24 Amendments of José Ignacio SALAFRANCA SÁNCHEZ-NEYRA related to 2018/2624(RSP)
Amendment 5 #
Recital B
B. whereas trust in the European project and in the European Union will only be maintained, if the European Union institutions act as role models of the rule of law, transparency and good administration and prove to have sufficient internal check and balances to react adequately whenever these fundamental principles are threatened,
Amendment 7 #
Recital B a (new)
B a. whereas all EU institutions have, under the Treaties, autonomy in matters related to their organisation and their personnel policy, including in 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,
Amendment 10 #
Recital B b (new)
B b. whereas the Secretary-General of an EU institution is a position that requires particular experience and competence and notably the trust of the President of the respective institution whom the Secretary-General assists in his or her daily work so that, in the case of the Commission, in the context of the political guidelines laid down by its President, the Commission achieves the priorities it has set, as stated explicitly in Article 20 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, which includes the legal job description of the Secretary-General of the institution,
Amendment 22 #
Paragraph 2 – indent 4
Amendment 23 #
Paragraph 2 – indent 7
- the President of the European Commission and his Head of Cabinet had known since 2015 that the then Secretary- General intended to retire soon after March 2018, an intention which was reconfirmed in early 2018; they both hoped to convince Mr Italianer to stay on as Secretary- General beyond 1 March 2018 and they continued to suggest this to him repeatedly until mid-February as their preferred choice had always been to keep Mr Italianer as SG until the end of the mandate; however, the President had not divulged this information in order not to undermine the authority of the then Secretary-General;
Amendment 29 #
Paragraph 2 – indent 8
- acting on a proposal from the President, in agreement with the Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources, and without the appointment of a new Secretary-General having been on the agenda of the meetafter the appointment was put on the agenda by the President during the meeting as last part of a well prepared series of senior management decisions, in line with his right under Article 6 (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission which allows the President to add any item on the agenda while de College meeting is ongoing, the College decided to transfer the newly appointed Deputy Secretary-General with his post , pursuant to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, to the position of Secretary- General of the European Commission (reassignment without publication of the post);
Amendment 34 #
Paragraph 5
5. Notes that, according to the Commission, the three previous Secretaries-General became Director, Director-General and Head of Cabinet before being transferred to the function of Secretary-General, whereas the new Secretary-General did not perform any management task in the Commission services; points out, in particular, thwas instrumental in preparing and organising the new set-up and new working methods of the Juncker Commission, of its political guidelines and of the successive Work Programmes of the Commission; he therefore had, as closest adviser and trusted manager of the President, a unique overview of all decision-making procedures, policy priorities, interinstitutional relat ion 21 February 2018 he was not Deputy Secretary-General in functions and the overall functioning of the institution; this made him a natural choice for the President to become Secretary-General, a choice supported by the First Vice- President, the Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources and the College of Commissioners;
Amendment 37 #
Paragraph 6
6. Takes note that the new Secretary- General was transferred in the interest of the service under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations and that the position was not published because the post was not considered vacant; hence no official could apply since the procedure was organised through a reassignment with post rather than as a transfer in the strict sense with proper publication of the vacant post, in view of the special function of the Secretary-General, whose tasks under the Commission’s Rules of Procedure it is chiefly to assist the President, it is unthinkable that a candidate would be chosen for this position who does not have the continuous trust and confidence of the President, which is why it is the President that proposes his choice of Secretary- General to the College;
Amendment 41 #
Paragraph 7
7. Notes that the Commission used the same procedure of transfer under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations for the three previous Secretaries-General (transfer with post rather than transfer in the strict sense); underlines that none of the previous Secretaries-General were appointed successively Deputy Secretary-General and Secretary-General during the same College meeting; underlines also that all three previous Secretaries-General were proposed to the College in the very same College meeting in which their respective predecessor was transferred to a different post or announced their retirement;
Amendment 44 #
Paragraph 9
9. Acknowledges that it is not Commission practice to transfer directors in grade AD 15 to Director-General posts but notes that the Commission considers that, legally, the College could have decided to transfer a principal advisor to the post of Secretary-General; welcomes that, instead of choosing this easier and swifter procedure, a procedure was followed that ensured that the new Secretary-General had participated in a full-day Assessment Centre for senior managers for the second time in his career before taking up his position at Director-General level in line with the Commission decision on Assessment Centres for Directors-General/ Deputy Directors-General of 2015;
Amendment 45 #
Paragraph 10
10. Questions why the Commission used different procedures to appoint Deputy Secretary-General and Secretary- GeneralUnderstands therefore fully that the Commission used a procedure for the appointment of Deputy Secretary-General that allowed for thoroughly assessing the competence and experience of the candidate before he was transferred, in line with Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, to the position of Secretary- General appointment which is subject to exactly the same conditions as the one of Deputy Secretary-General; noted that in the course of this Commission, 15 transfers of Deputy Directors-General to the position of Directors-General took place, in line with Article 7 of the Staff Regulations;
Amendment 51 #
Paragraph 11
11. Notes that the replies given by the Commission show that the President and his Head of Cabinet had been aware since 2015 of the intention of the former Secretary-General to retire soon after 1 March 2018, which he reconfirmed in early 2018; underlinestands that this knowledge would have allowed for a regular appointment procedure for his successor by one of the two public procedures foreseen by the Staff Regulations: (1) appointment by the College following publicaboth the President and his Head of Cabinet kept the hope until early 2018 that the former Secretary- General would stay on beyond 1 March 2018, as their preference was to keep the same Secretary-General until the end of the mandate in order not to jeopardise the smooth functioning of the post and selection procedure under Article 29 of the Staff Regulation; or, (2) transfer in the interest ofinstitution at a time of immerse internal and external challenges for the Union; understands that for this reason, they service pursuant to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, equally upon publication of the post in order to allow any interested official to apply for such transfeuggested until mid-February repeatedly to the former Secretary-General to stay on, in view of the obvious difficulty to find swiftly an appropriate successor;
