WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Suppression of information about compliance with EU rules and subsidy conditions as a consequence of national, regional and local confidentiality rules

1. Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands province of Friesland has introduced confidentiality rules stipulating that politicians and officials will be liable to penalties if they help to bring confidential information to the attention of third parties, and that such third parties also include the Commission (see press report in Spits for Friday 20 April 2001)?

2. Is the Commission also aware that it was financial assistance granted to the SCI computer company, which has since led the Commission to demand repayment of 1,5 million and caused a local politician to be blamed for the repayment demand because he had passed on confidential information to the Commission, that provided the impetus for the rules referred to in paragraph 1?

3. Is the Commission aware of other cases where local, regional or national authorities in Member States use confidentiality provisions to protect themselves from investigations into the misappropriation of EU financial assistance or infringements of European rules? In what Member States other than the Netherlands do such provisions also apply?

4. Are provisions that prohibit politicians and officials from passing on information to third parties obstructing the Commission in its efforts to obtain the information it needs to monitor for misappropriations of EU financial assistance and investigate violations of European rules, thus preventing it from carrying out the checks for which such information is necessary?

5. Does the Commission consider the fact that local, regional and national governments have the right to use national legislation to protect themselves against the leaking of information to third parties, including the Commission, as grounds for simplifying or reviewing the rules on providing EU subsidies and complying with EU commitments?

6. If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, how will the Commission prevent situations from arising again and again where lack of information will cause it make wrong decisions or be forced to abandon any attempt to demand repayment?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission does not as yet have sufficient information to deliver a detailed opinion on the issue raised by the Honourable Member.

Nonetheless, the Commission has looked into the situation and it would appear that the case in point may involve the European Social Fund. The matter has been referred to the relevant department, the Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, so that it can carry out the necessary checks.

However, the following points should be made regarding the principles involved:

- Grants awarded by the Commission are systematically subject to the condition that the recipient permits full unrestricted access to all the supporting documents or other evidence required by the Commission's inspectors. This point is clearly stated in the vade-mecum on grant management (Article 8 of the General terms and conditions applicable to grant agreements of the European Communities). In the event that the applicant does not comply fully with this requirement, the Commission is entitled to terminate the grant agreement and, in that case, to demand total or partial reimbursement of any amounts already paid.

- If the Commission were to become aware that specific provisions or specific procedures had been laid down nationally or in an individual case to hinder the right of access to evidence, it would of course then have to, firstly, take the necessary corrective financial action and, secondly, issue a strong formal protest against the use of such practices, which contravene Community rules.