# CE2004078EN.01021601.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/216 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/216

---

(2004/C 78 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3058/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject:   Contradictions and inconsistencies in Commission and OLAF statements about the Datashop case

Subject:

In my Written Question E-2205/03 (1), I asked why the Commission had still asked OLAF to continue with its investigations into the Planistat/Datashop case in May 2003, although the case had been referred to the Paris judicial authorities on 19 March 2003 and they had taken over the case. In its answer, the Commission stated that there were two aspects to the Datashop case, an external one, which involved the activities of Planistat Europe SA, and a second one involving Community officials.

1

The documents delivered to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office on 19 March 2003 concerned solely the external aspect of the case. According to the answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission on 22 September 2003, the internal aspect had not been referred to the French courts. However, on page 7 of the note drawn up by the Director of OLAF on 24 September 2003 for the President of the Commission, I read that ‘the French judicial authorities are in possession of the internal aspects relating to the doings of Community officials’.

How is this possible, when the note dated 24 September 2003 from the Director of OLAF also says that ‘the report on these internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very shortly’, i.e. that the OLAF report on these internal aspects had not yet been sent to the French judicial authorities?

Who then, if not OLAF, informed the French judicial authorities in advance about the internal aspects of the case?

From the note drawn up by the Director of OLAF, I also gather that the OLAF investigation into the external aspects of the case was opened only on 18 March 2003 and that the relevant findings were then forwarded to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office just one day later, on 19 March 2003. How can that be?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would point out that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is in sole charge of the investigations it conducts and that OLAF informed the Commission that the material it sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office on 19 March 2003 concerned a contractor of Directorate-General Eurostat and therefore an external investigation.

On the basis of the material supplied on 19 March 2003, the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office initiated a judicial investigation.

Subsequently the Commission, acting on the advice of OLAF, decided to file a complaint against X on 10 July 2003, in order to cover the entire potential financial loss. As the Honourable Member is informed by the note of the Director of OLAF of 24 September 2003, the Public Prosecutor submitted an application to the examining judge on 4 August 2003. In the above mentioned note, the Director of OLAF also informed that the report on the internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very shortly.

The documents which OLAF sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor's Office are governed by the national procedure and as such are covered by the judicial secrecy applicable to criminal matters; it is not for the Commission to comment on them.

---

(1)  OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 80.

1

---