WRITTEN QUESTION E-1771/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Subject: Minutes of Mr Pascal Lamy's hearing before the Commission's anti-fraud unit

In his answer to my Written Question E-0645/02(1), Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, confirmed that, while still a member of the Board of Directors of Crédit Lyonnais, Mr Pascal Lamy met officials of UCLAF (the unit for the coordination of fraud prevention) on 20 November 1997 in Paris.

During his hearing before the European Parliament in the summer of 1999 prior to his appointment as Commissioner, Mr Lamy failed to disclose that meeting. It is alleged that the subject of that meeting was the contract with Group 4-Securitas. When that contract was concluded in 1992, and in subsequent years, serious irregularities occurred(2) in which senior officials in the Commission's security services were involved (manipulation of the procedure for awarding the contract for the benefit of Group 4-Securitas, recruitment of ghost employees, nepotism and covert surveillance of other Commission departments).

The answer to my Written Question E-0645/02 notes laconically that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) does not have minutes of [the] meeting [in question].

1. Has the Commission actually asked Commissioner Lamy and the Commission officials involved whether or not minutes were taken at the meeting of 20 November 1997?

2. Is it true that, in this instance, as in the Fléchard case, minutes were, apparently, actually taken but have since disappeared without trace?

3. Is it true that, at that meeting, Mr Lamy instructed UCLAF officials not to proceed with certain lines of investigation in a bid to conceal his own role and his failure in the security service affair?

4. Is this the real reason behind the Commission's refusal to grant me access to certain documents related to the security service affair (see answer to my Written Question P-3450/01)(3)?

5. Is the Commission now prepared to forward those documents to me?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 183.

(2) Details may be found in the report dated 15 March 1999 by the Committee of Independent Experts on allegations regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the European Commission.

(3) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 233.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

1. In its answer to the Honourable Member's Written Question E-0645/02, the Commission stated that, according to the information provided by OLAF, the Office does not have the minutes of the meeting held in Paris on 20 November 1997 as part of the investigation conducted at the time by UCLAF.

The answer given by the Commission is based on information provided by the service which replaced UCLAF and took over its files.

2. The Honourable Member's question appears to imply that when the Commission claims not to have minutes or records, they must have disappeared without trace. The Commission cannot accept this interpretation and would be grateful to the Honourable Member for bringing to its attention any facts which lead her to think that minutes of the meeting of 20 November were, in fact, taken.

3. No representative of the Commission's services other than the UCLAF staff took part in the meeting referred to by the Honourable Member, but the Commission finds it extremely hard to imagine that Mr Lamy, who was then a member of the Board of Crédit Lyonnais and had no hierarchical link with UCLAF staff, could have given any instructions to the members of UCLAF in charge of the investigation.

The Commission is well aware that the contract concluded with the Group 4 Securitas firm was a point of controversy in the management of contracts under previous Commissions, but this has been comprehensively analysed and inspected from a wide variety of angles, including:

- by UCLAF,

- by the Committee of Independent Experts,

- by an administrative investigation carried out within the Commission,

- by several disciplinary proceedings against officials, and

- by a judicial inquiry, carried out by an examining magistrate following an application from the public prosecutor's office in Brussels, which resulted in no further proceedings.

It is very hazardous to speculate that anything related to the meeting on 20 November 1997 might have cast a different light on this matter.

4. The Commission's reasons for refusing the Honourable Member access to the documents requested in her Written Question P-3450/01 are those given in the answer to that question.

5. The Commission has nothing to add to the answers given to the Honourable Member's Written Questions P-3450/01 and E-0645/02 concerning her request for access to certain documents. Indeed, the reasons justifying non-disclosure of these documents remain valid for the document emanating from the financial controller, i.e., the protection of ongoing investigations and the protection of the privacy and personal data of individuals.