WRITTEN QUESTION E-2106/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(13 July 2001)

Subject: Clearance of accounts and adulteration of milk powder

The Commission has committed itself to recovering Community funds in the wake of fraud over aids paid in respect of skimmed-milk powder intended for use in feedingstuffs. Meanwhile, when asked a question on whether it has fulfilled this commitment, the Commission failed to reply, either under the discharge procedure or when the question was subsequently re-asked (Written Question E-1001/01(1)).

In the light of the above, the author of this question repeats the question he earlier asked under point 2.7(a) of the second discharge questionnaire:

1. Has the Commission taken action or not to recover the funds it had agreed to recover in relation to the adulteration of milk in the Netherlands?

2. If action has been taken, can the Commission supply copies of the documents relating to the accounts clearance procedure under which this recovery of funds took place?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001.

Joint answer to Written Questions E-2106/01 and E-2107/01 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2001)

The Honourable Member is in these two questions indicating that the Commission has not replied to earlier questions concerning the follow-up of some of the Court of Auditors' findings published in Special Report No 1/99(1) concerning the aid for use of skimmed milk and skimmed-milk powder (SMP) as animal feed.

The Commission is of the view that all these questions have in fact been thoroughly replied to within the procedure for granting discharge to the Commission for the financial year 1999 and in the reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1001/01.

But as these replies have been given at different stages, it may be appropriate to shortly summarise the situation.

The two written questions put by the Honourable Member deal with two findings of the Court of Auditors concerning the Nederlands, presented in points 36 and 42 of the above-mentioned special report:

- In the first finding (point 36 of the special report) the Court of Auditors had indicated a lack of the control of buttermilk supplied to a German farm by a Dutch beneficiary. In its reply to the special report the Commission stated that it would follow-up the Court of Auditors' findings within the clearance of accounts procedure and, if confirmed, that it might lead to financial corrections. In the Commission reply to point 2.7 (a) of the second questionnaire for the 1999 discharge it was clearly stated that a follow-up had been undertaken by the European anti-fraud office (OLAF). On two missions OLAF had examined the matter both at the premises of the Dutch buttermilk producer and at the premises of the German recipient. OLAF concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting that anything irregular had occurred. The Commission must repeat that there was therefore no question of recovery action.

- The Court of Auditors' second finding concerned a case (point 42 of the special report) where it had found that 3350 kilograms (Kg) of SMP had been treated as eligible for aid, despite the fact that the analysis report indicated that whey was present. In the Commission reply to the Court of Auditors' report it was said that the Dutch authorities had stated that the payment

had been recovered. The Commission indicated that it would verify this within the clearance of accounts procedure. The Commission recognises, as pointed out by the Honorable Member, that this case was not covered by the Commission reply to the second questionnaire for the 1999 discharge, but only in the Commission reply to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-1001/01. In this the Commission stated that the unduly paid amount of NLG 5 136,89 in respect of the 3350 Kg of SMP had in fact been credited to the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) in December 1997. Therefore the question of any financial corrections to be imposed on the Member State does not apply. The Commission is puzzled about the Honourable Member's statement in Written Question E-2107/01 that the facts should be different.

The above-mentioned replies to Written Question E-2106/01 and also to the initial parts of Written Question E-2107/01.

For the two last points raised in Written Question E-2107/01, the Commission would like to point out the following:

- In relation to the case of the 3 350 kg of SMP it is important to note that in the Commission's risk analysis for the controls of aid schemes one element is the actual amount at stake. In this context the Commission does not find it genuinely disturbing that an amount of NLG 5 136,89 ( 2 331) had been unduly paid and later recovered so that the EAGGF fund did not suffer any loss.

- Finally, the Commission cannot see how findings concerning adulterated butter can lead to the conclusions drawn by the Honourable Member in relation to aid to SMP.

(1) OJ C 147, 27.5.1999.