# CE2004078EN.01019902.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/199 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/199

---

(2004/C 78 E/0205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2969/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Management of EUR 150 000 of Community funds — involvement of a Romanian government minister

Subject:

According to the Romanian press, the husband and the son of the Romanian Minister for European Integration are making improper use of EUR 150 000 awarded under the Leonardo da Vinci programme for vocational training. The Romanian press and the French newspaper Le Monde of 23 September 2003 further report that the Commission sent experts to Bucharest who stayed there for only one day — at the seat of the EU representation.

| 1. | Can the Commission say what kind of credibility such a Community programme can have that awards funds to companies run by family members of a Minister for European Integration? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Can the Commission say what kind of credibility such a Community programme can have that awards funds to companies run by family members of a Minister for European Integration?

| 2. | Can the Commission provide detailed accounts of the use of these funds by the following companies:






  — | Haka Industrienlagen; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

Can the Commission provide detailed accounts of the use of these funds by the following companies:

—

Haka Industrienlagen;

| — | Millenium; |
| --- | --- |

—

Millenium;

| — | Imes; |
| --- | --- |

—

Imes;

| — | Debrom? |
| --- | --- |

—

Debrom?

| 3. | What does the Commission intend to do to remedy this situation? |
| --- | --- |

3.

What does the Commission intend to do to remedy this situation?

Answer given by Mrs Reding on behalf of the Commission

(18 November 2003)

(18 November 2003)

The sum of EUR 150 000 relates to two mobility projects submitted in 2000 (i.e. before Mrs Puwak was appointed Minister for European Integration) and another two in 2001.

The audit carried out by four Commission officials (two days in Bucharest then analysis of the documents submitted in Brussels) concluded that the Romanian National Agency had called in independent experts for the evaluation of project proposals in 2000 and 2001.

The Commission did not find evidence of any external attempt to influence this process, notably on the part of the Romanian Government of the time.

For the record, the companies Imes and Haka, which were present at the proposal submission stage, were replaced by the companies Millenium Consulting and DE*BE*ROM respectively as partners for hosting trainees.

Management of the mobility support measure is decentralised and is the responsibility of the national authorities, in this case the Romanian Ministry of Education. It has set up a special committee to carry out another complete analysis of the reports from the four projects in question, looking in particular at the supporting documentation for expenditure. The results of this inquiry should be released in the first week of November 2003. The Ministry of Education has agreed to take any action deemed necessary in the light of these results.

The Commission is following the Romanian committee of inquiry's work closely.

Following the above mission, some irregularities were uncovered by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture during a detailed examination of the files on the management of the Community funds granted to the four projects. The Commission has made its position known to the Romanian authorities. The European Antifraud Office has been called in to assess the allegations and is available to assist the authorities concerned.

In any event, the Romanian National Agency was asked, back in late 2001, to draw up a plan for improving mobility procedures.

On a broader scale, in January 2002 the Commission began setting up a quality assurance system for the different stages of the mobility support measure for all participant countries.

The next stage will involve:

| — | developing the quality assurance approach for the partnerships: creating a ‘Leonardo da Vinci charter’ setting out the promoter's and its partners' obligations; |
| --- | --- |

—

developing the quality assurance approach for the partnerships: creating a ‘Leonardo da Vinci charter’ setting out the promoter's and its partners' obligations;

| — | improving the beneficiary reporting system in order to gain a better insight into their traineeships; |
| --- | --- |

—

improving the beneficiary reporting system in order to gain a better insight into their traineeships;

| — | defining what is required from the National Agencies in terms of monitoring projects, based on previously developed best practices. |
| --- | --- |

—

defining what is required from the National Agencies in terms of monitoring projects, based on previously developed best practices.

---