WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Cellule de Communication

1. On the basis of the report submitted in August 2001 by the official Paul van Buitenen, in a letter of 12 April 2002 Commissioner Neil Kinnock informed the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary Control, Diemut Theato, that on 8 April 2002 an administrative inquiry had been initiated into the case of the Cellule de Communication, which, at the behest of the former Commissioner Edith Cresson, and under the leadership of the current Director-General François Lamoureux, is alleged to have awarded contracts to French firms under dubious circumstances. Mr Kinnock stated that the inquiry would be completed and that the claims made by Mr van Buitenen would be verified by late June 2002 at the very latest. Is it the case that this inquiry has still not been completed?

2. Why has the inquiry continued at least nine months beyond the final deadline given by Mr Kinnock?

3. How can it be that more than 18 months after the submission of the Van Buitenen report the Commission has still not satisfactorily verified the claims made in it?

4. Is it the case that as long ago as October 1999, in an unexpurgated version of his book Blowing the Whistle, i.e. one in which he identified the alleged guilty parties by name, Mr van Buitenen forwarded to Romano Prodi, who had just taken office as President of the Commission, the relevant information concerning the Cellule? Why did the Commission not instigate a full investigation of those allegations at the time?

5. If the administrative inquiry concerning the Cellule de Communication has already been completed, what disciplinary action has the Commission taken on the basis of its outcome, in particular, if appropriate, against Mr Lamoureux?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

The Honourable Member may recall that, as I said to the President of the Budget Control Committee in April 2002, the Appointing Authority took a decision on 8 April 2002 to open an administrative inquiry into a number of alleged irregularities relating to the awarding of contracts allegedly deriving from the Cellule de communication. By virtue of this decision, the Appointing Authority mandated the Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out the inquiry and to report on potential individual responsibilities. This inquiry followed investigations conducted by the Commission's former anti-fraud unit, now OLAF, into numerous allegations made by Mr Van Buitenen, including those related to the Cellule de Communication, even before the publication of his book.

The Administrative Inquiry report was produced in October 2002. The Honourable Member will appreciate that, for any inquiry to be thorough and conclusive, the possibility of additional investigative measures taken in the course of an inquiry should be allowed for. In this particular case, the sheer volume of the material consulted, the number of persons heard and the thoroughness of the analysis conducted has meant that it has proved impossible to maintain the time frame originally envisaged.

In addition, according to Article 5 of the Commission Decision of 19 February 2002 on the conduct of Administrative Inquiries and Disciplinary Proceedings(1), each person implicated in any inquiry is given the right to comment on the conclusions of the report before its finalisation. Obviously, fulfilment of that necessary requirement has time implications.

On the basis of the conclusions of the Administrative Inquiry report, the Appointing Authority decided on 10 February 2003 to open disciplinary proceedings against nine officials or former officials of the Commission. The Honourable Member will understand that the rights of the persons concerned to confidentiality and due process imply that the Commission must refrain from disclosing their identity. However, in view of the reference to a name in the Honourable Member's question, it should be noted that the above-mentioned report did not recommend any disciplinary action against Mr François Lamoureux.

(1) C (2002) 540.