Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-26-Speech-2-280"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech⁶
dcterms:Date	"2006-09-26"^^xsd:date⁶
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Infotund (küsimused Euroopa Komisjonile)⁶
dcterms:Language	"en"^^xsd:language⁶
lpv:document identification number	"en.20060926.25.2-280"⁶
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2006-09-26-Speech-2-281⁶
lpv:speaker	lp:Dalia Grybauskaitė⁶
lpv:spoken text	". The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@en⁴
lpv:translated text	"The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@cs¹ "Hr. formand! Det spørgsmål, De stillede, hr. Seppänen, er meget vigtigt for Kommissionen og alle de europæiske institutioner. Det forslag, vi fik fra Rådet, består af to dele. Den ene del relaterer direkte til budgettet for 2007, og den anden direkte til syvårsperioden 2007-13. Jeg vil gerne sige lidt mere om følgerne i Deres spørgsmål for begge elementer af det forslag, vi har fået fra Rådet. Hvad for det første angår budgettet fra 2007, har Rådet reduceret bevillingerne med 56 millioner euro. Det betyder, at Kommissionen ikke engang ville kunne opretholde det nuværende personaleniveau, samtidig med at Rådet har godkendt 801 nye stillinger til de nye medlemmer efter udvidelsen. Men den har nægtet at give de dertil svarende bevillinger, så man kan betale lønningerne til disse stillinger. Det vil gøre enhver rekruttering umulig, hvad enten det drejer sig om nye eller gamle medlemsstater. Det vil heller ikke tillade Kommissionen at erstatte de medarbejdere, der går på pension i 2007. Det betyder, at den reelle arbejdsstyrke vil blive reduceret med ca. 420 personer. Der vil overhovedet ikke finde nogen rekruttering sted i 2007 med dette forslag. Spørgsmålet drejede sig også om agenturer. For 2007 har Rådet også foreslået at beskære bevillingerne til agenturerne med ca. 29 millioner euro. Anden del af forslaget drejer sig om at nedskære antallet af stillinger over syvårsperioden. Rådets forslag består af to dele. For det første skal hver anden stilling, der bliver ledig, slettes fra hver institutions stillingsfortegnelse. Jeg har hørt rygter om, at dette foreslås for alle tre institutioner - Parlamentet, Rådet og Kommissionen. For det andet skal Kommissionen slette yderligere 500 stillinger, hvilket Rådet retfærdiggør med koncentration af programmerne og nye administrative procedurer. For Kommissionen vil det koste op til 2.000 stillinger i løbet af syvårsperioden, og for andre institutioner såsom Rådet og Parlamentet omkring 200 stillinger. På anmodning fra Parlamentets Budgetudvalg underskrev jeg i begyndelsen af september et arbejdspapir med alle de detaljerede tekniske forklaringer og finansielle tal vedrørende dette forslag. Hvis De ønsker det, kan vi i dag give Dem pakken til orientering, så De kan studere spørgsmålene mere detaljeret. Følgen for Kommissionen alene vil blive et tab på næsten 2.000 stillinger, hvilket betyder tæt på fire generaldirektorater. Det er også omtrent halvdelen af de stillinger, der er blevet givet til udvidelsen i de tidligere år. Det tager overhovedet ikke hensyn til, at Kommissionen allerede indledte administrative reformer hos sig selv i 2002 og er i gang med en reform. Det tager heller ikke hensyn til, at de europæiske institutioner ikke er nationale regeringer, og at de særlige opgaver, som Parlamentet og Rådet udfører, er forskellige. F.eks. er Kommissionen som en offentlig tjeneste den billigste i verden. På vores budget fylder alle tre institutioner - Rådet, Parlamentet og Kommissionen - kun 5 % af budgettet til administrative udgifter, mens det tilsvarende i de fleste af vores medlemsstater fylder fire til fem gange mere. Vi kan ikke tilslutte os dette, for forslaget tager ikke hensyn til den geografiske balance. Vi må holde os inden for Rådets anmodninger. Det tager ikke hensyn til de forskellige sprog, som vi også må bevare. Der tages ikke hensyn til noget af dette. Endelig har vi vurderet dette som et forsøg på at genåbne debatten om den interinstitutionelle aftale, som vi underskrev for bare fire måneder siden."@da² ". Ihre Frage ist für die Kommission sowie alle europäischen Institutionen von sehr großer Bedeutung. Der Vorschlag, den wir vom Rat erhalten haben, besteht aus zwei Teilen: Ein Teil bezieht sich direkt auf den Haushalt 2007, und der andere bezieht sich direkt auf den Siebenjahreszeitraum von 2007 bis 2013. Ich möchte auf die in Ihrer Frage angesprochenen Konsequenzen beider Vorschläge eingehen, die wir vom Rat erhalten haben. Erstens zum Haushalt 2007. Hier hat der Rat die Mittelausstattung um 56 Millionen Euro gekürzt. Das bedeutet, dass die Kommission noch nicht einmal in der Lage wäre, den derzeitigen Personalstand zu erhalten. Dabei hat der Rat 801 neue Stellen für Vertreter aus neuen Mitgliedstaaten bewilligt. Er hat sich jedoch geweigert, die erforderlichen Mittel zur Zahlung der Gehälter für diese Stellen zu bewilligen. Damit ist jede Neueinstellung unmöglich, ganz gleich ob aus einem alten oder neuen Mitgliedstaat. Ebenso wenig wird die Kommission in der Lage sein, Mitarbeiter, die 2007 in den Ruhestand treten, zu ersetzen. Das bedeutet, dass sich die tatsächliche Zahl der