Administrative Reform: Commission proposes improved system of financial responsibility for officials - Main contents
The European Commission today adopted draft guidelines defining the personal financial responsibility of officials who are proved to have caused financial damage to the EU budget through serious misconduct. The proposals were outlined in the White Paper of March 2000 and, in the wake of the new Financial Regulation in force since January 1st 2003, today's decision provides for implementation of the reforming change. The draft guidelines, when implemented, will improve arrangements for good financial management and promote the sense of personal financial responsibility among officials. The draft guidelines set out in detail the circumstances in which officials can be held liable for financial losses to the EU budget and define the extent and limits of their financial liability. They provide for the recovery of money when an official has caused financial loss through deliberate fault or as a result of gross negligence, but make it clear that staff will not be held responsible for genuine errors that have modest consequences. The draft guidelines will now be discussed with staff representatives whose views will be taken fully into account before finalised guidelines are adopted.
Commenting on the proposals, Neil Kinnock, Vice-President for Administrative Reform, said: "The adoption of these draft guidelines underlines the Commission's determination to secure further improvements in sound financial management by promoting increased awareness and understanding of financial responsibility across the Institution. The principles of financial liability were established in the Financial Regulation which came into force at the beginning of this year and the draft guidelines follow naturally from those provisions. The obligation of officials are clear and the draft guidelines also provide assurances that an official acting in good faith cannot be held financially liable for an error which does not amount to gross negligence. This is one of the sensible means of increasing understanding of the fact that, since some mistakes are likely in any organisation, it is better to encourage early reporting of genuine errors than to take the risk that they will be obscured until they grow into significant problems".
Article 22 of the Staff Regulation concerns the financial liability of officials for damage suffered by the EU budget as a result of serious misconduct in the performance of their duties. For Article 22 to be applied, all the following criteria must be met:
- a breach of the law, covering not only infringements of the Staff Regulations but also failure to comply with a set of rules, in particular financial rules and rules of ordinary law
- financial damage to the Communities
- personal misconduct
- serious misconduct; deliberate misconduct by which an official deliberately causes damage to the Communities. In cases of alleged gross negligence, a narrow definition is applied, and the Commission must conduct an individual investigation.
The draft guidelines make the provision that officials who are proved to have carried out fraudulent acts may be held financially liable as well as being criminally culpable and open to disciplinary action, and also make it clear that the Commission will only invoke Article 22 where there is serious personal misconduct. This provision will ensure the proper functioning of the Commission's services by supporting the initiative of officials and encouraging them to take duties with wide-ranging responsibilities. A genuine mistake will not, of itself, mean that an official will be held financially liable.
The scale of redress naturally relates to the seriousness and consequences of an offence: In cases of deliberate misconduct, reparation should be sought for the whole of the damage sustained. Where there is serious personal misconduct arising from gross negligence, the Commission will, in general, strive seek a solution that is commensurate with the official's misconduct and specify the size of the reparation accordingly. Clearly, this would be done without prejudice to any penalties arising out of other proceedings warranted by the misconduct.