EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 78/520

(2004/C 78 E/0541)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3322/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 November 2003)

Subject: Vice-President Kinnock and indications of irregularities at Eurostat

In a document passed on to Directors-General Brüner and Reichenbach on 31 August 2001 (‘File on possible irregularities in many Commission services’), Paul van Buitenen also drew attention to numerous irregularities in connection with Eurostat.

Van Buitenen informed the two Directors-General, inter alia, of the existence of an audit report describing the practice, at Eurostat, of creating concealed cash reserves.

He also reported indications that a director of Eurostat had been guilty of numerous derelictions of duty.

When did Mr Kinnock — the Commission Vice-President responsible for disciplinary issues — receive the copy of the document in question?

Were members of his cabinet also given the opportunity to read it? If so, when?

What steps did Mr Kinnock take to obtain a copy of the audit report concerned?

What steps did Mr Kinnock take to have the accusations against the director investigated? What was the outcome?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 January 2004)

On 31 August 2001, Mr Van Buitenen submitted to the Director-General of the Antifraud Office (OLAF) and to the Director-General of the Commission's Directorate General (DG) Administration and Personnel (ADMIN) a 5 000-page dossier. The dossier was later established by OLAF and ADMIN to contain 270 identifiable allegations.

As the Honourable Member will know from previous Parliamentary answers and Statements, the Vice-President of the Commission in charge of Personnel and Administration, Mr Kinnock, received a copy of this document from DG ADMIN in early September 2001 in his capacity of Appointing Authority for senior officials referred to in the document.

The voluminous nature of the allegations meant that neither the Commissioner nor members of his cabinet were in a position to determine whether the matters identified in the dossier constituted or amounted to irregularities. This issue could, rightly, only be properly determined by the investigative bodies to whom the file was referred in accordance with established and relevant procedures and analysis was correctly left to them.

As has been reported to Parliament, on the basis of preliminary drafts submitted by Mr Van Buitenen, OLAF and DG ADMIN conducted an initial review of the material supplied by Mr Van Buitenen in order to determine which of the allegations that he made fell within OLAF's competence, as set out in Article 1(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (1), and were therefore for OLAF to investigate. The Honourable Member will know from previous answers that the material in the dossier relating to Eurostat was considered to fall wholly within OLAF's remit, particularly since OLAF was already conducting investigations into the issues raised.

The information provided by Mr Van Buitenen in relation to Eurostat was, therefore, from the outset, assessed by the competent analysts to be within OLAF's remit and for OLAF, rather than for DG ADMIN or Mr Kinnock, to investigate further. The OLAF investigating magistrates' summary assessment of the elements of the file attributed to OLAF was sent to the Commission's Director General for Administration and to the President of Parliament's Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) on 15 February 2002.

In relation to Eurostat, OLAF concluded at that moment, that the information received did not justify opening new investigations. However, the information supplied by Mr Van Buitenen on Eurostat was transferred to the active files.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.