WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Misleading information in connection with the MED case

In my Written Question E-2043/01(1) I drew the Commission's attention to the fact that in connection with the so-called MED case (estimated loss: EUR 20 million) it had possibly been misled by its own units responsible for combating fraud. Within the Commission, but also vis-à-vis the European Parliament, the impression was given that the matter had been referred to the Belgian judicial authorities as long ago as 1996, although the referral had in fact been delayed until late 1999, shortly before the statute of limitations would have come into effect.

In her answer, Mrs Schreyer, writing on behalf of the Commission, refuted those claims and maintained that the anti-fraud unit UCLAF had referred the matter to the competent Belgian judicial authorities in 1996 with a view to the opening of criminal proceedings, if appropriate.

It has now emerged from the answer to my supplementary Written Question PE-2784/01(2) that in 1996 only informal consultations were apparently held with the Belgian judicial authorities, that there is no correspondence relating to the consultations and that it cannot even be stated which department of the Belgian judicial authorities was contacted.

1. Does the Commission nevertheless stand by its position that UCLAF note No 6039 of 19 November 1996 provided it with correct and accurate information? In particular, does the Commission take the view that informal consultations can in all seriousness be described as a referral to the competent judicial authorities, as they were in the note in question?

2. Can the Commission give a plausible explanation as to why, in the final UCLAF report on this case (No 2803 of 15 May 1997), no reference whatsoever is made to the supposed referral to the Belgian judicial authorities?

3. Why, despite repeated requests, is the Commission still refusing to provide me with a copy of its letter of 13 December 1999 to the Brussels state prosecutor, Mr Dejemeppe?

4. Is it true that copies of this letter were forwarded to other Members of the European Parliament more than one year ago?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 170.

(2) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 54.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

1. In its answers to the Honourable Member's written questions E-2043/01(1) and P-2784/01(2), the Commission did not state that the note of 19 November 1996 mentioned referral to the Belgian judicial authorities, but, rather, that they had been informally consulted. The Commission would point out that there are no longer any legal proceedings pending in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

2. The Commission cannot explain why UCLAF did not refer to the matter raised by the Honourable Member in its report of 15 May 1997, which was drawn up and forwarded independently.

3. As regards the Honourable Member's third and fourth questions, the Commission would point out that this document is in OLAF's possession. It has contacted OLAF to inform it of the Honourable Member's request.

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 170.

(2) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 54.