# CE2004065EN.01015601.xml

| 13.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 65/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 65/156

---

(2004/C 65 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat: date of first discovery of fraud and ease with which contracts with businesses and amounts per business could be examined

Subject:

| 1. | Since when has the Commission been aware of contacts between Eurostat and dubious businesses, the fact that large sums of money were being received via concealed accounts (at least EUR 900 000 to date) for the purchase of statistics via datashops and the scope for a small number of officials to get hold of this money? Has the Commission known about this since 1997, 1999 or only 2001? Does the Commission agree that internal correspondence within the Commission, namely letters ESTAT/G-0/CD/sb/000347 and PRODI(2000)A/291246.--/1, gives the impression that Mr Prodi already knew about the matter at an earlier date than the Commission has so far confirmed? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Since when has the Commission been aware of contacts between Eurostat and dubious businesses, the fact that large sums of money were being received via concealed accounts (at least EUR 900 000 to date) for the purchase of statistics via datashops and the scope for a small number of officials to get hold of this money? Has the Commission known about this since 1997, 1999 or only 2001? Does the Commission agree that internal correspondence within the Commission, namely letters ESTAT/G-0/CD/sb/000347 and PRODI(2000)A/291246.--/1, gives the impression that Mr Prodi already knew about the matter at an earlier date than the Commission has so far confirmed?

| 2. | Is the Commission aware that irregularities relating to contracts at Eurostat may also have arisen in connection with other businesses, such as Worldsystems, Eurocost, Eurogramme, TES, GIM, DEBA, Planistat and CESD, and that far larger sums are involved in these cases? Is the Commission aware that, at the mere touch of a button using the internal book-keeping system Sincom, it can state precisely over what period these businesses had contracts with Eurostat and what the value of the contracts with each such business was? Will the Commission forward this information to me and the other Members of the European Parliament? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Is the Commission aware that irregularities relating to contracts at Eurostat may also have arisen in connection with other businesses, such as Worldsystems, Eurocost, Eurogramme, TES, GIM, DEBA, Planistat and CESD, and that far larger sums are involved in these cases? Is the Commission aware that, at the mere touch of a button using the internal book-keeping system Sincom, it can state precisely over what period these businesses had contracts with Eurostat and what the value of the contracts with each such business was? Will the Commission forward this information to me and the other Members of the European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

(22 September 2003)

The Commission answered these questions in hearings of the Cocobu and in particular in the hearings of 17 and 30 June 2003. As soon as information became available to it, the Commission immediately took the appropriate measures. In this respect, the Commission requests the Honourable Member to refer to the decisions of the Commission of 9 and 23 July 2003.

The general tone of the e-mail sent to the President on 13 November 2000, to which the Honourable Member refers, was polemical but the specific operational purpose of the message was vague. The author's thoughts on a number of issues, such as the comparative courage of certain Members of the Commission and prominent figures (Monnet, Schuman), were included alongside other, sometimes rather cryptic, remarks. In short, it was difficult for the uninformed reader to understand the true purpose of this correspondence. In accordance with normal practice in such cases, this e-mail was passed on directly to the service concerned (in this instance, Eurostat) to deal with as appropriate. Eurostat acted on what appeared to be the ‘operational’ section of the document, i.e. the author's declared interest in the publication of an internal audit report on Eurocost. The answer given described the factual situation with the dossier at that point, i.e. that the report in question had been sent to the competent services which were dealing with it in accordance with the confidentiality rules applicable in such cases.

On 11 June 2003 the Commission mandated the Internal Audit Service to carry out an audit of Eurostat contracts. On 9 July 2003 the Commission received a first interim report from Internal Audit Service (IAS) and an analysis by DG BUDG of the audit reports established by the Internal Audit Capabilities on Eurostat and decisions were taken accordingly and communicated to the Parliament. In particular, a special Task Force under the authority of the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has been set up. Following the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2003, the duty of the Task Force Eurostat (TFES) is to prepare a report for the Commission regarding the different administrative aspects of Eurostat files. Both the TFES and the IAS work continue. It is the declared intention of the Commission to keep the Parliament regularly informed on these matters.

In the context of the 2001 Discharge, the Commission has already stated that it currently establishing a central contract database. The information required by the Honourable Member has to be obtained via the data warehouse application which provides data on budgetary appropriations committed in favour of third parties. In its replies to other recent Parliamentary Questions, the Commission has already given detailed information on commitments with and payments to most of the entities mentioned by the Honourable Member.

---