforms. It is important to nurture and increase the trust of young people while being seen as a trusted source of information by all, as the use of online social networks is continuously on the rise (58% at EU level). Moreover, young audiences are likely to see social media more positively as regards their potential to generate engagement in political affairs.

On the other hand, more complex topics such as at consultation on better regulation, meant to take stock of our Better Regulation tools in order to make EU policy-making even more transparent and efficient, were tackled using a more expert angle on Twitter and LinkedIn where a more specialised audience is present and interacting daily.

In 2018, the Commission hosted a large campaign on the introduction of General Data Protection Regulation targeting businesses via our LinkedIn account to inform them about what they need to adapt to be GDPR compliant. The campaign aimed at generating awareness about GDPR using a variety of content (using both animations and static images) as well as a personalised InMail message in a selection of EU countries. An InMail campaign is an interesting feature to raise awareness and reach audiences efficiently, as it delivers a personalised message in the target audience’s LinkedIn inbox. The response to the LinkedIn campaign has been extremely positive. Each part of the campaign has largely surpassed our benchmarks. The overall Click Through Rate of the Sponsored Posts averages 0.97%, when we usually expect 0.35%. The open rate and click rates of the InMail campaign were also above our benchmark.

Community management

The Commission’s topics generate two million mentions a month. The central social media channels attract monthly 46 000 of these conversations in average. We have a proactive approach by listening to the community and participating in the conversation, generating a dialogue between citizens and us. The dialogue allows us to talk one-on-one to citizens from our accounts and to respond to honest and sincere questions.

With the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation, citizens had genuine questions and a great interest in its effects and benefits. From the central account, we responded to their questions and doubts, as well as, clarified the information with for

51

everyone, including the ones showing a sceptical position regarding our activities.

83. What was the Commission’s budget for communication activities in 2017? How did it evolve between 2013 and 2017?

Commission's answer

Please find below the budget for the Directorate-General for Communication over the period 2013-2017:

Years 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017Budget in EUR

106 419 000 93 430 000 73 300 000 78 704 500 81 269 000

In 2017 the Director-General for Communication aimed at enhancing communication with citizens and providing coherent information on the European Union and the Commission's political priorities in particular through the Commission Representations in the Member States, Citizens dialogues, European Public Spaces, the Europe Direct Contact Centre and Europe Direct Information Centres, the production of Commission-centred video news available on the Europe by Satellite, the Audio-visual Portal, and the Europa website.

Furthermore, on 23 September 2013, the Commission adopted the Communication on Corporate Communication under the Multiannual Financial Framework 2014-2020 which was followed by three subsequent communications covering the period 2016-2020. Below the contributions from other Commission Directorates-General to Corporate communication activities for the period 2013-2017:

Years 2014 2015 2016 2017Budget in EUR

13 450 000 3 200 000 21 250 000 21 720 000

84. How does the Commission Secretary General evaluate his personal relationship with the European press?

Commission's answer

The Commission’s Secretary-General was for five years (2004-2009) one of the spokespersons of the Commission. He therefore has rich experience with the European press corps.

Close the gap between the European institutions and the citizens and simplification

85. Which are the tools at the disposal of the Union to reduce the gap between the European institutions and the citizens?

Commission's answer

The Citizens’ Dialogues are a major channel to allow the Commissioners together with their stage partners – MEPs, national or regional politicians as well as

52

researchers, business people or artists – to directly engage with European citizens. They give the Institutions a human face and allow citizens to share their views and expectations directly with policy-makers and help the Commission to understand the specific needs of citizens in the host regions.

The Representations in the Member States cooperate and communicate with national authorities, social partners, other stakeholders and engage with citizens, communicate with the media and provide support to the President, other Members of the College and senior officials, including during visits, and report on key developments related to the EU functioning to inform the political decision-making process.

The European Commission communicates through different media in order to reach its very wide audiences. Its social media platforms (including Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and LinkedIn) are constantly engaging with citizens. The corporate campaigns use different media mixes depending on the context, ranging from street advertising and media events to newspaper, radio and TV ad placements.

The Publications Unit provides traditional and digital publications in all EU languages, ranging from the history of the EU to topical policy issues, including the annual report on the activities of the EU.

The Europa website is being transformed to provide a more user-friendly experience.

The Audio-Visual Unit provides footage and clips on a daily basis to both press and general audiences.

We are also developing a 'one-stop-shop' which enables citizens to find all relevant information in one place via a central port of call, dispatching enquiries to various specialised assistance services, combined with physical contact points at national, regional and local level is essential when building a Citizens' Europe. Enhanced cooperation with other EU Networks as well as continued efforts to reduce/streamline networks set up by the Commission is part of the strategy.

Two major instruments serve this purpose:

- The Europe Direct Contact Centre, a central information service, which answers questions on EU-related matters by telephone and e-mail in all official EU languages and provides feedback on citizens' queries to Commission services.

- The network of 440 Europe Direct Information Centres, 362 European Documentation Centres and 334 Team Europe speakers on EU affairs, a decentralised information and communication service in the Member States that ensures outreach to citizens at regional and local level, together with the Commission Representations.

