WRITTEN QUESTION E-2315/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) and Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(31 July 2001)

Subject: Facilities for staff who want to put information in writing to enable the Commission to tackle irregularities

1. What facilities are available for staff who are aware of irregularities within the Commission's services and who want to make this information available to the Commission under the existing rules? Can staff in such a position be released from their normal duties for an adequate period and have access to separate working space and facilities to enable them to carry out this specific task?

2. Does the Commission allow directors who understandably want to safeguard the day-to-day work of their departments and have maximum input from their staff to make it difficult for their staff to investigate irregularities and bring this information to the attention of the Commission, even where directors of other units concerned by the investigation are convinced that it would be useful to assign the official in question temporarily to special activities, and does the Commission accept that the higher interest of the integrity of the institutions of the European Union as a whole should be overridden by the interests of specific departments?

3. Will the Commission ensure speedy approval of the request made on 12 July 2001, in a letter from eight Members of the European Parliament from various Member States and different political groups, that in a specific case a staff member should be given adequate facilities to fully clarify old and new problems by 1 September 2001?

4. Will the Commission ensure that if it is unable to respond favourably to this request immediately because of absences during the summer holiday period, the necessary time and facilities will nonetheless be made available to the staff member concerned as soon as possible?

5. Will the Commission ensure that flexible arrangements are also found to solve such problems in similar cases in the future, and that departments familiarise staff with these arrangements, in order to avoid a situation in which officials are afraid of reporting possible irregularities to the Commission or OLAF at an early stage?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(15 November 2001)

The answer to part 3 of the question is that Vice-President Kinnock replied in full to the letter from Honourable Members dated 12 July on 25 July and copies were sent on that date to Mr Meijer, Mr Staes and six other Members of the Parliament.

In response to the remainder of the question, Honourable Members will be assisted by information about relevant law and policy as well as by explicit replies: Article 2 of Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF)(1) specifies that OLAF has the duty of investigating suspected fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Community. The duty to report evidence of possible wrongdoing, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the European Community and the means of exercising that duty are clearly set down in Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). This Regulation as well as Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999, of 25 May 1999, concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)(2), confirmed that OLAF should exercise the powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by the Community rules and Regulations and agreements in force in those areas.

This legal framework makes clear that it is for OLAF, and not the official reporting alleged wrongdoing, to investigate the suspected wrongdoing.

The Commission adopted its Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom of 2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities' interests(3) in full accordance with the terms of the Interinstitutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities concerning internal investigations by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF)(4).

This Decision requires members of staff to report evidence of possible wrongdoings and provides explicit assurances that staff who fulfill that duty in good faith will not suffer inequitable or discriminatory treatment as a result of having communicated such information.

In specific response to part 1 of the question: if a member of staff requires reasonable time and facilities to enable him or her to fulfill the duty to provide evidence the Commission provides such time and facilities. This occurred in the case to which the Honourable Members appear to be referring and the member of staff concerned was given more than six weeks release from normal duties and was provided with the facilities and equipment needed for compiling his report.

Article 2 of the June 1999 Decision provides that any official or servant of the Commission who becomes aware of evidence which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity detrimental to the interests of the Communities, or of serious situations relating to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a failure to comply with the obligations of officials or servants of the Communities liable to result in disciplinary or, in appropriate cases, criminal proceedings, or a failure to comply with the analogous obligations of the Members of the Commission or members of the Commission's staff not subject to the Staff Regulations, shall inform without delay his Head of Service or Director-General or, if he considers it useful, the Secretary-General of the Commission or the Office direct.

It further indicates: The Secretary-General, the Directors-General and the Heads of Service of the Commission shall transmit without delay to the Office any evidence of which they are aware from which the existence of irregularities as referred to in the first paragraph may be presumed.

In response to part 5 of the question: As can be seen from the detail given above, the legislative structure is very flexible in that those with well-grounded suspicions can transmit them and any supporting documentation to OLAF directly. Confidentiality about the identity of the reporting official will be guaranteed on a case by case basis by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and, where relevant, the Commission.

The Commission recognises that officials may have personal anxieties about reporting apparent irregularities and believes that impartial and confidential advice should consequently be available to all members of staff about the best means of disclosing possible irregularities safely and legitimately. In its consultative document on raising concerns about possible wrongdoings(5) the Commission therefore proposed, among other things, that an advisory function should be established and that it should either be attached to the Mediation service or that a new facility should be created for this purpose. Use of such an advisory function would be very accessible but not in any sense compulsory.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1 and 8.

(3) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.

(4) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 15.

(5) SEC(2000) 2078/6.