40 Amendments of Inés AYALA SENDER related to 2018/2624(RSP)
Amendment 1 #
Citation 2 a (new)
- having regard to Article 14 (1) of the Treaty on the European Union;
Amendment 2 #
Citation 3 a (new)
- having regard to the Staff Regulations for European Union civil servants and in particular Articles 4, 7 and 29,
Amendment 3 #
Citation 3 b (new)
- having regard the case-law of the European Court of Justice;
Amendment 4 #
Recital A
A. whereas it is fundamental that the European Commission, as Guardian of the Treaties, acts in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the rules,
Amendment 16 #
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1 a. Deplores that the important decision to appoint a new EC General Secretary has been mixed with an important reshuffle of other high senior officials; regrets the discontent which some of these changes have also added critics against the EU institutions; asks the Commission to review the Staff Rules and to include a proper contradictory procedure to avoid this situation;
Amendment 20 #
Paragraph 2 – indent 2
- only two candidates applied, a man and a woman, both from the cabinet of the EC President; the new Secretary- General was one of the applicants for the post; the second candidate, the woman, applied for the vacancy on 8 February 2018, went through the full day assessment centre on 12 February 2018 and withdrew the application prior to the interview with the Consultative Committee on Appointments (CCA), scheduled for 20 February 2018 and was appointed then as the new Head of Cabinet of EC President;
Amendment 25 #
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; however, the President had not divulged this information in order not to undermine the authority of the then Secretary-General but, had communicated with his Head of Cabinet;
Amendment 30 #
Paragraph 3 – indent 3
Amendment 31 #
Paragraph 3 – indent 4 a (new)
- after having successfully completed a selection procedure, the new Secretary-General was appointed Principal Adviser to the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development with effect as of 1 June 2014; with this appointment he became a grade AD14 official in his basic career;
Amendment 33 #
Paragraph 4
4. Stresses the extremely rapid career of the new Secretary-General who in a period of slightly more than 13 years, has progressed from AD6 to AD15, out of which he spent 8 years in different cabinets (after the first cabinet he was promoted from AD10 to AD14; after the second cabinet from AD14 to AD 15);
Amendment 35 #
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, that on 21 February 2018 he was not Deputy Secretary-General in function and he was less than two months in AD15 grade;
Amendment 39 #
Paragraph 6
6. Takes note thatNotes that according to the Commission, 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;
Amendment 43 #
Paragraph 8
8. Stresses that the appointment by transfer was initiated by the President of the European Commission in agreement with the Commissioner responsible for Budget and Human Resources and after consultation of the First Vice-President (which was consulted about the name of the candidate but definitively not on the procedure);
Amendment 46 #
Paragraph 10
10. Questions why the Commission used different procedures to appoint Deputy Secretary-General and Secretary- General for the same candidate and during the same college meeting;
Amendment 49 #
Subheading 5
Amendment 50 #
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; underlines 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 publication of the post and selection procedure under Article 29 of the Staff Regulation; or, (2) transfer in the interest of the 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 transfer; it is concerned about the communication between the President of the Commission and his Head of Cabinet on the retirement and vacancy of the former S-G and the new vacancy which could rise serious question of conflict of interest and privileged information;
Amendment 58 #
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 avoid publishing the vacant post of the retiring former Secretary- General; notes that the same procedure was used for the appointments of previous Secretaries-General while those have been previously in post of General Directors with high management and budgetary responsibilities; stresses, however, that this tradition of non-publication has reached its limits insofar as it does not correspond anymore to modern standards of transparency;
Amendment 60 #
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 avoid 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 reached its limits insofar as it does not correspond anymore to modern standards of transparency;
Amendment 61 #
Paragraph 12 a (new)
12 a. Notes that the Commission attributes to itself a wide discretion as regards to the procedure to be adopted to assign staff in order to best ensure the interest of the service; notes that the replies given by the Commission show that it acknowledges the possibility of terminating a procedure on the basis of Article 29 of the Staff regulation without follow-up and proceed directly with a transfer based solely on Article 7; is concerned that this wide discretion of the appointing authority runs against the idea of ensuring a fair, rule-based and transparent management of the staff;
Amendment 63 #
Paragraph 12 b (new)
12 b. Notes that it is a usual practice of the Commission to appoint staff by using transfers under Article 7; notes that 50,6% of all appointments at Director- General/Deputy Director-General/Hors Classe Adviser level were transfers according to Article 7 of the Staff Regulations; questions whether this wide use of transfers is compatible with rules which should allow the best candidates to be selected in an open, fair and transparent procedure;
Amendment 64 #
Paragraph 13
13. Notes that only the President, the Commissioner responsible for Budget and Human Resources, the First Vice-President and the former and new Secretaries- General knew in advance of the meeting of the College of Commissioners of 21 February 2018 that the proposal for the immediate appointment of the new Secretary-General by way of transfer of the newly appointed Deputy Secretary- General with his post would be made during the meeting;
Amendment 70 #
Subheading 5 a (new)
Conclusions
Amendment 72 #
Paragraph 16
16. Is disappointed by the fact that not a single Commissioner seems to have questioned this surprise appointment, asked for a postponement of this appointment decision or requested discussion of principle on the role of a future Secretary- General in this “politicale Commission”, and on the understanding of that role, while noting that the point was not on the agenda;
