WRITTEN QUESTION E-2043/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Forwarding to the Commission of misleading information relating to a fraud case

According to estimates drawn up by Parliament, in the so-called MED case losses totalling roughly 20 million were run up as a result of mismanagement, the manipulation of contract award procedures and nepotism. The case was brought to light on 30 May 1996 through the publication of the European Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/96(1).

However, the matter was submitted to the Belgian state prosecutor's office only on 13 December 1999, i.e. more than three-and-a-half years later and shortly before the statute of limitations took effect (letter No 008035 from the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, to the Belgian State Prosecutor, Mr Djemeppe).

Since when has the Commission been aware that the forerunner organisation to OLAF, UCLAF, had previously, in a note dated 19 November 1996 (register number 6039), forwarded false information to the Secretary-General and Financial Controller of the Commission, the Private Office of the President of the Commission, Mr Santer, and Commissioners Marín and Gradin, giving the impression that the Belgian legal authorities had already been asked to investigate?

Can the Commission state why this misleading information was forwarded?

Can the Commission state whether and when this misleading information was corrected and, if possible, forward a copy of the corresponding letter?

Can the Commission state what steps it has taken, or what steps it plans to take, against the officials responsible for misleading senior members of staff of the Commission and Commissioners in this matter?

Can the Commission confirm that the letter of 13 December 1999 failed to provide the Belgian legal authorities with comprehensive information about the case, not drawing attention, for example, to the manipulation of tender procedures?

Can the Commission forward to me a copy, including all annexes, of the letter sent to the Belgian state prosecutor's office?

(1) OJ C 240, 19.8.1996.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(14 September 2001)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the MED case was looked into by the Committee of Independent Experts, which reported its findings in its report of 15 March 1999.

Regarding the two points raised by the Honourable Member relating to the transmission of false information by UCLAF to senior levels within the Commission and the incomplete information given to the Belgian judicial authorities, the Commission considers that the two documents referred to do not support the interpretation placed on them by the Honourable Member.

Therefore:

- For one thing, the information note dated 19 November 1996 concluded that UCLAF has approached the Belgian judicial authorities to evaluate the conditions for launching a prosecution for conflict of interest under section 245 of the Belgian Criminal Code. The outcome of the consultation led UCLAF to the view that the facts were not such as to warrant a conclusion that there was an offence against Belgian criminal law.

- For another, the letter referring the case to the Royal Prosecutor in Brussels on 13 December 1999 explicitly referred to that consultation and, as is clear from the annexes to it, all the requisite information. The Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) has been informed.

The Commission accordingly considers that it cannot answer the Honourable Member's questions, which proceed from a different analysis.

As regards the letter of 13 December 1999 and its annexes, the Commission, on the basis of the relevant Community and national law, will examine whether and how it might be released to Parliament.