WRITTEN QUESTION E-0113/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 February 2001)

Subject: Whistle-blowers (3): encouraging whistle-blowers to use OLAF voluntarily by giving practical proof that it is effective and rapid

1. Can the Commission confirm that following consultation between the services, and after the meeting of the Commission last November, part of the text of Commissioner Kinnock's original proposal relating to a proposed change to the Staff Regulations (new Article 22b(1)) has been deleted, even though it was this text which gave whistle-blowers the opportunity of approaching not only the President of the Commission, the Council of Ministers or the European Parliament but also, if necessary, a third party (such other person as the official can demonstrated was justified)?

2. Does the Commission agree that omitting the right referred to in question 1 reduces the scope for protecting whistle -blowers and can therefore be to their disadvantage alone? Why did the Commission decide to do this?

3. Does the Commission realise that restricting the channels open for reporting facts within and beyond the civil service creates the impression that in practice the rules will boil down to restricting the opportunity for sounding the alarm at suspected abuse, because the most effective means of doing so transparency and public discussion has been cut off?

4. Is the Commission prepared to work towards a better balance of interests by providing fewer rules and regulations on the opportunities open to whistle-blowers but instead greatly encouraging the voluntary use of approaching OLAF an approach set up specifically for this purpose by giving practical proof of OLAF's effectiveness and speed of response?

5. Is the Commission prepared to interpret the principle of presumed innocence, as applied in answer 2000/C374-E/001 of 3 November 1999 to questions by Mr Sacrédeus, MEP, so that it does not create any unnecessary obstacles to taking seriously information which should give rise to concern?

6. Is the Commission prepared to take supplementary measures to give whistle-blowers greater protection from harassment, demotion or dismissal?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2001)

1. to 3. The Commission considered the alternative of legitimate disclosure to persons other than those enumerated in the consultative document. However, the Commission did not retain this alternative, opting instead for precise reporting channels.

The Commission considered that providing for a clearly identified person to whom disclosure or reasonable suspicion may be reported offers the best way of ensuring that allegations of serious wrongdoings are correctly investigated; that if warranted, action is taken; and that, simultaneously, the necessary safeguards for the respect of confidentiality are provided where that is required under the provisions of the Treaty.

Such arrangements are also in the interests of all staff because they clarify the responsibility for such a report as well as the means of making it. By specifying the highest ranking persons in the Institutions as recipients for reports of alleged wrongdoing, the Commission considers that it is making provision to facilitate effective action against serious offences whilst ensuring against forms of disclosure which could transgress against legal obligations of confidentiality, natural justice, or subsequent effective prosecution of wrongdoers.

Far from inhibiting the effective opportunities (and duties) of giving the alarm the arrangements proposed by the Commission would greatly enhance those opportunities and the likelihood of appropriate action being taken when reports of suspected wrongdoing prove, after investigation, to be valid.

The Commission considers that public disclosure and debate have great value, but untimely public disclosure can have the effect of compromising legal or disciplinary proceedings that may arise from the apprehension of wrongdoing.

4. The Commission has published a consultative document and will only adopt its final position on the matter after a careful examination of all comments made. Meanwhile, and in the future, officials have a duty to report suspicions of wrongdoing.

5. The principle of the presumption of innocence must be respected in the investigation of any alleged wrongdoing. The proposals put forward by the Commission in the Consultative Document respect this essential principle of civil rights without creating any unnecessary obstacles to serious treatment of information related to alleged wrongdoing.

6. The Commission refers to its answer on point 2 of Written Question E-0112/01 of the Honourable Member(1).

(1) See p. 121.