The Visitors' Centre provides an opportunity for citizens and multipliers from EU Member States and third countries alike to visit the European Commission in Brussels. It aims at giving its visitors an insight into the work and functioning of the European Commission and explaining its policies and programmes through information visits tailored to their interests.

In addition, the European Commission is constantly listening to citizens through tools such as the Eurobarometer and online consultations. The Representations in the

53

Member States are instrumental in reducing the gap between institutions and citizens.

The European citizens’ initiative aims at enhancing citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the Union, by allowing one million citizens to invite the Commission to submit a proposal on matters where it has the power to do so. It is a tool for participation and for agenda-setting at EU level, offering EU citizens the possibility to directly ask the Commission to take action on a matter that they care about.

86. What is the specific role the EC Secretary General in this regard?

Commission's answer

The Secretariat-General is in the lead of several policies that ultimately serve the purpose of ensuring better transparency and reducing the gap between the European institutions and the citizens:

- It is managing together with the European Parliament the Interinstitutional Transparency Register which provides citizens with information about organisations and individuals engaged in activities aimed at directly or indirectly influencing the formulation or implementation of EU policy and the decision-making processes of the EU institutions”;

- It coordinates the implementation, by Directorates-General and services, of Regulation 1049/2001 on public access to documents, and provides corporate guidance and training in order to ensure a coherent approach. Any citizen of the Union, or any natural or legal person residing or having their registered office in a Member State, has a right to request access to documents of the EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, whatever the medium, subject to the principles and conditions defined in Regulation 1049/2001.

- It makes a wide range of documents available in a pro-active manner, via its various websites and its Register of Commission documents. It also demonstrates unprecedented pro-active document transparency in the areas of trade and the Brexit negotiations.

- It is leading on Better Regulation Agenda of 2015 which aims to better engage citizens and stakeholders in the EU policy-making process, make EU policies and laws better fit for purpose, evidence-based and minimising administrative burdens on the citizens and stakeholders. The Secretariat-General has led in the last years the setting up of the 'Have your say' portal, where all initiatives open for feedback and public consultations are published. Each and every citizen can consult the initiatives, give their views and share evidence. The Secretariat-General has invested a lot, in cooperation with COMM, Representations and line DGs to raise awareness of this possibility among EU citizens and stakeholders, and to promote selected priority initiatives. Moreover, SG has been promoting the possibility of citizens and stakeholders to give feedback and propose improvements on the policies and laws already in force – through “Lighten the Load” form. This does not function only one way – The Commission is informing citizens regularly on the progress made on the

54

Better Regulation Agenda.

- The European citizens’ initiative aims at enhancing citizens’ participation in the democratic life of the Union, by allowing one million citizens to invite the Commission to submit a proposal on matters where it has the power to do so. The Secretariat-General coordinates the implementation of Regulation 211/2011 (‘the ECI Regulation’), in particular the management of the entire ECI lifecycle. This includes the registration of proposed citizens’ initiatives, for which decisions are adopted in oral procedure. The Secretariat-General also cooperates closely with the relevant service(s) for the preparation of the Commission’s response to successful initiatives through a communication describing the actions it intends to take, as well as their follow-up. In this context, the Secretariat-General is also in charge, as business owner, of steering the design, development and maintenance of IT systems supporting the day-to-day implementation of citizens’ initiatives (e.g. register of initiatives, online collection software/system, etc.), in close cooperation with DG DIGIT.

- In addition, the Secretariat-General manages activities aiming at increasing awareness about the ECI, as well as enhancing guidance and direct support with a view to improving the number of proposed initiatives. In September 2017, the Commission proposed a revision of the ECI regulation to make both organising and supporting European citizen initiatives more user-friendly. Agreement of the co-legislator on a revised ECI Regulation is expected by the end of this year (to enter into force by 1 January 2020). In addition, the Commission launched (in April 2018) a 3-year comprehensive communication campaign to further increase awareness, as well as a pilot for an online collaborative platform (pilot project proposed by the European Parliament) that serves as a one-stop-shop for citizens wanting to organise an ECI.

REFIT initiatives

87. How does the Secretary General evaluate the effect of the REFIT initiatives in terms of simplification?

Commission's answer

The Secretariat-General oversees the quality of evaluations including the work on burden reduction. Similarly, the SG assists DGs in the work on impact assessment where reduction of burden and costs is identified. It also provides the Secretariat to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board that provides independent advice on major evaluations and all impact assessments. The SG collects this information in the REFIT scoreboard, which tracks since 2015 the state of play of all REFIT initiatives and their expected impacts, from the proposal to the implementation stage.15 It further prepares an annual burden survey, giving an overview of the European Union's efforts to simplify legislation.

15 http://publications.europa.eu/webpub/com/refit-scoreboard/en/index.html.

55

Impact of EU GDP invested in R&D.