Mitarbeiter um ca. 420 Personen verringern wird. Mit diesem Vorschlag für 2007 werden keinerlei Neueinstellungen stattfinden. Die Frage betraf auch die Agenturen. Der Rat hat außerdem vorgeschlagen, 2007 die Zuwendungen für die Agenturen um etwa 29 Millionen Euro zu kürzen. Der zweite Teil des Vorschlags sieht die Streichung von Stellen für den Siebenjahreszeitraum vor. Der Vorschlag des Rates besteht aus zwei Teilen. Erstens soll jede zweite frei werdende Stelle vom Stellenplan der jeweiligen Institution gestrichen werden. Gerüchten zufolge sollen davon alle drei Organe – das Parlament, der Rat und die Kommission – betroffen sein. Zweitens müsste die Kommission 500 zusätzliche Stellen streichen, was der Rat mit der Konzentration von Programmen und neuen Leitungsansätzen rechtfertigt. Das könnte die Kommission im gesamten Siebenjahreszeitraum bis zu 2 000 Stellen kosten; bei Rat und Parlament könnten davon etwa 200 Stellen betroffen sein. Auf Wunsch des Haushaltsausschusses des Europäischen Parlaments habe ich Anfang September das Arbeitspapier mit den genauen technischen Erläuterungen und Finanzzahlen zu diesem Vorschlag unterzeichnet. Wenn Sie möchten, können wir Ihnen heute das Paket zu Ihrer Information zur Verfügung stellen, damit Sie diese Frage eingehender prüfen können. Allein die Kommission würde fast 2 000 Stellen einbüßen. Das entspricht annähernd vier Generaldirektionen. Das ist auch etwa die Hälfte der Stellen, die in den Vorjahren für die Erweiterung bewilligt worden waren. Dabei werden in keinster Weise die laufende Reform sowie die Tatsache berücksichtigt, dass die Kommission 2002 bereits eine interne Verwaltungsreform eingeleitet hatte. Ebenso wenig wird dabei berücksichtigt, dass die europäischen Institutionen keine nationalen Regierungen sind und dass von Parlament und Rat andere spezifische Aufgaben zu lösen sind. So ist die Europäische Kommission in ihrer Eigenschaft als öffentlicher Dienst der billigste öffentliche Dienst der Welt. In unserem Haushalt entfallen lediglich etwa 5 % auf Verwaltungsausgaben für die drei Institutionen – Rat, Parlament und Kommission -, während in den meisten unserer Mitgliedstaaten diese Ausgaben vier- bis fünfmal höher sind. Wir können dem Vorschlag nicht zustimmen, weil er die geographische Ausgewogenheit unberücksichtigt lässt. Wir müssen uns an die Vorgaben des Rates halten. Die sprachliche Vielfalt, die wir ebenfalls erhalten müssen, findet keine Berücksichtigung. Nichts davon wird berücksichtigt. Unserer Ansicht nach wird damit versucht, die Debatte zur interinstitutionellen Vereinbarung, die wir erst vor vier Monaten unterzeichnet haben, wieder aufzurollen."@de⁹ ". Η ερώτηση που θέσατε είναι πολύ σημαντική για την Επιτροπή και για όλα τα ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα. Η πρόταση του Συμβουλίου αποτελείται από δύο μέρη: το ένα μέρος αφορά άμεσα τον προϋπολογισμό του 2007 και το άλλο μέρος αφορά άμεσα την περίοδο των επτά ετών από το 2007 έως το 2013. Θα ήθελα να αναπτύξω τις συνέπειες που αναφέρετε στην ερώτησή σας και για τα δύο μέρη της πρότασης που έκανε το Συμβούλιο. Πρώτον, αναφορικά με τον προϋπολογισμό του 2007, το Συμβούλιο έχει μειώσει τις πιστώσεις κατά 56 εκατ. ευρώ. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι η Επιτροπή δεν θα είναι καν σε θέση να διατηρήσει τον σημερινό αριθμό του προσωπικού της, ενώ το Συμβούλιο έχει εγκρίνει 801 νέες θέσεις καινούριων μελών για τη διεύρυνση. Ωστόσο, αρνήθηκε να χορηγήσει τις αντίστοιχες πιστώσεις για την καταβολή των μισθών για αυτές τις θέσεις. Αυτό θα καθιστούσε αδύνατη πρόσληψη, είτε από τα νέα είτε από τα παλαιά κράτη μέλη. Επίσης, δεν θα επιτρέψει στην Επιτροπή να αντικαταστήσει το προσωπικό της που θα συνταξιοδοτηθεί στη διάρκεια του 2007. Αυτό σημαίνει ότι το πραγματικό εργατικό δυναμικό θα μειωθεί κατά περίπου 420 άτομα. Σύμφωνα με αυτήν την πρόταση, δεν θα πραγματοποιηθεί καμία απολύτως πρόσληψη για το 2007. Η ερώτηση αφορούσε επίσης τους οργανισμούς. Για το 2007, το Συμβούλιο πρότεινε επίσης την περικοπή των πιστώσεων προς τους οργανισμούς κατά περίπου 29 εκατ. ευρώ. Το δεύτερο μέρος της πρότασης αναφέρεται στη μείωση των θέσεων υπαλλήλων για την περίοδο των επτά ετών. Η πρόταση του Συμβουλίου αποτελείται από δύο μέρη. Καταρχάς, κάθε δεύτερη θέση υπαλλήλου που θα χηρεύει θα καταργείται από το οργανόγραμμα κάθε θεσμικού οργάνου. Έχω ακούσει φήμες σύμφωνα με τις οποίες αυτό προτείνεται και για τα τρία θεσμικά όργανα – το Κοινοβούλιο, το Συμβούλιο και την Επιτροπή. Δεύτερον, η Επιτροπή θα πρέπει να καταργήσει 500 επιπλέον θέσεις υπαλλήλων, κάτι που το Συμβούλιο δικαιολογεί με τη συγκέντρωση των προγραμμάτων και νέες διοικητικές προσεγγίσεις. Για την Επιτροπή αυτό θα μπορούσε να στοιχίσει έως και 2 000 θέσεις κατά τη διάρκεια της περιόδου των επτά ετών· για άλλα θεσμικά όργανα, όπως το Συμβούλιο και το Κοινοβούλιο, θα στοίχιζε περίπου 200 θέσεις. Μετά από αίτημα της Επιτροπής Προϋπολογισμών του Ευρωπαϊκού Κοινοβουλίου, στις αρχές Σεπτεμβρίου υπέγραψα το έγγραφο εργασίας με όλες τις λεπτομερείς τεχνικές διευκρινίσεις και τα οικονομικά στοιχεία σχετικά με την πρόταση. Εάν θέλετε, θα μπορούσαμε να σας δώσουμε σήμερα αυτό το πακέτο προς ενημέρωσή σας, προκειμένου να μελετήσετε πιο λεπτομερώς το θέμα. Οι συνέπειες μόνο για την