WRITTEN QUESTION E-2343/03

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat cases: financial interests and image of the European institutions

For a number of weeks there has been a lot of talk of a case involving Eurostat. In a breach of standard legal practice, a number of senior officials, including the director-general, have been publicly accused, in particular in the press, of embezzlement involving sums of up to EUR 900 000 (Agence Europe of 19 June 2003).

The two officials in question have thus already been tried and convicted by some sections of the press, and by those who believe what those sections of the press report and pass that information on, whether maliciously or otherwise, without having been officially charged and, as far as I am aware, without being able to make any formal statement of their own.

Accordingly, with a view to making the debate as objective as possible, i.e. with a view to establishing the facts and, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, to bringing to trial and, if possible, convicting those guilty of the offences concerned, wherever and whoever they are, I should like to put the following questions to the Commission:

1. when and how did the Commission learn about the allegations;

2. what is the exact nature of those allegations;

3. are the allegations serious enough to warrant legal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings before the competent Community or Union bodies;

4. if the allegations do indeed concern fraud or similar acts, did the evidence which prompted the allegations come to light in the course of internal audits requested as from 1999 by the director-general of Eurostat;

5. if so, what action was taken at that time in response to these breaches of the Financial Regulation;

6. when and how was the matter referred to OLAF;

7. what action did OLAF take following that referral;

8. has OLAF yet drawn up official conclusions;

9. have the officials been duly heard by OLAF or by another Community or Union institution, and, if so, by which ones;

10. what measures has the Commission so far taken to safeguard the Union's financial interests, on the one hand, and the presumption of innocence, on the other, so as to prevent unwarranted damage to the image of the European institutions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2003)

It is the Commission's understanding that the events involving Eurostat to which the Honourable Member refers in his question are those relating to the company Planistat. This reply therefore focuses on the facts pertaining to that company.

Regarding the issue of when and how the Commission learned about the facts in question, let me state the following. In October 2000 OLAF communicated very brief information regarding the opening of an investigation into allegations of irregularities, stating that the Secretary-General would be informed at a later date should the allegations be confirmed. In April 2003, OLAF sent a further information note to the Secretary-General of the Commission informing him of the possible implication of some officials, but requesting that provision of information relating to them be deferred and without specifying the allegations against them. The Commission wishes to point out that it has already explained in detail primarily at the hearings held by Cocobu on 17 and 30 June last when and how it was informed of the various investigations into Eurostat. On that occasion written replies were sent to the Chair of the Cocobu for the information of its members. The Commission will send a copy of these replies directly to the Honourable Member. Press reports dated 28 April 2003 made very serious accusations and provided details on the scope of the investigations and the accusations.

Regarding the exact nature of the accusations, since the investigations are still ongoing the Commission does not wish to prejudice these or the rights of the persons concerned. It is therefore not in a position to confirm or deny at this stage the extent to which all or some of the facts in question were raised in the context of the internal audits requested as from 1999 by the Director-General of Eurostat. With regard to the charges against the company Planistat, made on 19 March 2003, a judicial inquiry has been opened against X at the Court of First Instance in Paris. To date there has been no indictment or formal charge.

Regarding when and how the matter was referred to OLAF, let me point out the following. On 17 March 2000, the Financial Control DG forwarded an audit report to OLAF reporting the existence of a financial envelope within the Datashop network. Subsequently, OLAF came into possession of other elements that permitted a presumption of fraud and were sufficiently relevant to allow OLAF to open an anti-fraud inquiry on 6 October 2000. An inquiry into Eurostat DG was launched, during which OLAF carried out a variety of investigations. On 19 March last, OLAF sent a report which is covered by the judicial secrecy applicable to criminal matters to the Public Prosecutor of the French Republic in Paris. As part of their inquiries into the external aspects, the OLAF investigators heard many officials as witnesses. In addition, some officials were heard as part of the internal investigation, which is still under way.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Commission has lodged a complaint against X under proceedings initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Paris on the basis of the elements transmitted to it by OLAF. In addition, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the series of measures adopted by the Commission at its meetings on 9 and 23 July 2003, of which Parliament was notified. The Commission has taken a number of measures to protect its interests, while safeguarding the presumption of innocence of its staff.