88. How is it possible that the latest Eurostat known value comes from financial year 2014?

Commission's answer

The European Commission (Eurostat) publishes preliminary data on R&D expenditure and personnel around 11 to 12 months after the reference year (‘calendar year’), and final data on the same subject around 23 to 24 months after the reference year. Concretely, preliminary data on R&D expenditure and personnel for the reference year 2014 have been published in November 2015 and replaced by final data in November 2016. Preliminary data for the reference year 2016 have been published in November 2017; preliminary data for the reference year 2017 will become available during the second half of November 2018. These delays are due to the time need for data collection and validation in the Member States and at Eurostat, and are in accordance with Regulation (EU) No 995/2012.

Insofar as the question refers to the figure for the percentage of EU GDP invested in R&D (2.03%) presented in Annex 12 of the Annual Activity Report of the Secretariat-General, it was incorrectly labelled as from 2014 as the result of a clerical error. The figure was in fact from 2016 and was the latest known value from Eurostat at the time of the finalisation of the report.

Country specific recommendations

89. How can the Secretary General explain that only 9 % of the CSR have been fully addressed in 2017?

Commission's answer

The implementation track record is less satisfactory from an annual than from a multi-annual perspective, as reforms take time to design, consult upon and implement.

Since the outset of the European Semester in 2011, more than two-thirds of the country-specific recommendations have been implemented with at least ‘some progress’ (9% of the recommendations have been fully implemented, there has been substantial progress on 17% of the recommendations and some progress on 44% of the recommendations). Over the years, Member States have made most progress in financial services, fiscal policy and fiscal governance, reflecting the priority given to the stabilisation of public finances and the financial sector in response to the economic and financial crisis, which required determined policy action. In the same vein, steps to promote job creation on permanent contracts and address labour market segmentation are reflected in a sound implementation record of relevant recommendations. On the other hand, Member States have not yet fully addressed recommendations relating to tax regimes, wage setting and health and long-term care

56

16.

As for the last year’s country-specific recommendations, Member States have either fully implemented or made some or substantial progress on almost half (48%) of last year's recommendations. An assessment of implementation rates across policy areas shows that progress has been uneven. Most progress has been made in reforming financial sectors and active labour market policies, while progress has been slow in education and in addressing challenges in the long-term sustainability of public finances.

The Commission has been promoting reform implementation by continuing to engage in dialogue with Member States, using the monitoring and surveillance tools at our disposal to identify opportunities and vulnerabilities and spur the Member States to action, and providing technical support to Member States, helping them to successfully implement growth-enhancing reforms.

Despite such efforts, implementation of reforms embedded in the country-specific recommendations has not been stellar and could advance faster than we currently observe. The Commission continues to call on the Member States to renew their commitment to structural reforms.

European Fiscal board

90. In its first year of activity, the European Fiscal Board published two reports documenting the work carried out as per its mandate. How does the Secretary General assess the performance of the European Fiscal board?

Commission's answer

The European Fiscal Board is an independent advisory body of the Commission and is assisted by a secretariat, which is attached for administrative purposes to the Secretariat-General. The Board summarises its deliberations in two public reports, which are first presented to the Commission College, the main addressee of the Board’s advice. The two reports are: (i) a prospective assessment of the appropriate fiscal stance for the euro area; and (ii) an annual report with a retrospective assessment of the EU fiscal surveillance plus ideas on the future evolution of the EU fiscal framework.

Since its establishment at the end of 2015, the Board has presented three reports to the College of Commissioners. In 2017, the European Fiscal Board published a report on 20 June to advise the Commission on the prospective fiscal stance appropriate for the euro area as a whole in 2018, based on economic judgment. The report fed into the preparation of the Annual Growth Survey and the 2018 Recommendation for the euro area, as part of the European Semester. The report was presented to the Eurogroup on 10 July, and to the ECON Committee of the European Parliament on 11 July.

On 15 November 2017, the Board published its first annual report, containing: (i) an

16 See COM(2018) 400.

57

evaluation of the implementation of the EU fiscal framework during 2016, in particular regarding the horizontal consistency of the decisions and the implementation of budgetary surveillance; (ii) an evaluation of the appropriateness of the actual fiscal stance at euro area and national level during 2016; (iii) a presentation of best practices of national fiscal councils; (iv) suggestions for the future evolution of the EU fiscal framework. The annual report was first presented to the Commission College, and subsequently to the ECON Committee on 4 December and to the ECOFIN on 5 December.

The findings of the two reports have been well received by the Commission and relevant stakeholders. They have informed the Commission’s activities in the implementation of the Stability and Growth Pact. When presenting the reports to the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament, the Chair of the EFB underscored that it had been able to carry out its tasks in full independence.

Access to document

91. What is the definition of a Commission’s document?

Commission's answer

Article 3(a) of Regulation 1049/2001 defines a ‘document’ as ‘any content whatever its medium (written on paper or stored in electronic form or as a sound, visual or audiovisual recording) concerning a matter relating to the policies, activities and decisions falling within the institution's sphere of responsibility.’

In accordance with Article 2(3) of Regulation 1049/2001 a document held by the Commission is a document drawn up or received by it and in its possession, in all areas of activity of the European Union.

