# CE2004084EN.01027901.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/279 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/279

---

(2004/C 84 E/0324)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3988/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 January 2004)

Subject:   Doctoring of information passing between Commissioner Solbes and Eurostat

Subject:

In his Eurostat Briefing Note of 24 September 2003 the Commission's Internal Auditor, Mr Muis, reported occurrences which suggested that there had been doctoring of information passing between Commissioner Solbes's office and the Eurostat Directorate-General. According to the report, information about the existence of a slush fund in connection with the datashops was contained in the draft of a note sent by Eurostat to Solbes's office in summer 2002. This information was no longer included in the final version of the note.

In his report Mr Muis writes: ‘The reasons for the omission of this key information remain unclear. According to the responsible Commissioner's Cabinet, upon receipt of the draft note, it requested that some formal changes be made and that the text relating to a specific contractor be clarified. According to the Cabinet, no request was made by them to remove the above key issues relating to datashops’. In a note sent to the Budgetary Control Committee on 15 November 2003 entitled ‘Eurostat: les accusations et les griefs’, Mr Franchet says that he gave instructions in summer 2002 to inform Mr Solbes's office of all the occurrences reported to OLAF.

Can the Commission provide me with copies of the abovementioned draft and the final version of the note?

What steps has the Commission taken to discover who was responsible for removing the references to the slush fund? Was an administrative investigation carried out into this matter? If not, why not? If so, what was the outcome?

Is it common practice in the Commission for Commissioners' offices to negotiate with the services involved on the content of notes sent to them on the basis of drafts, or was this case an exception?

Was the Commissioner responsible aware of these negotiations? Does the official responsible for the negotiations with Eurostat on the content of the note still work in Mr Solbes's office?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(25 March 2004)

(25 March 2004)

The draft and final note mentioned by the Honourable Member were transmitted by the Commission on 2 December 2003, under the provisions of the Annex III, Article 3.2 of the Framework Agreement of 5 July 2000 to the chairwoman of the Committee on Budgetary Control Mrs Theato and to Mr Bayona, 2002 general discharge rapporteur, and Mr Casaca, 2001 general discharge rapporteur.

The sequence of events, which has been reconstructed on the basis of the questioning of those involved and the findings of the IAS, was communicated in a letter from the Commission that same day to the same three members.

The sequence of events has also been described in the joint reply given by the Commission to Written Questions E-0169/04 to E-0171/04 by Mr Heaton-Harris (1) and to the PE 338.732/FIN questionnaire on the Discharge for 2002 — general budget.

1

As the Honourable Member is aware, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is investigating the events at Eurostat and the Commission will consider whether a further administrative inquiry is appropriate in the light of the outcome of the inquiry by OLAF.

There was no negotiation involved in this matter. It is usual practice to ask for clarifications and further explanations with regard to a text prepared by the services.

Concerning the final question, as said above, no negotiations took place. The cabinet member responsible for Eurostat at the time has since left the cabinet.

---

(1)  See page 327.

1

---