WRITTEN QUESTION P-3173/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Subject: Obtaining of advance information by European Commission Members concerning an official investigation into possible abuses

At the end of August 2001, on official instructions from the Commission's own departments, an extensive and detailed investigation, as referred to in Written Question No E-2315/01(1) by Bart Staes and myself, was launched into evidence pointing to possible abuses within the Commission's services. That highly confidential investigation is now the subject of more searching inquiries by OLAF and the disciplinary authorities. Does the Commission consider it acceptable for one of its Members to claim priority in seeking to obtain a copy of the relevant memorandum, and to do so even before the necessary verification procedures have been completed by the departments responsible?

How will the Commission act, in the event that one of its Members asked for and received advance information concerning that official investigation, to prevent information relating to the actions of Commission Members or Commission officials from being circulated prematurely by way of Members' offices, or individual Members from acting to pre-empt certain information that might possibly be interpreted to their disadvantage.

Can the Commission state whether one of its Members in fact asked for and received advance information concerning that official investigation, and whether that Member is named in the investigation?

(1) OJ C 93 E,18.4.2002, p. 106.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

Contrary to what the Honourable Member states in his question the memorandum to which he refers is not the result of an official investigation. As the author has acknowledged, it is a dossier containing allegations of possible irregularities drawn up by a Commission official exercising the duty to report concerns. This dossier is being thoroughly examined by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) and the specialist Unit of Commission's Directorate General for Administration.

As indicated in his question, the Honourable Member was one of eight Members who wrote to the Vice-President of the Commission responsible for Personnel and Administration and to the Commissioner responsible for OLAF on 11 July 2001 asking them to ensure that the author of the memorandum was allowed to complete his compilation of this document. In this letter, the Honourable Member asserted that the author of the memorandum was of the opinion that it would be wrong not to give [the Commissioners in charge of OLAF and of Personnel and Administration] the opportunity to familiarise [themselves] with these cases and to address the problems raised by them. The Honourable Member himself appeared to agree with this, saying that he was sure [the author's] only aim is to give [these Commissioners] the opportunity to find a lasting solution to the cases and that this report could prove important to [these Commissioners'] attempts to find a lasting solution for the problems concerned. Against that background of fact, the Honourable Member will surely recognise that it was therefore necessary for the Commissioner to be informed of the developments in order to familiarise himself and to address the problems.

That need to be informed is strengthened by the fact, that in accordance with the Commission decision of January 1998 on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing authority, the Commissioner in charge of Personnel and Administration is appointing authority for certain senior grades of officials and consequently has responsibility for any decision relating to any possible disciplinary proceedings relating to such officials. When allegations relating to officials are made, therefore, the Commissioner is provided with the relevant information automatically and necessarily, and not in response to any request or as a result of any effort or intention to claim priority.

Since all relevant material has been deposited with OLAF, and since OLAF undertakes its examinations of material under the terms of the 1999 Regulation and the Commission Decision implementing it in a manner which is completely separate and independent from any other person or organisation, no Commissioner nor anyone else is, or could be, in a position to pre-empt or otherwise intervene in a way that prejudices the examination or any recommendations arising from it. In addition, no Commissioner would seek to be in that position.

The Director-General of DG Personnel and Administration and the Director of OLAF are fully aware of the identity of the very limited number of persons who have a copy of the memorandum and their possession of a copy is necessitated and fully justified by their explicit duties. The Commission strongly rejects insinuations that any of its Members or their offices would seek to prematurely spread or otherwise harm the information contained in this document. There is no foundation for such a claim or inference.

Decisions about any formal investigations will be taken in the proper fashion when the verification of the contents of the memorandum by OLAF and DG Personnel and Administration has been completed.