WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/99

by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(1 September 1999)

Subject: The case of the Commission official Paul van Buitenen

Mr Paul van Buitenen supplied the budgetary control authority with information concerning dysfunctions and fraudulent activities within the Commission.

The Santer Commission punished him severely by suspending him from his duties, banning him from entering Commission premises and reducing his salary by half. He was subsequently reinstated at the Commission but was assigned to a less important post.

1. Does the new Commission agree that, pursuant to the Treaties, the European Parliament is a budget and budgetary control authority?

2. Does it not therefore think that the official in question acted in accordance with the Treaties by turning to the budgetary authority?

3. Does the Commission not think that Mr van Buitenen should be rewarded for demonstrating such a high sense of civic responsibility and bringing democracy to an institution such as the Commission?

4. What steps does the Commission intend to take so as to enable Mr van Buitenen to return to his former post?

5. What action does the Commission intend to take so as to ensure that those who were Mr van Buitenen's hierarchical superiors at the time he made his disclosure are at least transferred from their current posts in which they have responsibility for financial control?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(3 March 2000)

1. Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities of the European Communities and may grant or refuse the Commission a discharge for the budget.

2. and 3. Mr Paul van Buitenen was formally reprimanded because, without authorisation, he broke the rules in force 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 on Coordination 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 Head 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 tretament 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.

4. In compliance with provisions of the Staff Regulation, in the interests of the service, Mr van Buitenen was assigned to a different department where the duties correspond to his skills and background. Reassignment in the interests of the service cannot in any way be regarded as a disciplinary measure. The post which he now occupies is at least equivalent to the one which he occupied before.

5. When the documents were divulged in December 1998, Mr van Buitenen's superiors warned him that he would be violating the Staff Regulations. Mr van Buitenen acted entirely on his own initiative and the Commission does not accept that it would be justifiable for the officials who were his superiors at the time, and acted in good faith, to be moved to other posts for advising him about the requirements of the rules in force and the possible consequences of disclosing the documents in question outside the Institution.

(1) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.