WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/99

by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 1999)

Subject: Reprimanding of Paul van Buitenen

The case of Mr van Buitenen has been the subject of debate all over Europe ever since he released the documents that revealed irregularities in the Commission. He has been honoured for his courage by organisations such as the Taxpayers' Association, yet reprimanded by the Commission's disciplinary committee. Commissioner Kinnock has himself, like the committee that issued the reprimand, acknowledged that the rules were unclear and inadequate at the time.

In view of the help Mr van Buitenen's actions have been in making possible changes to the rules as well as serious action to tackle the problems of fraud, is the reprimand really justified? Does the Commission consider that the changes now being made to the rules governing Commission staff go far enough, or is it thinking of exploring further the possibilities for introducing a right to disclose information such as already exists for instance in Sweden?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member of the fact that the disciplinary board provided for in the Staff Regulation may be requested to give an opinion to the appointing authority concerning an eventual disciplinary measure to be adopted. However, the appointing authority has the right to issue a written warning or a reprimand without consulting the disciplinary board. In the case to which the Honourable Member refers, the disciplinary board was not consulted.

Mr Paul van Buitenen was given a formal reprimand because, without authorisation, he broke the rules for officials of the European Communities by divulging documents outside the Commission which related to cases that were under examination by the judicial authorities and also the subject of disciplinary proceedings, thus compromising the principle of the presumption of innocence. In coming to its decision, the employing authority took account of the fact that the information had been communicated to a member of the European Parliament and recognised that a strict application of the relevant rules might not be in accordance with the appropriate standard of openness. It was in the light of these circumstances that the Commission imposed a formal reprimand which is the second most moderate penalty for infringements of the Staff Regulations.

The Commission would draw the Honourable Member's attention to the fact that, in accordance with the Commission Decision concerning investigations carried out by the Task Force Co-ordination of the fight against fraud of 14 July 1998, officials having knowledge of the existence of presumed irregularities were obliged to inform their Directors-general or Heads of service or, if they considered it useful, the Task Force directly. Since the entry into force of Commission Decision 1999/396 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(1), they shall inform their Heads of service or Directors-general or, if they consider it useful, the Secretary-general of the Commission or OLAF directly. Officials who provided or provide such information through those means had and have the guarantee that they shall in no way suffer inequitable or discriminatory treatment as a result of providing it. In the context of its administrative reforms, the Commission is in the process of developing an improved system which will ensure that, in addition to present provisions, officials who fulfil their duty to report evidence of alleged wrongdoing have further equitable and effective means for reporting, and obtaining thorough and active response to, their concerns and evidence.

(1) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.