IAS annual report

92. According to the Internal Audit Service, the framework currently in place in the Commission is not robust enough to ensure that the quality of the statistics that are not produced by Eurostat, and are used by the departments to support their key policies and report on their performance, is of a satisfactory quality overall.

c) What are the reasons for such an unsatisfactory data quality? 17

d) The audit was conducted in Eurostat and in four operational DGs (ENER, FISMA, GROW and JUST). Are other DGs also affected by such a limited data quality?

e) Which measures will the Commission take to improve this situation?

c) The development, production and dissemination of European statistics by Eurostat is pursued in accordance with statistical principles and quality criteria laid down in Regulation (EC) 223/2009, the principles of the European Statistics Code of Practice and the methods and tools defined in the Quality Assurance Framework. Furthermore,

17 The Commission understands that these sub-questions were misplaced in the questionnaire and relate to question 92.

58

quality reporting standards are specified in sector legislation, the handbook on quality and metadata reporting and in other relevant standards.

A similar quality framework is not in place, or legally foreseen, for statistics produced or acquired by other Commission services. It should be noted that the IAS did not identify any specific cases of unsatisfactory data quality in the statistics produced or acquired by other Commission services.

d) The Commission is not aware of any cases where statistics disseminated by Commission services were of limited data quality, even if they (by definition) do not fall under the comprehensive quality framework in place for European statistics produced by Eurostat.

e) In order to mitigate the risk identified by the IAS, namely that Commission services other than Eurostat use statistics for which there is no quality framework in place and applied, several concrete steps are being taken to better coordinate the development and production of statistics in the Commission, in particular through an enhanced inventory of statistics produced in the Commission and intensified dialogue between ESTAT and other DGs at all levels. The Secretary-General and the Director-General of DG ESTAT have reminded Directors-General and Heads of Service of Eurostat’s role and responsibilities and recalled services’ obligation to inform Eurostat about the scope and quality characteristics of statistics produced by them, about significant changes in the methodology for the production of statistics, and about new data collections planned. The implementation of the corporate data strategy under the responsibility of the Information Management Steering Board will also contribute to a more consistent management and wider sharing of data acquired and produced by the Commission services will improve internal efficiency, make better use of available resources and develop the analytics capacity for decision and policy making. In that regard, the Statistical Inventory will be a key component of the overall data inventory that will be set up with a view to identifying the data assets and data access parameters held by the services.Moreover, ESTAT is developing (deadline for completion: July 2019) a reference quality framework that can be applied by Commission services when producing or acquiring statistics. Furthermore, ESTAT develops guidelines for correctly referencing statistics and a disclaimer to be used for publishing (external) statistics for which quality aspects are not known by the Commission. ENER, FISMA, GROW and JUST are also taking concrete actions, in cooperation with ESTAT, to ensure the quality of the statistics which they produce or acquire.

93. In one of its audits, the IAS assessed whether the Commission has put in place an appropriate corporate framework that enables Authorising Officers by Delegation (AODs) to reliably estimate, assess and report annually in the Annual Activity Reports (AAR) on the cost-effectiveness of controls

The IAS found that the definition of "controls" was very wide, which resulted in uncertainty and misinterpretation in the Directorates-General charged with actually applying the concept in practice.

What “control” does mean for the Commission Secretary General? To which extend the weakness detected by the IAS as to the definition of the control affects the

59

Single audit scheme as developed by the Commission and the liability of the annual activity reports of the Dgs?

Commission's answer

The concept of “controls” is defined in the Financial Regulation 2018/1046 in Article 2(19) as “any measure taken to provide reasonable assurance regarding the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of operations, the reliability of reporting, the safeguarding of assets and information, the prevention and detection and correction of fraud and irregularities and their follow-up, and the adequate management of the risks relating to the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions, taking into account the multi-annual character of programmes as well as the nature of the payments concerned. Controls may involve various checks, as well as the implementation of any policies and procedures to achieve the objectives referred in the first sentence.”

Following the IAS audit, the Commission adopted a revised corporate guidance on the estimation, assessment and reporting on the cost-effectiveness of controls this September. In order to further clarify the concept of “controls”, this guidance now provides a precise list of control activities. Moreover, the guidance explicitly refers to the cross-reliance on audits as one of the means to increase the cost-effectiveness of controls.

The estimation, assessment and reporting on the cost-effectiveness of controls will be based on this revised guidance as from the 2018 AARs.

94. In its Audit on the Commission’s governance/oversight arrangements concerning risk management, financial reporting and the ex-post verification/audit function, the IAS identified two important weaknesses in terms of risk management and corporate oversight bodies. The Internal Audit Service has found that there is scope for improving the guidance and the process in key areas: the application of 'Risk Tolerance' and’ Materiality' concepts when reporting critical risks.

What is the position of the Secretary General and how will it react upon the findings of the IAS?

Commission's answer

The Commission welcomes the findings of the Internal Audit Service and is taking the necessary steps to implement targeted improvements to the current corporate governance arrangements. This will include strengthening and clarifying the role of the main corporate oversight body, the Corporate Management Board, and enhancing corporate level oversight of the risk management process.

