WRITTEN QUESTION E-1001/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the Commission therefore clarify the following points?

With regard to question 2.7(a):

- Point 36. Can the Commission provide the relevant OLAF report?

- Point 42. The reply does not correspond to the question. The question concerned the actions of the Dutch authorities mentioned in point 42 and not those of the Belgian authorities mentioned in the same point. Consequently, the Commission is asked once again to reply to question 2.7(a).

Supplementary answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2001)

The inquiries conducted in conjunction with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) were carried out in accordance with Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field(1). Under that Regulation, information exchanged between the Member States and the Commission is confidential and may not be divulged to persons other than those in the Member States or within the Community institutions whose duties require that they have access to it, while names of natural or legal persons may be disclosed to another Community institution only in so far as this is necessary in order to prevent or prosecute an irregularity or to establish whether an alleged irregularity has taken place. The Honourable Member should also refer to the Commission's answer to his Written Question E-27/01(2). That answer stated in particular that OLAF has concluded that there were no grounds for holding that irregularities had taken place and that the two Member States concerned have been informed of this.

As far as point 42 of the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/99 is concerned, the Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member that the sum of NLG 5 136,89 to be reimbursed by the Dutch company was refunded and credited to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in December 1997. In its answer to question 2.7 referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission confined itself to what it regarded as the most important aspect, i.e. the measures taken with regard to whey. The question to which the Honourable Member returns in his written question represents 3 350 kilograms or approximately 0 002 % of the quantity of skimmed-milk powder incorporated in compound feedingstuffs in the Netherlands in 1997. In its reply to the Court of Auditors' Special Report No 1/99 the Commission has already stated that the amount was reimbursed. The Honourable Member must share the Commission's view that, if it is to ensure that controls are effective, it has to concentrate its efforts on questions that represent a material risk of expenditure, bearing in mind that managing the aid and any reimbursements is the responsibility of the Member States.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 162.