Amendment 76 #
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 that Heads of Cabinet of the President could be considered equivalent to a Director- General position in terms of management and budgetary responsibilities without having being in such a position, as it was the case in the previous SG of the Commission; points out that the internal Communication from the President to the Commission governing the composition 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 Regulations;
Amendment 77 #
Paragraph 17 a (new)
17 a. Regards as highly inacceptable the appointment of the occupant of the manifestly political post of Head of Cabinet to the President of the Commission to the post of Secretary General of the by default strictly non- political professional staff of the Commission of the EU;
Amendment 80 #
Paragraph 18
18. StaNotes that the two-steps nomination of the Secretary General constitutewas perceived as a coup-like action which stretched and possibly even overstretched the limits of the law; is concerned that the lack of transparency in this way of proceeding caused significant reputational damage and has infringed the trust of citizens toward the EU institutions;
Amendment 82 #
Paragraph 18 a (new)
18 a. Notes the political proximity of the new Secretary General given his activity as campaign manager for the EPP lead candidate for the President of the European Commission; is concerned that his nomination could undermine the political independence of the European Commission as set down in Article 17(3) of the Treaty on the European Union; stresses that the administration of the European Commission as an independent organ should remain free from political influence;
Amendment 88 #
Paragraph 18 b (new)
18 b. Is concerned by the fact that the new Secretary General accompanied the President of the Commission to a meeting of the EPP leaders on 23 March 2018; stresses that the Secretary General of the European Commission should exercise his function in full independence of political parties;
Amendment 93 #
Subheading 6
Amendment 95 #
Paragraph 19
19. Points out that in order to maintain an excellent and 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 respected for transfers under Article 7 of the Staff Regulations, apart from very exceptional cases and duly motivated, as recognised by the Court of Justice;
Amendment 96 #
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Takes note that the Court of Justice has admitted some exceptions for transfers under Article 7 but in a limited and restrictive way and that the Judges have pointed out that these transfers should be done only in the interest of the service which means that the situation has to be severe, serious and most of the time urgent; considers that in the interests of transparency and equal opportunities, the non-publication of a vacancy as a result of the interest of the service should always be justified in writing and made public, indicating the reasons for the exceptionality and the urgency and demonstrating that the negative effects in case of not adopting that decision are more serious than the failure to make that decision and finally, the invocation of urgency should not be imputable to the Appointing Authority;
Amendment 97 #
Paragraph 19 a (new)
19 a. Is of the opinion that conditions for transfers in the interest of the service under Article 7 of the Staff Regulation need to be defined and justified more clearly; believes, in particular, that reassignments with the officials' post where the publication of a vacancy is not needed should only be used in exceptional circumstances; calls on the Commission to review and propose changes to its internal rules for the appointment of staff in this regard;
Amendment 101 #
Paragraph 20
20. Recalls that only through proper publication of vacant posts is it possible to secure a wide choice of suitablymost qualified candidates, gender balanced 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 104 #
Paragraph 21 a (new)
21 a. Is convinced that the practice of “parachuting” has seriously damaged the credibility of the EU; strongly calls for an end to this practice within all the institutions and bodies of the European Union, which negatively affects the career development of staff based on their professional capacities and job performance;
Amendment 114 #
Paragraph 23
23. InvitUrges the Commission to revoke 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; inview the rules on the composition of cabinets in force in 2004 in order to clarify, as it is the case in many States Members, the political positions and the EC Staff positions ites the Commisdecisions to put in place meaensures to ensurehat the incentives and fair carerier advancement for members of cabinets do not infringe Staff carriers and to avoid definitely the practice of "parachuting";
Amendment 115 #
Paragraph 23
23. InvitesCalls on the Commission to revoke 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 cabinets;
Amendment 116 #
Paragraph 23 a (new)
23 a. Strongly urges the Commission to submit without delay its definitive proposal regarding the admissibility of maintaining the appointment of the new Secretary General of the Commission, as well as additional action to counter the damage done to the Commission’s credibility;
Amendment 118 #
Paragraph 24
24. Calls on the Commission to review, before the end of 2018, its administrative procedure for the appointment of senior officials, including the Secretary General of the Commission with the objective of fully ensuring that the best candidates are selected in a framework of maximum transparency and, collegiality and staff equal opportunities, thereby also setting an example for the other European institutions;
Amendment 121 #
Paragraph 24 a (new)
24 a. Welcomes the proposal made by Commissioner Oettinger during the hearing on 27 March 2018 to organise a round table as soon as possible in the present year with representatives from the EU institutions to review the Staff Regulations; calls on the contributing parties to carefully review the rules for the appointment of officials and to propose changes to the regulations where needed to make sure that appointment procedures are in line with the principles of transparency and equal opportunities;
Amendment 128 #
Paragraph 24 b (new)
24 b. Calls on the Commission to reassess the decision of the nomination of present Secretary General after the new rules adopted and in any case when the President of the Commission arrives to the end of his mandate; asks the Commission to take into account the EP opinion on the future decisions on the nomination of the EC Secretary General in order to strengthen transparency, democracy and trust on EU institutions;