With regard to the findings on risk management, in October 2018 the Directorate-General for Budget issued an updated Risk Management Implementation Guide. This 2018-2019 edition includes clarifications on the concepts of the “critical” risk level and of the “acceptable risk level”. These clarifications will facilitate the practical application of the concepts of materiality and risk tolerance.

60

95. How could the functioning of the audit progress committee be improved In order to address the finding of the IAS?

Commission's answer

The Commission's Audit Progress Committee (APC), which was established in 2000 and has been in operation for 18 years, fully complies with the requirements for audit progress committees as now set out in the Financial Regulation (Article 123). Following the recommendation of the Internal Audit Service, the mandate of the APC is in the process of being updated (as part of a comprehensive Communication on governance). This revision will entail targeted improvements, in particular with regard to financial reporting and risk management.

In the context of its consideration of the IAS audit planning, the Audit Progress Committee will receive from the Commission’s Internal Audit Service information on the critical risks and possible additional considerations from the Corporate Management Board. Concerning financial reporting the APC will consider the ECA's audit recommendations relating to the reliability of the EU consolidated accounts and monitor the Commission services' follow-up actions to address any risks identified. Exceptionally, if the risks relating to the reliability of the accounts justify it and upon request by the Accounting Officer, the APC will discuss the accounts before they are adopted.

Reflecting the new responsibilities of the APC, its secretariat will be appropriately reinforced with a limited number of technically skilled and experience staff.

Europe Direct Information Centre in Wolpertshausen 2018

96. In 2018, the Commission has renewed the Europe Direct (ED) Network for the period 2018‐2020. The number of centres selected was significantly lower than the previous number of over 500. The Europe Direct network has an important role to play in addressing local people directly with their problems and making them understand the European Union.

a) How does the Commission explain such a reduction viewed within the context of a necessary strengthening of the European idea?

b) The reasons given for the reduction was the lower available budget and a more balanced geographical distribution of the centres within the Member States. Could the Commission please give detailed information about the reasons for the reduction?

Commission's answer

a) The Europe Direct Information Centres network is one of our crucial partners in engaging with the general public on EU matters and strengthening the European idea at the local and regional level. When renewing the Europe Direct generation for the period 2018-2020, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Communication sought to maximise the impact and quality of the outreach activities of the centres in a situation where the overall financial envelope for the network remained the same.

61

In view of this, Commission Representations were given the choice between awarding higher grants per centre (resulting in a slightly smaller network) or maintaining a similar level of grants as in the previous generation (resulting in the same number of centres as before). Since a number of Commission Representations opted for such higher grants compared to the previous generation, the overall network resulted in less centres than before (some 440 in the current generation compared to about 515 in the 2013-2017 generation). In certain local situations, however, the reduction in the number of Europe Direct Information Centres was due to a lower response to the call for proposals.

As regards the specific case of the former Europe Direct Information Centre in Wolpertshausen, the Evaluation Committee for the award of Europe Direct Information Centre grants in Germany for 2018-2020 did not select the proposal since it did not reach the needed threshold for the award criteria. Overall, in the case of Germany, the Evaluation Committee recommended 41 proposals for award and placed 14 in the reserve list. Out of the latter, 6 proposals were awarded a grant due to additional funds that became available. The proposal submitted by Wolpertshausen was however not part of the reserve list due to the above-mentioned reasons. The surrounding region is nevertheless covered by a significant number of Europe Direct Information Centres, thereby contributing to an adequate geographical coverage of the German network as a whole.

b) The current Europe Direct Information Centres network (2018-2020) was not subject to a budget cut compared to the previous generation (2013-2017). The methodology for distributing the budget among the Member States has not changed either. It is based on: the number of Members of the European Parliament per country; Eurostat data on price levels and the size of the budget envelope of the previous Europe Direct generation. Therefore, the decrease from 515 centres to 440 is not linked to a decrease in the overall budget but rather to the allocation of higher grants in certain countries.

Brexit

97. Can the EC provide the impact assessment of the financial, human and possible other consequences to its structure, budget and human resources by the decision of the UK to leave the EU. Could you please elaborate on the findings?

Commission's answer

The Commission regrets but respects the decision of the United Kingdom to leave the European Union. The decision will have horizontal consequences on the budget of the European Union, as the United Kingdom is a net contributor to our budget. The possible consequences on the budget of the institutions, including the Commission, remain to be determined.

To the question regarding the impact on the Commission’s structure, budget and human resources of the withdrawal of the United Kingdom, the following factual points can be made:

On the Commission’s structure, besides the fact that the Commission will have one less Commissioner and Cabinet, there will be no structural changes to the

62

Commission.

On the Commission’s budget, the decision by the United Kingdom to leave the EU has led to the creation of the Task Force Article 50, placed under the authority of the Commission's Chief negotiator, Mr Michel Barnier, and the Brexit Preparedness Group in the Secretariat-General of the Commission. These services will remain in place as long as necessary. Due to the withdrawal, the Commission’s Representation in the United Kingdom will be closed down and an EU Delegation will be opened, which will be staffed by the European External Action Service and Commission. For the staff currently in London who will not work for the new Delegation, the Commission will do what it can to take care of the interest of the staff members concern and will show generosity and flexibility in finding arrangements for the staff members who will be impacted directly by Brexit. The budget of the Commission will have to reflect the needs of the mentioned services.