Amendment 56 #
Paragraph 12
12. Underlines that by opting for the procedure under transfer of Article 7 of the Staff Regulations in the form of reassignment of the newly appointed Deputy Secretary-General with his post to the position of Secretary-General, it was possible to avoidnot necessary to publishing the vacant post of the retiring former Secretary- General; notes that the same procedure was used for the appointments of previous Secretaries- General; stresses, however, that this tradition of non-publication has reac that in view of the high degree of trust and confidence that must exist, in line with the job description given in Article 20 of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, between the President of the Commission and the Secretary-General of thed its limnstitution, its insofar as it does nos logical that the choice of the President cforrespond anymore to modern standards of transparency this position is made between senior officials whom he knows well and who know the institution well;
Amendment 66 #
Paragraph 14
14. StaNotes that twhis procedurle some Commissioners may have sbeems to have taken all other members of the College by surprise and avoided a debate among the Commissioners, since the appointment of a new Secretary-General did not appear on the agenda of the meeting of the College of Commissioners on 21 February 2018n surprised at the beginning about the announcement of the retirement of the former Secretary- General, all agreed with the President’s proposal to appoint Mr Selmayr as new Secretary-General, and they did so unanimously; notes that in view of the fact that the Juncker Commission understands itself as a political Commission and is composed of several former Prime Ministers, former Foreign Ministers, former Finance Ministers and other seasoned politicians, the Members of this Commission are entirely capable of assessing quickly a new situation and deciding upon it instantly on a proposal of the President, in line with Article 6 (5) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure which allows the President to put any item on the agenda also during an ongoing College meeting;
Amendment 68 #
Paragraph 15
Amendment 71 #
Paragraph 16
Amendment 75 #
Paragraph 17
17. Reminds that Directors-General in the European institutions are in charge of hundreds of staff members and the implementation of substantial budgets as authorizing officers, as well as having the obligation to sign a declaration of assurance in their annual activity report at the end of each financial year; questions therefore the Commission’s claim thatunderstands that according to Commission rules in place since 2004, Heads of Cabinets of the President could be considered equivalent to a Director- General position in terms of management and budgetary responsibilities; points out that the internal CommunicCommissioners are considered, in view of their important senior management function and of their important responsibility of preparing the weekly meetings of the College, as Director, while the Head of Cabinet of the President is considered, in view of his or her important responsibility for the smooth operation ofrom the President to the Commission governingdecision-making processes of the whole Commission in line with the composlition of the private offices of the Members of the Commission and of the Spokesperson’s service of 1 November 2014 does not supersede or modify the Staff Regulationscal guidelines of the President, as Director-General; while according to the Staff Regulations this function only allows a Head of Cabinet to move to a similar function in the Commission´s senior management after their service in a Cabinet if they have also achieved the necessary grade of AD14 or higher in their normal Commission career; noted that the new Secretary- General was AD14 in his normal Commission career since July 2014 and AD15 since January 2017;
Amendment 79 #
Paragraph 18
18. States that the two-steps nominationappointment of the new Secretary -General constitutes a coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the lawof the Commission, proposed by the President in agreement with the Commissioner for Budget and Human Resources after consultation of the First Vice-President, is fully in line with the Staff Regulations and the Rules of Procedure of the Commission; notes positively that the new Secretary-General, though not legally required, went through a full selection procedure for the level of Director- General/Deputy Director-General before his appointment as Secretary-General, and that he is the first Secretary-General of the Commission who has been subject to an Assessment Centre prior to his appointment;
Amendment 94 #
Paragraph 19
19. Points out that in order to maintain an independent, loyal and motivated European civil service, the Staff Regulations need to be applied in letter and spirit: this requires notably that Articles 4, 7 and 29 of the Staff Regulations need to be fully respected so that all “vacant posts in an institution shall be notified to the staff of that institution, once the appointing authority decides that the vacancy is to be filled” and that this obligation of transparency needs also to be respectedallows for transfers under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, apart from very exceptional cases, as recognised by the Court of Justice;
Amendment 102 #
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that only through proper publication of vacant posts is it, when possible, is the way to secure a wide choice of suitably qualified candidates allowing for informed and optimal appointment decisions; stresses that publication procedures whose sole purpose is to fulfil the formal requirement for publications, have to be avoided by all European institutions and bodies;
Amendment 103 #
Paragraph 21
21. Recommends that the decision- making processes and procedures of the College of Commissioners need to be strengthened in order to avoid any indiscriminate waving-through of appointments or other important decisions and that therefore it is necessary that all these items are included in the draft agendaCalls on the institutions to better explain to the public the way they make senior management decisions and the special requirements of the European Civil Service;
Amendment 105 #
Paragraph 22
Amendment 113 #
Paragraph 23
23. Invites the Commissall institutions to revokeassess its decisions by which it considers the function of Head of Cabinet of the President to be equivalent to the function of Director-General and the function of Head of Cabinet of a Commissioner to be equivalent to the function of Director; invites the Commission to put in place measures to ensure fair career advancement for members of cabinet; invites all institutions to put in place measures to ensure fair career advancement for members of cabinets and notably Heads of Cabinets, in view of their particular responsibility and senior management tasks;
Amendment 119 #
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to review, before the end of 2018, its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected in a framework of maximum transparency and equal opportunities, thereby also setting an example for the other European institutinvite a roundtable meeting at the appropriate level to discuss with the other EU institutions whether and how the application of the EU Staff Regulations, which apply to all EU institutions, can be further developed and strengthened, preserving the autonomy of each EU institution in its personnel decisions;