WRITTEN QUESTION E-2125/00

by Francisca Sauquillo Pérez del Arco (PSE) to the Commission

(30 June 2000)

Subject: Report on the 1998 discharge. Closing document of 6 June 2000 (SEC(1999) 412 C5-0006/1999 1999/2050(DEC))

In the draft report on the discharge for the 1998 financial year, paragraph 72 of the motion for a resolution reads as follows:

Notes the Commission's statement that not all the available evidence in the disciplinary proceedings against the former Director of ECHO in connection with the misappropriation of humanitarian aid funds has been duly taken into account.

Whether or not the draft report is eventually adopted as it now stands, the wide distribution of the document within and outside the Community institutions has plainly given rise to confusion as regards the conduct and regularity of the disciplinary proceedings against the former Director of ECHO. Bearing in mind that in its previous answers to written questions from the EP and earlier documents produced in response to EP questionnaires and reports, the Commission has said exactly the opposite of the assertions being made by the rapporteur on the discharge to be given in respect of budgetary management in the 1998 financial year:

1. Can the Commission confirm that it has indeed made a statement to the effect that the disciplinary board did not take all the available evidence into account in the disciplinary proceedings against the former Director of ECHO?

2. Should the Commission stand its ground in keeping with its previous statements that all of the available evidence was supplied to the disciplinary board, can it tell the EP quite explicitly and adduce every necessary detail to prove that the disciplinary board hearing the case against the former Director of ECHO was definitely in possession of the full body of existing evidence and documents?

3. If the position is as set out in point 2 above, will the Commission make good the damage to the personal integrity and professional interests of the former Director of ECHO resulting from the Commission's ambiguous messages and its failure to inform Parliament in clear terms about the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings?

4. Can the Commission say exactly why it has written to the former Director of ECHO to prohibit him from appearing before the Committee on Budgetary Control or any other parliamentary body in order to dispel the EP's anxieties by shedding full light on the situation and to produce all the relevant documents?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(26 September 2000)

1. and 2. The Commission regrets any confusion as regards the conduct and regularity of the disciplinary proceedings against the former Director of ECHO, whatever the source. All Commission statements and actions have been consistent and in keeping with its obligations under the Staff Regulations.

In this respect, the Honourable Member's attention is drawn to the letter to the President of the Committee on Budgetary Control, dated 28 June 2000, which said: I would like to state once again that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted scrupulously and in accordance with the terms of the Staff Regulations applicable to officials of the European Communities; (mldr) to make it clear that, in the absence of any new facts and there are none at present, the decision to acquit Mr Gomez-Reino in the 1999 disciplinary proceedings must be regarded as final.

The Commission submitted to the Disciplinary Board all of the information in its possession which was used to support the various charges which were brought against the former Director of ECHO. That was done by means of a report from the Appointing Authority, together with annexes. In the course of the discharge procedure for the 1998 budget, the Commission has already indicated that, while that document from the Appointing Authority included the report of the administrative inquiry which preceded the disciplinary proceedings as an annex, the minutes of the interviews conducted in the course of the administrative inquiry were not annexed. The Commission has already explained that the omission of such minutes cannot be considered to have prejudiced the outcome of the proceedings for the following reasons:

Article 6 of Annex IX to the Staff Regulations stipulates that if the disciplinary board requires further information concerning the facts of the charges laid against an official or the circumstances in which they arose, it may order an inquiry in which each side can submit its case and reply to the case of the other side. For the purpose of this inquiry, the board may call for any documents relating to the matter before it. In addition, if the board desires clarification on any particular point, it may, at any time, request further information from the administration. The board did not consider it necessary to order such an inquiry or call for more information, and therefore, concluded that it was in possession of sufficient information to deliver its opinion.

3. The Commission has always co-operated with Parliament by providing it with all the factors on which to base an assessment in order to demonstrate that no irregularity was committed in the course of the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the former director of ECHO. Clearly the Commission has no responsibility for documents emanating from Parliament or from its members.

The Commission must be represented in Parliament Committees at the appropriate level in order to deal with relevant matters on the agenda of meetings. It is incumbent upon the Commission as an institution to defend its staff against allegations of misconduct which have been formally rejected. That has been done consistently. There has been no ambiguity in the Commission's position or action taken in conformity with the Staff Regulations.

4. It is for the Commission to decide who should speak on its behalf on any business before Parliament or any other body. It has never forbidden the former director of ECHO from appearing before the Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu) or other parliamentary bodies in writing or by any other means. The conduct of such meetings is a matter for Parliament itself.