Finally, on human resources and the workload of the Commission, a precise assessment of the impact of the withdrawal depends on a variety of factors that have not yet stabilised. While a number of common policies might not include the United Kingdom anymore, possibly leading to a reduction of work, the future relationship between the European Union and the United Kingdom might foresee the participation of the United Kingdom in a number of areas in the future. In addition, in case the Withdrawal Agreement is concluded and ratified, the implementation of this Agreement as well as the negotiations of the future relationship will require resources.

98. How many British members of staff work for your institution (cut down by category; civil servant, temporary agent and contract staff)? How many have acquired the nationality of another Member State (cut down by category; civil servant, temporary agent and contract staff)? How many have already left the European Commission and how many will do it from here to March 29, 2019 because of the Brexit (cut down by category; civil servant, temporary agent and contract staff)?

Commission's answer

On 1 January 2017, 1144 British nationals were working in the Commission in an active employment, of which 863 were officials, 102 temporary agents and 179 contract staff. From 29 March 2017, the date on which UK official triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, till 12 November 2018, 81 have acquired the nationality of another Member State, of which 58 officials, 5 temporary agents and 18 contract staff. Since 29 March 2017, 231 have left the Commission, of which 111 officials, 52 temporary agents and 68 contract staff. Until 29 March 2019 and according to the decision adopted by the College on the 28 March 2018 no UK staff will be required to leave because of Brexit.

The draft Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the United Kingdom addresses a number of aspects related to the Commission human resource policies. If the draft Withdrawal Agreement is agreed and ratified as it currently stands, privileges and immunities provided by the EU treaties will continue to apply for the winding down of EU operations and for EU staff recruited prior to the end of the transition period,

63

e.g. they may be entitled to EU unemployment benefits while residing in the UK.

As far as the situation of Commission staff members with British nationality is concerned, the Commission implements a strict policy of non-discrimination based on nationality while the Treaties continue to apply to the United Kingdom.

As regards the future of its staff members with British nationality after the UK's withdrawal from the Union, in a spirit of mutual loyalty on 28 March 201818 the Commission gave an undertaking that:

– in the case of permanent officials with British nationality who would no longer fulfil the condition of being a national of one of the Member States of the Union, the appointing authority would not use its discretionary power to dismiss them under Article 49 of the Staff Regulations, except when duly justified in specific cases, such as conflicts of interest or due to international obligations;

– in the case of temporary or contract staff with British nationality who would no longer fulfil the condition of being a national of one of the Member States of the Union, the Commission would be legally obliged to carry out a case-by-case analysis in order to allow duly justified exceptions to the rule whereby their contract should be terminated; however, the Commission gave an undertaking that the authority empowered to conclude contracts would make extensive and transparent use of this derogation possibility; its assessment would be based on the interest of the service.

Transparency

99. How many call for tenders did your institution organise in 2017? Please indicate the 20 largest contracts (sector and beneficiaries)

Commission's answer

In 2017, for the European Commission and its executive agencies, the following statistics were registered:

For internal actions, 746 procurement procedures for contracts over 60 000 EUR with a total value of 2 892 million EUR.

For external actions, 455 procurement procedures for contracts over 20 000 EUR with a total value of about 544 million EUR.

See the list of the 20 largest contracts concluded in 2017 in annex. Since it contains data that may be protected under the applicable EU rules, the Commission is providing the European Parliament with this information in accordance with the provisions of Annex II, 2.1 of the Framework Agreement.

Quality of legislative proposals

18 See the minutes of the 2249th meeting of the Commission (PV(2018) 2249 final).

64

100. The Commission proposals for sectorial regulation for MFF 2021-2027 consist of many technical errors and in several cases these proposals are not consistent and harmonised. What are the reasons for the insufficient quality of the Commissions’ proposals? Are they related to insufficient coordination, or capacity of the relevant services, or to other constrains? Does the Secretary General envisage undertaking measures to avoid repetition of similar situation in future?

Commission's answer

The Commission presented its proposals for a modern, long-term budget for the 2021-2027 period on 2 May 2018. These proposals were followed in record time by all the legislative proposals for the sectoral policies, to make them available quickly to the Parliament and the Council. The Commission has thus delivered in six weeks what has taken six months during the previous negotiations. Despite this unprecedented effort, the quality of the proposals has been widely praised and has enabled swift progress in the negotiations.

The Secretariat-General, together with the Directorate-General for Budget, ensured the overall coordination of the preparatory work which lasted more than one year, under the political oversight of the Vice-Presidents Steering Group, chaired by Commissioner Oettinger. The preparatory work drew on the results of evaluations and an extensive Spending Review and has strictly followed the internal procedures, including the preparation of impact assessments that were subject to review by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board, and interservice work through dedicated steering groups and formal interservice consultation. Furthermore, specific attention was given to those horizontal provisions (for example on third country participation, climate mainstreaming, corporate communication and information and communication technology, and monitoring and evaluation) that are common to all sectoral legislation, in order to ensure coherence and harmonisation.

