WRITTEN QUESTION E-0645/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(11 March 2002)

Subject: Mr Lamy's hearing before the anti-fraud unit

In my written question E-1174/01(1) I asked the Commission to provide me with a full list of all meetings at which Mr Lamy met European Commission officials, of whatever rank, during his time as a member of the board of Crédit Lyonnais, and to name the date, place and purpose of each meeting.

In its answer the Commission first stated that during his time as a member of the board of Crédit Lyonnais, Mr Lamy met with Commission officials formally only once, between 1 and 3 May 1998 in Brussels. The purpose of this meeting was to discuss a state aid case concerning Crédit Lyonnais.

In its answer to my written question P-3450/01(2) the Commission then admitted that in addition to the meeting it had mentioned there had been further contacts with Commission members or services during the time in question. Instead of apologising for its first answer, which had been incomplete and therefore misleading, the Commission accused me of taking this answer out of context and misinterpreting it.

1. Does the Commission agree that from the beginning the question referred not to meetings Mr Lamy attended in his capacity as a member of the board of Crédit Lyonnais, but to those he attended during his time as a member of the board of Crédit Lyonnais, and that there is a difference between the two?

2. Does it agree that its previous answers on the subject were therefore neither complete nor correct, and that this might suggest that Mr Lamy has something to hide?

3. Is it now prepared to provide me with a full list of all Mr Lamy's formal meetings with Commission representatives during the time in question?

4. Can it state when and where the meeting with officials of the anti-fraud unit (UCLAF) mentioned in the answer to written question P-3450/01 took place, and what the meeting was about?

5. Do minutes of this meeting exist?

(a) If so, can it provide me with a copy of these minutes:

(b) If not, why were no minutes taken?

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 219.

(2) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 233.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(8 May 2002)

1. It is not for the Commission to interpret the questions put by Members of Parliament; rather, the Commission has to reply to them, which it endeavours to do as clearly and precisely as possible.

2. The Commission does not think that the answers given in the past were incomplete or inexact; on the contrary, they were designed to provide answers to the questions put by the Honourable Member.

3. The Commission does not have a diary setting out the official meetings that a former chef de cabinet might have had with representatives of the Commission in connection with his previous functions during a given period.

4. and 5. According to the information supplied by the European Fraud Prevention Office (OLAF), the meeting referred to in the answer to written question P-3450/01 from the Honourable Member(1) was held in Paris on 20 November 1997 and concerned the Groupe 4 contract. OLAF does not have minutes of this meeting, which was held as part of this investigation, which was conducted at the time by the Unit for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF).

(1) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 233.