WRITTEN QUESTION P-3450/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Access to documents related to the security service affair

In its answer to my written question E-2489/01(1), the Commission refuses to provide me with certain documents related to the security service affair. By way of justification, it refers to the OLAF Regulation (EC) No. 1073/1999(2). However, the documents which I requested date from 1998, i. e. before OLAF was set up.

The Commission also refers to transparency rules. Under Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001(3) concerning public access to documents, which entered into force on 3 December 2001, it is not sufficient to refer to legal proceedings in progress alone to deny access to documents. The Commission must also explain in what way the legal proceedings might be compromised.

One reason for my question was the suspicion that the Commission has not forwarded all the information contained in the documents requested to the competent judicial authorities. If that were the case, it would undoubtedly be in the public interest to make that fact known and enable the judicial authorities to carry out a thorough investigation.

Finally, the Commission makes no mention in its answer of my right of access as a Member of the European Parliament to confidential information pursuant to Article 197 of the EC Treaty.

Is the Commission now prepared to provide me with the documents concerned?

Can the Commission confirm that the documents I have requested contain indications that Commissioner Lamy had already met Commission officials in 1997 and that, therefore, his statement contained in the answer to my written question E-1174/01(4), which was confirmed and corroborated by the Commission, that during his time as a member of the board of Crédit Lyonnais he met Commission officials formally only once between 1 and 3 May 1998, is not in accordance with the truth?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 99.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.

(3) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

(4) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 219.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

The Honourable Member is referring to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001, which recently entered into force, regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The four documents requested were the UCLAF (the Commission's fraud prevention task force) report to the Secretary General of 12 March 1998, Mr Trojan's reply of 3 April 1998, Mr van der Spree's note of 23 April 1998 on the security contract (including all annexes) and Ms Ventura's subsequent reply. As regards these documents, the Commission can only reiterate its answer to the Honourable Member's written question E-2489/2001(1). The Commission believes it is important not to jeopardise ongoing investigations, and that it is thus sometimes justifiable to deny access to documents relating to inspections and investigations in progress.

As regards the document originating from the Commission's financial control service, the Commission would like to stress the fact that, as this was an internal financial control service note and not a finalised official report, it contained some elements which had not been fully corroborated when it was written. This document and all related documents thus count as exceptions under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001, Article 4(1b), protecting the privacy and personal data of individuals, and Article 4(2.3), justifying non-disclosure after a request for access to documents.

Contrary to the claim made by the Honourable Member, Article 197 (formerly Article 140) of the EC Treaty, whilst stipulating that Members have the right to obtain answers to the questions they put to the Commission, does not give them automatic right of access to confidential documents. Requests to access documents must be made in accordance with the above-mentioned Regulation governing public access to documents. As regards inter-institutional relations, the framework agreement signed on 5 July 2000 specifies the terms for the transmission of any confidential documents which are requested by the Parliament.

Finally, the Honourable Member seems to be implying that the Commission's answer to Written Question E-1174/01(2) is incorrect. It is clear that the answers given have been taken out of context. The above-mentioned question referred to a questionnaire to which Mr Lamy replied before Parliament's hearing on the investiture of the new Commission. The aim of this questionnaire was to identify the risks of any possible conflict of interest posed by Mr Lamy's role as a member of the board at Crédit Lyonnais, and the reply to the above-mentioned question referred specifically to this matter.

As indicated in the reply to Parliament's questionnaire and as confirmed in the answer to Written Question E-1174/01, in his role as a Director of Crédit Lyonnais Mr Lamy met Commission officials formally only once, between 1 and 3 May 1998. Mr Lamy has indeed had contacts with Commissioners and Commission officials, in his capacities as the former head of President Delors' cabinet, a member of the board of the European Movement in France, and in other fields entirely unrelated to his role at Crédit Lyonnais.

The meeting to which the Honourable Member refers, which is mentioned in the annexes of one of the documents requested, was held at the request of the European Anti-Fraud Office (EAFO, in conjunction with UCLAF), as one of the many hearings comprising an UCLAF investigation.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 99.

(2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 219.