WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: False figures at Eurostat/Eurogramme

It has been reported in various sections of the media that the EU Statistical Office Eurostat has been using false figures, at least some of which were derived from cooperation with the firm Eurogramme in Luxembourg.

1. It seems that in at least two cases Eurogramme, which cooperates closely with Eurostat, submitted falsified turnover figures in connection with invitations to tender. This may be deduced from a comparison of the commercial register in London with the figures submitted to the Commission. Did the Commission check Eurogramme's figures at the time? Why were the contracts awarded to Eurogramme?

2. The Commission became aware, at the latest, in December 2000 in the light of an internal audit report that Eurogramme was using falsified figures. The press has quoted that report as stating: In its tender, Eurogramme supplied false information about the firm's financial and operational resources. In addition, Eurostat was said not to have adequately checked the figures supplied. Why were they not checked properly?

3. After the submission of the audit report, did not the head of Eurostat have doubts about further cooperation with Eurogramme?

4. The audit report mentions the possibility of debarring Eurogramme from further contracts on account of the false statements. Why did the Commission not so debar it, in accordance with its declared zero tolerance policy?

5. Was the audit report of December 2000 submitted to the Member of the Commission responsible, or was he unaware of it?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

There have been various media reports that the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) used false figures in connection with its cooperation with the Luxembourg company, Eurogramme.

1. In 1999, in relation to an invitation to tender (not involving the Prodcom project) to which it had replied, Eurogramme Limited (Succursale Luxembourg) S.à.r.l was asked to submit its balance sheets for 1997 and 1998, together with the corresponding tax certificates. Pending this information, the award of the contract was suspended. Following this request, the company provided financial reports filed with the relevant authorities, along with certificates relating to social security, VAT and the payment of income and company tax.

On the basis of the additional information requested and the corrected documents supplied by Eurogramme, Eurostat considered that the firm had not deliberately intended to commit fraud or make false declarations and that it was thus not guilty of serious misrepresentation under Article 29 of the Directive on public service contracts. Consequently, Eurostat decided that it was not legally entitled to debar Eurogramme from invitations to tender.

A different stance could have made the Commission liable to action on the ground of discrimination in the treatment of tenderers. At the time, external data bases were not consulted, which in any case is still not required by legislation on public contracts.

2. By way of a supplement to the answer given in paragraph 1, Eurostat points out that at the time of the events it had neither the means nor the habit of conducting systematic checks on the financial status of every company that answered an invitation to tender. Since then, and in the light of the conclusions of the internal audit report, Eurostat has introduced the necessary measures and now carries out a stricter check on the financial reports submitted by companies in connection with invitations to tender.

3. The document which the honourable Member mentions became available in December 2000 and refers solely to the Prodcom project and the related contracts for 1998 and 1999.

This document was followed up internally at Eurostat (see also paragraph 2). In the invitations to tender for 1999 and subsequent years, the information collected on the form was in line with the requirements of the Directive on public contracts (see also paragraph 1). In the light of the above, and in view of the facts as a whole, it was not felt that cooperation with Eurogramme should be suspended.

4. In the light of these explanations, it was felt that the matter came under administrative management and the Member of the Commission was not specifically informed at the time.

As for the first query in part 4 of his question, the honourable Member is referred to the answer given in paragraphs 1 and 3 above.