WRITTEN QUESTION E-0058/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 January 1999)

Subject: Disciplinary measures

With reference to Mr Van Buitenen, the Commission has demonstrated that the Staff Regulations, in this specific case, have been used solely to punish a staff member severely and deny him any possibility of an appeal.

Would the Commission say:

1. as regards Mr Van Buitenen:

- how many days were required for the decision to be taken and the penalties imposed;

- exactly what penalties have been inflicted and what reasons have been given for them;

- what opportunities the official in question has had to defend himself;

- whether or not it considers a literal, bureaucratic application of the Staff Regulations in a case of such significance to be intended as an act of retaliation against Mr Van Buitenen and as a deterrent against other officials who might be tempted to report similar irregularities;

2. in general:

- how many officials have been punished in a similar way to Mr Van Buitenen over the last three years, and for what reasons;

- when the Commission's security services' and the ECHO humanitarian office's inquiries into the embezzlements (the so-called "management problems") began and how long they lasted?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(31 March 1999)

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission would emphasise that so far no disciplinary action has been taken against Mr Van Buitenen. The decision to suspend Mr Van Buitenen is an administrative precautionary measure provided for by Article 88 of the Staff Regulations where serious misconduct is alleged, which the Commission believed to be the case here. Disciplinary action is currently being taken against Mr Van Buitenen. His suspension is a not a unique case. The Commission has had recourse to suspension in other cases of a different nature in recent years (6 cases in 1997 and 5 in 1998).

The Commission would also like to stress that disciplinary measures are not being taken because the official in question reported cases of fraud.

They are being taken because, without authorisation, and contrary to the Staff Regulations, he transmitted the following documents among others to third parties:

- documents sub judice in a case initiated by the Commission, thereby jeopardising the investigations;

- provisional audit documents not yet subject to the adversary procedure with the body audited;

- documents containing unfounded allegations against his colleagues.

The disciplinary procedure is strictly an adversary procedure and that the person in question is entitled to be defended by a legal representative of his choice.

In August 1997, the Financial Controller and UCLAF launched an investigation into Group 4/Securitas. Following the submission of UCLAF's report, the Commission requested the Royal Prosecutor for Brussels to commence a judicial investigation and launched an internal administrative investigation, which lead to disciplinary proceedings against four officials in July 1998. These proceedings are currently in motion.

In October 1997, UCLAF launched an investigation into four contracts signed by ECHO. UCLAF reported on the findings on 18 May 1998. The conclusions drawn from the on-the-spot inspections of the firms in question were incorporated into a final report on 10 July and immediately transmitted to the judicial authorities on the same day. The administrative investigation following the UCLAF report of 18 May 1998 and the comments made by the people responsible were recorded in a report dated 9 November 1998. Here, the Commission has commenced disciplinary proceedings in three cases.