EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/826

(2004/C 78 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors

In Special Report No 9/2003 (1) covering, among other things, the issue of price of cereals, sugar, meat and milk, the Court of Auditors drew attention to a high risk of fraud in the activities of the Commission's Directorate-General for Agriculture.

It would appear that there have been major delays in the procedure for setting prices and export refunds and that over a two-and-a-half-year period two officials leaked the prices set for cereals before the markets opened, for personal gain.

It would also appear that the two officials were discovered and removed from their posts, but only to be transferred to another service within the same DG.

Further anomalies also appear to exist within the DG, particularly within the management set-up. In particular, a Court of Auditors senior official has stated that, despite the fact that a five-year rotation rule is applied in respect of all such posts elsewhere, the rule has never been implemented within the DG.

Given the above and the scandals that have only too often rocked the EU's administration in recent times, would the Commission state:

1. whether the above information is correct, and whether it can provide further details on the issue of prices and the allegations of fraud?

2. why, if such anomalies do in fact exist, it has not conducted any enquiries and taken suitable action?

3. how it is that, despite the commitment made by the Commission President to ensuring transparency in administrative structures, irregularities are still to be found within its directorates-general?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

We cannot find in Special Report No 9/2003 by the European Court of Auditors any reference to a high risk of fraud in connection with the Directorate-General for Agriculture's activities.

Nor do we understand to what considerable delays in setting prices and export refunds the Honourable Member refers.

On the matter of allegations against our officials, at this stage we have only the information supplied by the Belgian judicial authorities, namely that, following a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office to the Brussels Royal Public Prosecutor's Office in 2001, an investigation was launched by an examining magistrate in Brussels. It was conducted by the Belgian authorities in appropriate confidentiality and led to the arrest of two people in Belgium, one an official of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, who was subsequently released. The case has been referred to the Belgian courts and investigation continues. It is therefore too soon to give details of the charges brought.

We will take whatever action the outcome of the proceedings indicates as necessary.

Given that criminal proceedings were under way, disciplinary proceedings were started against the official concerned. They have been suspended pending a final judgment. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations the official has already been suspended from duty.

Under our internal reform programme the Directorate-General for Agriculture is in the process of making significant improvements in market management procedures and their supervision. But no internal control system can be entirely foolproof.

Our rules on staff rotation have been applied throughout the Directorate-General for Agriculture.

(1) OJ C 211, 5.9.2003, p. 1.