If, despite the Commission's efforts, the Parliament identifies specific “technical errors” or inconsistencies in the Commission’s proposals, these can be highlighted and addressed during the negotiation phase.

Buildings

101. How many of the buildings occupied by the Commission in Brussels are owned and how many are rented? What is the current policy of the Commission in relation to the purchase or rental of buildings?

Commission's answer

In Brussels, the Commission is currently owner of 35 buildings (owned and under emphyteusis with option to buy contracts) and 26 buildings are rented (usufruct, emphyteusis without option to buy and rent contracts). The rented part provides flexibility to the portfolio when required. The flexibility of the rented part is being improved thanks to new policy of signing shorter term contracts (i.e., usufruct contracts for 15-20 years and not any longer 27-year long emphyteusis contracts without option to buy).

65

As outlined in the Communication from the Commission (COM (2007) 501 final) on "Policy for the accommodation of Commission services in Brussels and Luxembourg", “(…) One of the objectives of the Commission's building policy is the intensification of its acquisition policy”. Based on this approach, the decision whether to rent or to purchase is based on a “(…) sufficiently long-term planning of space requirements to avoid piecemeal acquisition or rental of buildings.

In particular, the share of owned buildings will automatically increase over the years as the portfolio reduces and more office space is created on owned land after office renovation projects. In order to continue offering a certain flexibility of the portfolio, it is therefore not envisaged to systematically implement an acquisitive policy.

102. Were there any improvements done to the organisation of workspaces? What chances have there been in 2017?

Commission's answer

During 2017, some major projects have been developed by OIB, seeking to transform the office environment by introducing collaborative working spaces in combination with a more flexible working culture.

The Commission introduced partitioned and collaborative spaces in four major buildings in Brussels (MERO-CSM1-MO15-B28) to optimise the use of the available surface area.

Based on focused studies conducted by external consultants, OIB has developed a tailored methodology for the flawless implementation of future collaborative spaces, incorporating Change Management Processes, Activity Based Working, Quality Monitoring as well as Best Practices. Additionally, the processes have been adapted to the Commission's Project Management System (PM2), to allow coherence in the overall organization.

103. How much staff has been relocated in open work spaces in the last four years? In what main sectors has it been carried out?

Commission's answer

Approx. 5.000 staff are currently working in collaborative spaces, of which 3.800 staff have been relocated in these spaces in the period 2014-201. Most of them were placed in the four buildings enumerated above.

By professional sectors, the most represented is IT (36% of the total), while OIB and PMO sum up for an additional 29.5 % of the total.

104. Is there already an evaluation and monitoring of this change?There has been reported an increase (or decrease) in sick leave directly linked to this change in the workspace?

Commission's answer

66

Following the procedure established for the implementation of the collaborative space, OIB launched six months after the move in a satisfaction survey, in order to map the staff’s impressions and satisfaction level with the new environment.

The surveys were launched in the last quarter of 2017. The results thereof were used to plan and implement corrective measures, in particular concerning the acoustic environment.

These results are also taken into account in the context of the ongoing Commission’s 'Workplace of the Future' project. This project aims to propose a framework for the Commission’s future work environment in terms of human resources, IT and office set-up.

105. With regard to the Environmental management system, which were the most important results achieved in 2017? What result has been achieved in terms of reducing carbon dioxide emissions and reducing waste, especially plastic?

Commission's answer

The Commission documents its improvement in environmental management in its annual environmental statement which is available to staff and public. It includes results at site level for Brussels, Luxembourg, JRC facilities in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany, Spain and Italy, and DG SANTE in Grange in Ireland.

The Commission defined corporate-wide targets for core parameters for the period 2014-20.

Taking into account 2017 results, significant progress over the period 2014-2017 has been registered in particular for the following parameters:

• Water use in 2014-17 fell by 8%;

• Office paper consumption (sheets/person/day) decreased by 30%;

• Non-hazardous waste generation reduced more than 7%.

Carbon dioxide emissions from buildings energy consumption in Brussels in 2017 were down more than 80% since the introduction of EMAS in 2005.

In the context of the Our Ocean Conference in Malta 2017, the Commission undertook to reduce the generation of single use plastic in its canteens, restaurants and vending machines. Since then, about 50 actions across the main Commission sites have already contributed, inter-alia, to the removal of most single use plastic in catering venues and coffee machines.

106. With regard to the rent and lease, please provide the details (amount and with whom) of rental contracts in effect in 2017.

67

Commission's answer

See tables in annex. Since it contains data that may be protected under the applicable EU rules, the Commission is providing the European Parliament with this information in accordance with the provisions of Annex II, 2.1 of the Framework Agreement.

Miscellaneous

107. How many OLAF's investigations have been carried out in 2017? Indicate the casuistry (internal and external also) and in what situation they are at this stage.

Commission's answer

OLAF is independent in its investigative function and the Secretariat-General fully respects that independence. According to information provided by OLAF, it has concluded 197 investigations and has opened 215 new ones in 2017. Out of the concluded investigations, 17 were internal. By the end of the year there were 298 ongoing investigations, out of which 64 were internal investigations.

