# CE2004084EN.01021402.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/214 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/214

---

(2004/C 84 E/0259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject:   Eurostat: alteration of the Commission's position on recognising and tackling fraud and consequences for independent investigation by OLAF

Subject:

| 1. | Why has the Commission hitherto adopted the position, with regard to Eurostat's contacts with dubious businesses and concealed accounts, that it could not do anything or make any substantive statement until the findings of the OLAF investigation were published, which is due to happen shortly, and why did it stress in its reply of 3 June 2003 to my question H-0343/03 (1) that in principle everyone is deemed innocent until they have been proved guilty? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Why has the Commission hitherto adopted the position, with regard to Eurostat's contacts with dubious businesses and concealed accounts, that it could not do anything or make any substantive statement until the findings of the OLAF investigation were published, which is due to happen shortly, and why did it stress in its reply of 3 June 2003 to my question H-0343/03 (1) that in principle everyone is deemed innocent until they have been proved guilty?

1

| 2. | Why has the Commission now decided, before OLAF's findings are published, already nonetheless to refer the case to the Internal Audit Service with effect from 7 July 2003? Why did the Commission at that particular time, when no one was expecting it, recognise after all that fraud had occurred on a large scale at Eurostat? Why did it on this occasion, unlike in previous comparable fraud cases, order the seizure of records? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Why has the Commission now decided, before OLAF's findings are published, already nonetheless to refer the case to the Internal Audit Service with effect from 7 July 2003? Why did the Commission at that particular time, when no one was expecting it, recognise after all that fraud had occurred on a large scale at Eurostat? Why did it on this occasion, unlike in previous comparable fraud cases, order the seizure of records?

| 3. | Would the Commission be surprised if, in view of the Commission's conduct to date and the recent radical changes in it, the European Parliament decided to conclude the consideration of this issue by holding a parliamentary inquiry into the way in which the information which has become available over the years concerning possible irregularities has been dealt with, the promptness and adequacy of measures to prevent any recurrence and the way in which information has been provided on the subject at the various stages? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Would the Commission be surprised if, in view of the Commission's conduct to date and the recent radical changes in it, the European Parliament decided to conclude the consideration of this issue by holding a parliamentary inquiry into the way in which the information which has become available over the years concerning possible irregularities has been dealt with, the promptness and adequacy of measures to prevent any recurrence and the way in which information has been provided on the subject at the various stages?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly said that it is anxious to respect the full independence of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to avoid encroaching on inquiries in progress by prejudging the outcome. But this does not mean that any action at all on its part is ruled out.

On 11 June 2003, as part of its follow-up to the 2001 discharge and at the request of Parliament, the Commission mandated the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to carry out an examination of Eurostat contracts. On 7 July 2003 the Commission received a first interim report from IAS and an analysis by the Directorate-General for Budget of the audit reports established by the Internal Audit Capacity of Eurostat. This latter analysis showed that at least during the 1990s there had been a number of serious infringements of the Financial Regulation, and that the action taken on several important aspects of the internal audit reports may not have shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness. The work of the IAS is still ongoing.

In addition, a special Task Force Eurostat (TFES) was set up to provide the Commission with the information necessary for it to take, where appropriate in several stages but in the short term, the management and organisational measures, especially of a preventive nature, that were needed in order to ensure that the Financial Regulation and the associated rules of good administrative practice were observed.

The Commission's reference to the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is self-explanatory in a Union founded on the rule of law. The reports and information in the Commission's possession do not prejudge the assessment of the individual responsibilities involved, which will be arrived at by the procedures established for the purpose. The Commission would also refer the honourable Member to its answer to question E-2515/03 by Mr Bösch (2).

2

Finally, in reply to the last part of the honourable Member's question, it is not for the Commission to speculate on the way in which Parliament may choose to exercise its prerogatives with regard to temporary committees of inquiry.

---

(1)  Written reply of 3 June 2003.

1

(2)  See page 30.

2

---