WRITTEN QUESTION E-1082/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: Blurring of interests and distortion of competition with the Sensus project

The Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus, seeks to develop an information exchange programme for the European police and intelligence services. The search for interesting language technology is an important part of this project. Sensus is subsidised by the Commission. The reply to Question P-0009/01(1) shows that Sensus and Aventinus I and II have been financed from budget line B6-6121.113 of the telematics applications programme (1994-1998). A maximum contribution of 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus I, and of this 2 341 190 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of 550 000 was approved for Aventinus II, of which his 513 777 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which 478 753 was paid on 31 December 2000.

Coordination of Sensus is in the hands of Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski, a secret agent of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. He is also behind three language Development Companies of Lernout & Haspie (L & H). Thanks to his dual role, the Bundesnachrichtendienst can have access to L & H's language technology. It is immediately apparent that the Sensus-Bundesnachrichtendienst-L & H set-up results in (a) a dubious blurring of interests between the private and the public sector, (b) an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services and (c) unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not.

1. Does the Commission acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator leads to a blurring of interests between the public and the private sector (in this case the Bundesnachrichtendienst)? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this blurring?

2. Does the Commission acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to an imbalance in the language technology know-how of the various police and security services, in particular in favour of the Bundesnachrichtendienst? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in this imbalance?

3. Does the Commission acknowledge that the dual role of the Sensus coordinator has led to unfair competition between those language technology firms which are involved in Sensus and those which are not? If not, what guarantees does the Commission have that the set-up referred to above has not resulted in unfair competition?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

1. The Sensus project includes several public and private organisations, including police forces and security agencies. The list of participants is consistent with the objectives of the project in developing pre-competitive technology to combat organised crime.

2. The Commission does not consider that there has been an improper imbalance in the availability of language technology to police forces, in favour of those who participated in Sensus.

The involvement of Europol and the presence in the consortium of a user group of police forces across Europe ensured that the project did not favour any specific objectives of any individual participant. Consistent with the open nature of the project, its objectives and the fact that the results have been widely presented to many police forces and at relevant fairs and exhibitions.

3. As the Sensus project is concerned with the development of pre-competitive technology, there would not seem to be any grounds for alleging the occurrence of any unfair competition in this regard.