108. How does the Secretary General consider that the contradictory procedure with the ECA could be improved and become more transparent?

Commission's answer

Adversarial procedures take place for all ECA audits, be it those leading to the annual report or to special reports. The procedure allows the auditor (ECA) and the auditee (e.g. the Commission or other EU institutions) to clarify and resolve any disagreement on the facts and to resolve any differences of opinion between the ECA and the auditee over interpretation of the evidence. This is in line with the founding principles for public sector auditing, such as those issued by the International Organisation for Supreme Audit Institutions (INTOSAI), which indeed set out that Supreme Audit Institutions shall give due consideration to the points of view of the audited organisations on its findings.

The auditee prepares replies to the ECA's observations. These replies are published by the ECA in its annual and special reports in a transparent manner.

The Commission finds that the adversarial procedure works well. It will continue doing its utmost to ensure an effective collaboration and cooperation with the ECA

109. How is the network of those responsible for data protection working and how can the Secretary General guarantee its better functioning?

Commission's answer

The protection of personal data is a very high priority for the European Commission.

68

One of the cornerstones for ensuring compliance with the relevant data protection rules is the network of Data Protection Correspondents. These Correspondents have been appointed for each Commission department and provide expertise on all data protection-related matters. The network is chaired by the Commission’s Data Protection Officer and has played a crucial role, including in the preparation of the Commission for the entry into force of the new data protection regulation for the European institutions.

A further strengthening of the role of the Data Protection Correspondents is explicitly foreseen in the recently adopted ‘The Commission’s Data Protection Action Plan’ – C (2018) 7432. The Action Plan stipulates, among others, that the role ‘of the Data Protection Coordinator should be developed further into a function of first port of call for advising and assisting in all aspects [of data protection] in the Commission department concerned’. The Action Plan underlines, in particular, that the Data Protection Coordinator ‘should be provided with the necessary support and resources, and have a clear reporting line to senior management on all data protection issues.’

Moreover, it should be noted that at the initiative of the Secretariat-General the staff of the Commission’s Data Protection Officer has been reinforced through the allocation of two additional AD posts.

110. Cybersecurity: How does the Secretary General plan to ensure cleanliness and non-interference in the 2019 European elections to guarantee the full credibility of the results especially considering the worrying precedents in other recent electoral processes?

Commission's answerThe Commission is not responsible for the organisation of the elections, which remains a national competence. However, the Commission is assisting the Member States in the following manner:

- The Commission adopted a Recommendation on election cooperation networks, online transparency, protection against cybersecurity incidents and fighting disinformation campaigns in the context of elections to the European Parliament on 12 September 2018, which underlines the importance of protecting election networks and fighting disinformation campaigns, recalls the April Communication actions on disinformation and announces the preparation of the December Action Plan as requested by the European Council.

- The Cooperation Group established by the Network and Information Security Directive of 2016 (Directive (EU) 2016/1148) put together a Compendium on Cyber Security of Election Technology, which includes best practices for the identification, mitigation, management and response to risks posed by cybersecurity threats.

- On 15 and 16 October 2018 a High Level conference addressed also to the national authorities, including those dealing with the electoral process and cyber-attacks, took place to discuss the security of elections. The event highlighted growing concern but also awareness about the challenge and revealed a clear consensus around the urgency to step up all lines of defence and strengthen cooperation amongst all players, at national and EU level, as well as with other like-minded partners. The

69

results of these discussions will feed in in the Colloquium organised by Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers which focuses on democracy and which takes place end of November.

- The Commission also proposed a targeted amendment of the Regulation 1141/2014 on the statute and funding of the European Political Parties which will enable to impose sanctions in case the European political parties or European political foundations make use of infringements of data protection rules in order to deliberately influence the outcome of the European elections.

The Commission is also tackling online disinformation, which is one of the elements to be addressed in the context of elections to the European Parliament

- On 26 April 2018, the European Commission adopted its Communication on tackling online disinformation, which sets forth a series of measures to be taken to address the challenges posed by disinformation.

- In May, the Commission convened a multi-stakeholder forum on disinformation. It consisted of a working group of representatives from the major online platforms and the advertising industry; and a sounding board of fact-checkers, academia, media and civil society organisations. The working group was charged with drafting a self-regulatory Code of Practice on Disinformation for online platforms, the advertising sector, and advertisers. On 26 September 2018 online platforms and the advertising industry have unveiled a self-regulatory Code of Practice that includes a wide range of commitments to fight online disinformation. The code has so far been signed by a number of platforms including Facebook, Twitter, Google and Mozilla as well as by a number of on-line platforms associations.

- On 28 June 2018, the European Council invited the High Representative and the European Commission to present, in cooperation with the Member States and in line with the March 2015 European Council conclusions, an action plan by December 2018 with specific proposals for a coordinated EU response. The action plan should include appropriate mandates and sufficient resources for the relevant strategic communications teams of the European External Action Service.

- This Action Plan will set forth the key actions that the Commission, stakeholders, the Council and the Member States should implement in coordination to achieve tangible results in the fight against online disinformation.

70