# CE2004084EN.01002402.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/24

---

(2004/C 84 E/0027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2455/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat: ‘cash flow audit’ and ‘value for money’ study by way of supplementary measures to clarify what happened and prevent any recurrence

Subject:

| 1. | It has been announced that the Internal Audit Service, under the aegis of the Commission, is to carry out an investigation into fraud at Eurostat: does this supersede the independent investigation by OLAF, or will this first investigation be completed as originally planned? What is the difference in status between the investigations by the Internal Audit Service and OLAF? In what respect might they possibly supplement each other? |
| --- | --- |

1.

It has been announced that the Internal Audit Service, under the aegis of the Commission, is to carry out an investigation into fraud at Eurostat: does this supersede the independent investigation by OLAF, or will this first investigation be completed as originally planned? What is the difference in status between the investigations by the Internal Audit Service and OLAF? In what respect might they possibly supplement each other?

| 2. | Will the investigation by the Internal Audit Service be subject to restrictions? Will it include a value-for-money study or not? What may be excluded from the investigation? Will the Commission make available to the European Parliament all the information obtained by means of this investigation? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Will the investigation by the Internal Audit Service be subject to restrictions? Will it include a value-for-money study or not? What may be excluded from the investigation? Will the Commission make available to the European Parliament all the information obtained by means of this investigation?

| 3. | Would not a cash flow audit, as proposed by the former chief accounting officer, Mrs Andreasen, but which Director-General Mingasson advised against, have revealed the existence of concealed accounts much sooner? Is such an audit now being introduced? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would not a cash flow audit, as proposed by the former chief accounting officer, Mrs Andreasen, but which Director-General Mingasson advised against, have revealed the existence of concealed accounts much sooner? Is such an audit now being introduced?

| 4. | Have the individuals who are under investigation regularly visited their offices since their transfer and could they have shredded or removed documents since their transfer because they have not been denied access to Eurostat buildings? Why were they allowed free access while the former chief accounting officer was denied access to Commission buildings? Might it be desirable to take swift action now in order to avert the possibility that documents may disappear for good? Ought this not to have been done much sooner, in view of the information which the Commission now possesses? |
| --- | --- |

4.

Have the individuals who are under investigation regularly visited their offices since their transfer and could they have shredded or removed documents since their transfer because they have not been denied access to Eurostat buildings? Why were they allowed free access while the former chief accounting officer was denied access to Commission buildings? Might it be desirable to take swift action now in order to avert the possibility that documents may disappear for good? Ought this not to have been done much sooner, in view of the information which the Commission now possesses?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(30 September 2003)

(30 September 2003)

Both Parliament's resolution on the fight against fraud and its Decision on the discharge for 2001 call for the Commission to carry out an audit report on Eurostat. On 11 June 2003 the Commission instructed the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to examine a sample of up to 400 contracts and grants selected by an agreed procedure. This examination in no way supplants the independent investigation currently being conducted by the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). As the Commission's decision states, the abovementioned examination is to focus on ascertaining whether or not contracts concluded between 1999 and 2002 were legal and complied with the rules. As such it does not seek to investigate possible fraud, which is the remit of OLAF. The two investigations are therefore complementary.

The Commission's decision to instruct IAS to examine a sample of contracts and grants rather than carry out a full audit of Eurostat's internal controls was dictated by constraints of time and resources. On enquiry from the IAS, Vice President Kinnock confirmed that examination of the execution of contracts or grants was not excluded. If the IAS preliminary analysis were to provide good reasons to examine the execution of contracts or grants, then the Internal Auditor should decide on that in consultation with the Secretary General of the Commission in his capacity as co-ordinator of Commission actions relating to the Eurostat examinations. Given the recognised resource constraints and the need to fulfil the IAS task inside the essential deadline, an examination of the execution of all sampled contracts/grants would not however be possible.

In actual fact, as the Conference of Presidents was told in July 2003, IAS's first internal audit report relates to both award procedures and contract execution.

A cash-flow audit is not part of the current IAS examination; a cash flow audit on the EC budget funding would not have discovered the off-budget accounts.

The Commission's objective has consistently been to ensure the audit material requested by Parliament is established and delivered on time.

Furthermore, on 8 July 2003 the Commission took steps to secure certain archives at Eurostat's premises as a precautionary measure.

The Honourable Member is also advised to refer to the answer given to Written Question E-2204/03 from Mrs Stauner (1).

1

---

(1)  OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 234.

1

---