Επιτροπή θα είναι μια απώλεια περίπου 2 000 θέσεων υπαλλήλων, κάτι που σημαίνει περίπου τέσσερις ΓΔ. Είναι επίσης περίπου οι μισές θέσεις που έχουν δοθεί για τη διεύρυνση κατά τη διάρκεια των περασμένων ετών. Δεν λαμβάνεται καθόλου υπόψη το γεγονός ότι η Επιτροπή ήδη άρχισε το 2002 τη διοικητική μεταρρύθμιση στις δικές της εγκαταστάσεις, καθώς και τη συνεχιζόμενη μεταρρύθμιση. Επίσης, δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη ότι τα ευρωπαϊκά θεσμικά όργανα δεν είναι εθνικές κυβερνήσεις και ότι τα συγκεκριμένα καθήκοντα που εκτελούν το Κοινοβούλιο και το Συμβούλιο είναι διαφορετικά. Για παράδειγμα, η Ευρωπαϊκή Επιτροπή, ως δημόσια υπηρεσία, είναι η πιο φθηνή δημόσια υπηρεσία του κόσμου. Στον προϋπολογισμό μας και τα τρία θεσμικά όργανα –το Συμβούλιο, το Κοινοβούλιο και η Επιτροπή– απορροφούν μόλις το 5% περίπου του προϋπολογισμού για τις διοικητικές δαπάνες, ενώ στα περισσότερα από τα κράτη μέλη μας απορροφούν τέσσερις ή πέντε φορές περισσότερο. Δεν μπορούμε να συμφωνήσουμε, διότι η πρόταση δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη τη γεωγραφική ισορροπία. Πρέπει να ανταποκριθούμε στις απαιτήσεις του Συμβουλίου. Δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη τη γλωσσική πολυμορφία, την οποία πρέπει επίσης να διατηρήσουμε. Τίποτε από όλα αυτά δεν λαμβάνεται υπόψη. Τέλος, εκτιμούμε ότι πρόκειται για μια προσπάθεια επανέναρξης της συζήτησης σχετικά με τη διοργανική συμφωνία, την οποία υπογράψαμε μόλις πριν από τέσσερις μήνες."@el¹⁰ ". La pregunta que ha formulado es muy importante para la Comisión y todas la instituciones europeas. La propuesta que hemos recibido del Consejo consta de dos partes: una parte se refiere directamente al presupuesto de 2007 y la otra se refiere directamente al periodo septenal de 2007 a 2013. Quisiera desarrollar las consecuencias de su pregunta en los dos elementos de la propuesta que nos ha dado el Consejo. En primer lugar, con respecto al presupuesto de 2007, el Consejo ha recortado los créditos en 56 millones de euros. Esto significa que la Comisión ni siquiera podrá mantener el nivel actual de personal, mientras que el Consejo ha aprobado 801 nuevos puestos para los nuevos miembros de la ampliación. Sin embargo, se ha negado a conceder las asignaciones correspondientes para pagar los salarios de esos puestos. Esto impedirá contratación, ya sea de nuevos o de antiguos Estados miembros. Tampoco permitirá que la Comisión sustituya al personal que se jubile en 2007. Eso significa que la plantilla real se reduzca en unas 420 personas. Con esta propuesta para 2007 no habrá ninguna contratación en absoluto. La pregunta se refería también a las agencias. Para 2007, el Consejo también ha propuesto recortar las asignaciones de las agencias en aproximadamente 29 millones de euros. La segunda parte de la propuesta consiste en reducir los puestos para el periodo de siete años. La propuesta del Consejo consta de dos partes. En primer lugar, cada segundo puesto que se quede vacante se suprimirá del plan de establecimiento de cada institución. Me han llegado rumores de que esto se propone para las tres instituciones: el Parlamento, el Consejo y la Comisión. En segundo lugar, la Comisión tendrá que suprimir 500 puestos adicionales, que el Consejo justifica por la concentración de programas y nuevos enfoques de gestión. Para la Comisión esto podría costar hasta 2 000 puestos durante el periodo de siete años; para otras instituciones, como el Consejo y el Parlamento, unos 200 puestos. A petición de la Comisión Presupuestaria del Parlamento Europeo, a comienzos de septiembre firmé el documento de trabajo con todas las explicaciones técnicas detalladas y las cifras financieras sobre la propuesta. Si quiere, les puedo dar hoy toda la oferta para su información, de modo que puedan estudiar la cuestión con más detalle. Las consecuencias solo para la Comisión serán una pérdida de cerca de 2 000 puestos, lo que significa cerca de cuatro Direcciones Generales. Es también aproximadamente la mitad de los puestos que se han concedido para la ampliación durante los años anteriores. No tiene en cuenta para nada el hecho de que la Comisión ya emprendió la reforma administrativa en sus propios centros en 2002 y su reforma en curso. Tampoco tiene en cuenta que las instituciones europeas no son Gobiernos nacionales y las tareas específicas que llevan a cabo el Parlamento y el Consejo son diferentes. Por ejemplo, la Comisión Europea, como administración pública, es la administración pública más barata del mundo. En nuestro presupuesto, las tres instituciones –el Consejo, el Parlamento y la Comisión– solo destinan aproximadamente el 5 % del presupuesto al gasto administrativo, mientras que en la mayoría de nuestros Estados miembros destinan cuatro o cinco veces más. No podemos estar de acuerdo porque la propuesta no tiene en cuenta el equilibrio geográfico. Tenemos que ajustarnos a las peticiones del Consejo. No tiene en cuenta la diversidad lingüística, que también tenemos que mantener. Ninguna de estas cosas se tiene en cuenta. Finalmente, para nosotros esto supone un intento de reabrir el debate sobre el acuerdo interinstitucional, que acabamos de firmar hace cuatro meses."@es²⁰ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@et⁵ "Esittämänne kysymys on erittäin tärkeä komissiolle ja kaikille unionin toimielimille. Neuvostolta saamamme ehdotus koostuu kahdesta osasta: toinen niistä liittyy suoraan vuoden 2007 talousarvioon ja toinen liittyy suoraan seitsenvuotiskauteen 2007–2013. Haluaisin tarkastella kysymyksessänne mainittuja seurauksia laajemmin kummankin neuvoston ehdotukseen sisältyvän osan kannalta. Ensinnäkin vuoden 2007 talousarvion osalta neuvosto on vähentänyt määrärahoja 56 miljoonaa euroa. Se tarkoittaa, että komissio ei voisi edes säilyttää nykyistä henkilöstömääräänsä, vaikka neuvosto on hyväksynyt 801 uutta virkaa uusille jäsenille laajentumista varten. Neuvosto ei kuitenkaan myöntänyt määrärahoja näiden virkojen palkanmaksua varten. Tämä tarkoittaa sitä, että työntekijää ei voida rekrytoida mistään uudesta eikä vanhasta jäsenvaltiosta. Komissiolla ei näin ollen ole myöskään mahdollisuutta korvata vuoden 2007 aikana eläkkeelle jääviä työntekijöitään. Tämä tarkoittaa, että todellinen työvoima vähenee noin 420 henkilöllä. Tämän vuotta 2007 koskevan ehdotuksen perusteella ei rekrytoida yhtään työntekijää. Kysymys koski myös virastoja. Neuvosto ehdotti myös, että vuonna 2007 virastojen määrärahoja leikataan noin 29 miljoonaa euroa. Ehdotuksen toisessa osassa virkoja vähennetään seitsenvuotiskaudella. Neuvoston ehdotus muodostuu kahdesta osasta. Ensinnäkin joka toinen vapautuva virka poistetaan kunkin toimielimen henkilöstösuunnitelmasta. Olen kuullut huhuja, että tätä on ehdotettu kaikille kolmelle toimielimelle – parlamentille, neuvostolle ja komissiolle. Toiseksi komission olisi poistettava 500 lisävirkaa. Neuvosto on perustellut tätä ohjelmien keskittämisellä ja uusilla hallintotavoilla. Komissio voisi tämän seurauksena menettää seitsenvuotiskaudella 2000 virkaa. Muille toimielimille, neuvostolle ja parlamentille, tämä merkitsisi noin 200 viran menettämistä. Euroopan parlamentin budjettivaliokunnan pyynnöstä allekirjoitin syyskuun alussa työasiakirjan, jossa selvitettiin yksityiskohtaisesti kaikki ehdotuksen tekniset ja taloudelliset tiedot. Halutessanne voimme antaa teille tämän tietopaketin tänään, jotta voitte tutustua asiaan tarkemmin. Tämän seurauksena jo pelkästään komissio menettää lähes 2000 virkaa, eli lähes neljän pääosaston verran. Tämä on myös noin puolet siitä virkojen määrästä, jotka on myönnetty viime vuosina laajentumista silmällä pitäen. Ehdotuksessa ei oteta lainkaan huomioon sitä tosiseikkaa, että komissio aloitti hallintonsa uudistamisen jo vuonna 2002, eikä sitä, että uudistus on koko ajan käynnissä. Siinä ei myöskään oteta huomioon, etteivät Euroopan unionin toimielimet ole kansallisia hallituksia eivätkä parlamentin ja neuvoston tehtävät ole samanlaisia. Esimerkiksi Euroopan komissio on julkisena siviilihallintona halvin hallintopalvelu maailmassa. Talousarviossamme kaikkien kolmen toimielimen osuus – neuvoston, parlamentin ja komission osuus – on vain 5 prosenttia hallintomenoista, kun taas useimmissa jäsenvaltioissa vastaavien toimielinten osuus on nelin- tai viisinkertainen. Emme voi olla samaa mieltä, koska ehdotuksessa ei oteta huomioon maantieteellistä tasapainoa. Meidän on pitäydyttävä neuvoston vaatimuksissa. Ehdotuksessa ei oteta huomioon kielellistä monimuotoisuutta, joka meidän on myös säilytettävä. Mitään näistä seikoista ei oteta ehdotuksessa huomioon. Lisäksi pidimme tätä yrityksenä käynnistää uudelleen keskustelu toimielinten välisestä sopimuksesta, jonka allekirjoitimme vasta neljä kuukautta sitten."@fi⁷ "Votre question est très importante pour la Commission et toutes les institutions européennes. La proposition que nous a faite le Conseil comporte deux parties: la première concerne directement le budget 2007 et la seconde, la période 2007-2013. Je voudrais m’étendre sur les conséquences de la proposition que nous a soumise le Conseil pour les deux points que vous mentionnez dans votre question. Tout d’abord, concernant le budget 2007, le Conseil a réduit les affectations de 56 millions d’euros, ce qui signifie que la Commission ne serait même pas en mesure de conserver son personnel actuel. Pourtant, le Conseil a approuvé 801 nouveaux postes pour les nouveaux États membres eu égard à l’élargissement, tout en refusant cependant d’accorder les allocations correspondantes au paiement des salaires pour ces postes. Cela rendra recrutement impossible, que ce soit pour les nouveaux États membres ou les anciens. Cela ne permettra pas non plus à la Commission de remplacer les personnes qui partiront à la retraite en 2007, ce qui représente une diminution de 420 emplois réels. Cette proposition ne permet aucun recrutement en 2007. La question concernait aussi les agences. Le Conseil a également proposé de réduire, pour 2007, les allocations aux agences d’environ 29 millions d’euros. La deuxième partie de la proposition consiste à réduire les postes pour la période 2007-2013. La proposition du Conseil comporte deux parties. La première implique que la moitié des postes vacants seraient supprimés du plan d’établissement de chaque institution, et la rumeur veut que cela concerne les trois institutions - le Parlement, le Conseil et la Commission. La deuxième implique que la Commission supprime 500 autres emplois, suppressions que le Conseil justifie par la concentration des programmes et de nouvelles approches de gestion. Cela pourrait coûter jusqu’à 2 000 postes à la Commission pour la période 2007-2013, et environ 200 emplois aux autres institutions, telles que le Conseil et le Parlement. À la demande de la commission des budgets du Parlement européen, j’ai signé début septembre le document de travail reprenant toutes les explications techniques détaillées, ainsi que les montants financiers de cette proposition. Si vous le souhaitez, nous pourrions vous le fournir aujourd’hui, pour votre information, afin d’étudier la question plus en détail. Rien que pour la Commission, cela implique jusqu’à 2 000 emplois perdus, soit près de quatre DG, ce qui représente également environ la moitié des emplois attribués pour l’élargissement au cours des années précédentes. Cela ne prend pas en considération la réforme administrative que la Commission a déjà entamée en son sein en 2002 ni sa réforme en cours, pas plus que le fait que les institutions européennes ne sont pas des gouvernements nationaux, et que les tâches spécifiques que réalisent le Parlement et le Conseil sont différentes. Par exemple, la Commission européenne, en tant que fonction publique, est le service public le moins cher du monde. Dans notre budget, les trois institutions - le Conseil, le Parlement et la Commission - ne représentent que 5% environ des dépenses administratives, chiffre qui est quatre à cinq fois supérieur dans la plupart des États membres. Nous ne pouvons pas être d’accord parce que la proposition ne tient pas compte de l’équilibre géographique. Nous devons rester dans les limites des demandes du Conseil, qui ne tiennent pas compte de la diversité linguistique, que nous devons également conserver. Rien de tout cela n’est pris en considération. Enfin, nous avons considéré cette proposition comme une tentative de rouvrir le débat sur l’accord interinstitutionnel, que nous venons de signer, il y a quatre mois à peine."@fr⁸ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@hu¹¹ "La domanda da lei formulata è molto importante sia per la Commissione sia per le Istituzioni europee nel loro complesso. La proposta che abbiamo ricevuto dal Consiglio è composta da due parti: una si riferisce direttamente al bilancio 2007 e l’altra riguarda direttamente il periodo di sette anni compreso tra il 2007 e il 2013. Vorrei soffermarmi sulle conseguenze da lei citate nell’interrogazione prendendo in considerazione entrambi gli elementi della proposta che abbiamo ricevuto dal Consiglio. Innanzi tutto, per quanto riguarda il bilancio 2007, il Consiglio ha ridotto gli stanziamenti di 56 milioni di euro. Questo significa che la Commissione non sarà nemmeno in grado di mantenere l’organico attuale, mentre il Consiglio ha approvato l’assunzione di 801 nuove unità per i nuovi paesi dell’allargamento. Tuttavia, si è rifiutato di stanziare le risorse corrispondenti per pagare i salari di chi occuperà tali incarichi. Impedirà assunzione, dai nuovi come dai vecchi Stati membri, non consentendo nemmeno alla Commissione di sostituire i funzionari che andranno in pensione durante il 2007. Ciò significa che la forza lavoro effettiva verrà ridotta di circa 420 unità. Secondo questa proposta, per il 2007 non è assolutamente prevista alcuna assunzione. La sua interrogazione verteva anche sulle agenzie. Per il 2007 il Consiglio ha proposto anche di ridurre di circa 29 milioni di euro gli stanziamenti per le agenzie. La seconda parte della proposta prevede la riduzione del personale durante il periodo 2007-2013. La proposta del Consiglio è costituita da due parti. In primo luogo, ogni secondo posto vacante verrà cancellato dalla tabella dell’organico di ogni Istituzione. Mi è giunta voce che da tale proposta saranno interessate tutte e tre le Istituzioni: Parlamento, Consiglio e Commissione. In secondo luogo, la Commissione dovrà sopprimere altri 500 posti, richiesta giustificata dal Consiglio con la concentrazione dei programmi e i nuovi approcci gestionali. La Commissione potrebbe così arrivare a perdere fino a 2 000 funzionari nell’arco di questi sette anni, mentre per altre Istituzioni, quali il Consiglio e il Parlamento, la perdita subita sarà di circa 200 unità. Su richiesta della commissione per i bilanci del Parlamento europeo, all’inizio di settembre ho firmato il documento di lavoro contenente tutte le spiegazioni tecniche dettagliate e i dati finanziari relativi alla proposta. Se lo desidera, potrei fornirle oggi stesso questo pacchetto per sua informazione, in modo tale che possa studiare più a fondo la questione. Solo per la Commissione, questo comporterà la perdita di circa 2 000 posti, pari quasi a quattro Direzioni generali. Si tratta inoltre di circa la metà dei posti che sono stati assegnati per l’allargamento negli anni precedenti. Questa proposta non tiene assolutamente conto del fatto che la Commissione ha già avviato la riforma amministrativa del proprio organico nel 2002 né del suo costante processo di riforma. Inoltre non tiene conto del fatto che le Istituzioni europee non sono governi nazionali e che Parlamento e Consiglio svolgono compiti differenti. La Commissione europea, ad esempio, come servizio pubblico civile, è il servizio pubblico più economico al mondo. Nel nostro bilancio le tre Istituzioni nel loro complesso – Consiglio, Parlamento e Commissione – ricevono solo il 5 per cento circa del bilancio per le spese amministrative, mentre nella maggior parte degli Stati membri ricevono da quattro a cinque volte di più. Non possiamo approvare la proposta perché non tiene conto dell’equilibrio geografico. Dobbiamo attenerci alle richieste del Consiglio. La proposta non tiene conto nemmeno della diversità linguistica, che dobbiamo invece considerare. Nessuno di questi elementi è stato preso in considerazione. Infine, a nostro avviso questo atteggiamento costituisce un tentativo di riavviare il dibattito sull’accordo interistituzionale, che abbiamo firmato solo quattro mesi fa."@it¹² "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@lt¹⁴ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@lv¹³ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@mt¹⁵ "U stelt een vraag die van groot belang is voor de Commissie en alle andere Europese instellingen. Het voorstel dat we van de Raad gekregen hebben is tweeledig: het ene deel is rechtstreeks gerelateerd aan de begroting voor 2007, het andere rechtstreeks aan de zevenjarige periode van 2007 tot en met 2013. Ik zou in mijn antwoord op uw vraag nader in willen gaan op de consequenties die beide onderdelen van het voorstel hebben. Om met de begroting van 2007 te beginnen: de Raad heeft de kredieten met 56 miljoen euro verlaagd. Dat betekent dat de Commissie niet eens haar huidige personeelsbestand zou kunnen handhaven. De Raad heeft weliswaar ingestemd met 801 nieuwe posten voor de nieuwe lidstaten, maar weigerde tegelijkertijd om het bedrag vrij te maken dat nodig is om de bijbehorende salarissen te betalen. Dat maakt feitelijk vorm van personeelsaanwerving onmogelijk, zowel uit de oude als de nieuwe lidstaten. De Commissie is nu evenmin in staat personeel te vervangen dat in 2007 met pensioen gaat. Dat betekent dat het personeelsbestand reëel met ongeveer 420 posten afneemt. Door dit voorstel kan in heel 2007 geen personeel aangeworven worden. Uw vraag ging ook over de agentschappen. De Raad heeft tevens voorgesteld om ongeveer 29 miljoen euro op de agentschappen te bezuinigen. Het tweede deel van het voorstel bestaat uit verminderingen van het aantal posten in de zevenjarige periode. Ook hier is het voorstel van de Raad tweeledig: ten eerste zou elke instelling de helft van alle vrijkomende banen uit haar organigram moeten schrappen. Er gaan geruchten dat het voorstel alledrie de instellingen betreft, Parlement, Raad en Commissie. Daarnaast zou de Commissie nog eens 500 banen extra moeten schrappen, wat de Raad rechtvaardigt met een verwijzing naar de concentratie van programma’s en de nieuwe managementstrategieën. Dit kan de Commissie in de komende periode van zeven jaar wel 2000 banen gaan kosten, en de Raad en het Parlement ongeveer tweehonderd. Op verzoek van de Commissie begrotingscontrole van het Europees Parlement heb ik begin september het werkdocument ondertekend met daarin alle technische details en cijfers van dat voorstel. Als u wilt, kunnen we u dat pakket vandaag nog ter informatie doen toekomen, zodat u de kwestie diepgaander kunt bestuderen. Voor de Commissie alleen betekent het voorstel een verlies van een kleine tweeduizend banen, wat gelijk staat aan bijna vier directoraten-generaal. Het komt ook neer op ongeveer de helft van de banen die in de voorgaande jaren voor de uitbreiding van de EU geschapen zijn. Het voorstel houdt ook totaal geen rekening met het feit dat de Europese instellingen geen nationale regeringen zijn en dat Raad en Parlement heel verschillende functies vervullen. Zo is de Europese Commissie een van de goedkoopste overheidsdiensten ter wereld. De drie instellingen samen - Raad, Parlement en Commissie - gebruiken samen maar 5 procent van alle administratieve uitgaven, terwijl in de meeste van onze lidstaten vergelijkbare instellingen vier tot vijf keer meer kosten. Het voorstel is voor ons onaanvaardbaar, omdat het geen rekening houdt met het geografische evenwicht, dat we van de Raad juist moeten scheppen. Het houdt ook geen rekeningen met de linguïstische diversiteit, die we ook moeten handhaven. Met geen van die dingen is rekening gehouden. Daarom kunnen wij als Commissie ons niet aan de indruk onttrekken dat men hiermee probeert de discussie over het Interinstitutionele Akkoord te heropenen, een akkoord dat we nog maar vier maanden geleden ondertekend hebben."@nl³ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@pl¹⁶ "A questão que o senhor deputado foca na sua pergunta é de grande relevância para a Comissão e para todas as instituições europeias. A proposta que recebemos do Conselho consta de duas partes: uma diz directamente respeito ao orçamento de 2007 e a outra ao septénio 2007-2013. Gostaria de desenvolver a questão das consequências a que alude na sua pergunta no plano das duas vertentes da proposta que recebemos do Conselho. Em primeiro lugar, no que toca ao orçamento de 2007, o Conselho reduz as dotações em 56 milhões de euros. Isso significa que a Comissão não seria, sequer, capaz de manter o actual nível de pessoal, quando o Conselho aprovou a criação de 801 novos postos destinados aos novos membros, à luz do alargamento. Contudo, nega as correspondentes dotações para o pagamento dos salários respectivos. Isso impossibilita recrutamento, de Estados-Membros novos ou velhos. Impede também a Comissão de substituir o pessoal que se aposente ao longo do ano 2007. Isso significa uma redução dos efectivos de pessoal em cerca de 420 pessoas. Com esta proposta, não haverá lugar a nenhum recrutamento em 2007. A pergunta versava também sobre as agências. Em 2007 o Conselho propõe igualmente que se cortem as dotações das agências em cerca de 29 milhões de euros. A segunda parte da proposta consiste na redução dos postos de trabalho ao longo dos 7 anos em causa. A proposta do Conselho compõe-se de duas partes. Em primeiro lugar, um em cada dois postos dos quadros de pessoal que viessem a vagar seria suprimido. Ouvi rumores de que a solução seria proposta para as três Instituições – Parlamento, Conselho e Comissão. Em segundo lugar, a Comissão teria de suprimir 500 postos adicionais, medida que o Conselho justifica com a concentração de programas e a adopção de novas abordagens de gestão. No caso da Comissão, o sacrifício envolvido poderia atingir até 2000 funcionários ao longo dos sete anos do período em questão; para outras instituições, como o Conselho e o Parlamento, andaria pelos 200 funcionários. A pedido da Comissão dos Orçamentos do Parlamento Europeu, assinei no princípio de Setembro um documento de trabalho de que constam, em detalhe, todos os dados financeiros e explicações técnicas da proposta. Se o desejar, podemos facultar-lhe essa informação hoje mesmo, para o senhor deputado estudar a questão mais a fundo. Só para a Comissão, as consequências cifrar-se-ão numa perda de perto de 2000 funcionários, o que equivale a quase quatro direcções-gerais. Corresponde ainda a aproximadamente metade dos postos criados nos últimos anos no quadro do processo de alargamento. A proposta ignora completamente o facto de a Comissão ter já encetado uma reforma administrativa de acordo com pressupostos específicos em 2002 e se encontrar em processo de reforma. Ignora ainda o facto de as instituições europeias não serem governos nacionais e de as atribuições específicas cometidas ao Parlamento e ao Conselho revestirem uma natureza diferente. A título de exemplo, a Comissão Europeia é o serviço público mais barato do mundo. No nosso orçamento as três Instituições – Conselho, Parlamento e Comissão – gastam em despesas administrativas 5% apenas do orçamento, quando na maioria dos Estados-Membros elas consomem uma quota quatro ou cinco vezes maior. Não podemos concordar, visto que a proposta não tem em conta o equilíbrio geográfico. Temos de nos ater às solicitações do Conselho. Não tem em conta a diversidade linguística, que temos igualmente de salvaguardar. Nenhumas dessas realidades é tomada em conta. Finalmente, interpretamos isto como uma tentativa de rebrir o debate sobre o acordo interinstitucional, que assinámos há quatro meses apenas."@pt¹⁷ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@sk¹⁸ "The question you asked is very important for the Commission and all the European institutions. The proposal we got from the Council consists of two parts: one part relates directly to the 2007 budget and the other relates directly to the seven-year period from 2007 to 2013. I should like to elaborate on the consequences in your question for both elements of the proposal that we got from the Council. Firstly, with regard to the 2007 budget, the Council has reduced appropriations by EUR 56 million. That means that the Commission would not even be able to maintain the current level of staff, while the Council has approved 801 new posts for new members for enlargement. However, it refused to grant the corresponding appropriations for paying salaries for those positions. It would make recruitment impossible, from either new or old Member States. It also will not allow the Commission to replace its staff who will retire during 2007. That means that the real labour force will be reduced by about 420 people. No recruitment will be taking place at all with this proposal for 2007. The question was also about agencies. For 2007 the Council also proposed to cut agencies’ appropriations by about EUR 29 million. The second part of the proposal consists of reducing posts for the seven-year period. The Council’s proposal has two parts. Firstly, every second post becoming vacant would be deleted from each institution’s establishment plan. I have heard rumours that it is proposed for all three institutions – Parliament, the Council and the Commission. Secondly, the Commission would have to delete 500 additional posts, justified by the Council by the concentration of programmes and new managerial approaches. For the Commission that could cost up to 2000 positions during the seven-year period; for other institutions, such as the Council and Parliament, about 200 positions. At the request of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgets, in early September I signed the working paper with all the detailed technical explanations and financial figures about that proposal. If you like, we could provide you today with that package for your information, in order to study the question in more detail. The consequences only for the Commission will be a loss of close to 2000 posts, which means close to four DGs. It is also approximately half of the positions that have been given for enlargement during previous years. It does not take into account at all the fact that the Commission already started administrative reform on its own premises in 2002 and its ongoing reform. It also does not take into account that the European institutions are not national governments and the specific tasks which Parliament and Council perform are different. As an example, the European Commission, as a public civil service, is the cheapest public service in the world. In our budget all three institutions – the Council, Parliament and the Commission – only take up about 5% of the budget for administrative expenditures, while in most of our Member States they take up four or five times more. We cannot agree because the proposal does not take into account the geographical balance. We need to keep within the requests of the Council. It does not take into account linguistic diversity, which we also need to keep. None of these things is taken into account. Finally, we evaluated this as an attempt to reopen the debate on the interinstitutional agreement, which we signed just four months ago."@sl¹⁹ ". Er fråga är av stor vikt för kommissionen och EU:s samtliga institutioner. Rådets förslag består av två delar, där den ena har omedelbar anknytning till 2007 års budget och den andra direkt rör sjuårsperioden 2007–2013. Jag vill redogöra för konsekvenserna av er fråga för båda delarna i det förslag som vi fick från rådet. Till att börja med har rådet när det gäller budgeten för 2007 skurit ned anslagen med 56 miljoner euro. Detta innebär att kommissionen inte ens skulle kunna behålla den nuvarande personalstyrkan, medan rådet har sagt ja till 801 nya tjänster för nya medlemsstater i samband med utvidgningen. Rådet vägrade emellertid att bevilja motsvarande anslag för löner till innehavarna av dessa tjänster. Det skulle omöjliggöra rekrytering från såväl nya som gamla medlemsstater. Kommissionen kommer heller inte att kunna ersätta den personal som går i pension under 2007. Detta innebär att den faktiska personalstyrkan kommer att minska med cirka 420 personer. Förslaget för 2007 innebär att ingen nyrekrytering kommer att ske över huvud taget. Frågan gällde också de decentraliserade organen. Rådet föreslog även att anslagen till de decentraliserade organen skulle minskas med cirka 29 miljoner euro för 2007. Den andra delen av förslaget innebär att antalet tjänster minskas under sjuårsperioden. Rådets förslag är uppdelat i två delar. För det första skulle varannan ledig tjänst försvinna från tjänsteförteckningen inom samtliga institutioner. Jag har hört ryktas att förslaget berör samtliga tre institutioner – parlamentet, rådet och kommissionen. För det andra skulle kommissionen behöva dra in ytterligare 500 tjänster som rådet motiverat med koncentrationen av program och nya förvaltningsstrategier. För kommissionens del kan detta innebära att upp till 2 000 tjänster försvinner under sjuårsperioden. För övriga institutioner, exempelvis rådet och parlamentet, handlar det om cirka 200 tjänster. I början av september undertecknade jag på begäran av Europaparlamentets budgetutskott det arbetsdokument som innehåller en detaljerad redogörelse för samtliga tekniska förklaringar och ekonomiska beräkningar i anslutning till förslaget. Om ni vill kan ni i dag få del av hela paketet för kännedom och på så sätt närmare sätta er in i frågan. Detta kommer enbart för kommissionens del att innebära att närmare 2 000 tjänster, vilket motsvarar fyra generaldirektorat, försvinner. Det motsvarar också ungefär hälften av de tjänster som under de senaste åren inrättats inför utvidgningen. Det tas ingen som helst hänsyn till att kommissionen redan 2002 inledde såväl ett administrativt reformarbete i sina egna lokaler som det reformarbete som fortfarande pågår. Ingen hänsyn tas heller i förslaget till att EU:s institutioner inte kan likställas med nationella regeringar och att de speciella uppgifter som utförs av parlamentet och rådet är av ett annat slag. Kommissionen är exempelvis ett offentligt organ och som sådant billigast i världen. För samtliga tre institutioner – rådet, parlamentet och kommissionen – tas endast cirka 5 procent av budgeten i anspråk för administrativa utgifter, medan dessa utgifter i de flesta medlemsstater uppgår till fyra eller fem gånger mer. Vi kan inte gå med på detta, eftersom förslaget innebär att ingen hänsyn tas till den geografiska balansen. Vi måste rätta oss efter rådets krav. I förslaget tas ingen hänsyn till den språkliga mångfalden, vilket vi också måste acceptera. Inget av detta beaktas. Avslutningsvis bedömde vi detta som ett försök att återuppta diskussionen om det interinstitutionella avtal som vi undertecknade för endast fyra månader sedan."@sv²¹
lpv:unclassifiedMetadata	"Dalia Grybauskaitė,"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "Member of the Commission"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,11,13,4} "all"²¹ "any"^{5,19,15,1,18,14,16,11,13,4} "cualquier"²⁰ "elke"³ "qualquer"¹⁷ "qualsiasi"¹² "tout"⁸ "yhtään"⁷ "οποιαδήποτε"¹⁰