WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1467/98 by Rosemarie WEMHEUER to the Commission. Procedure in cases of suspected corruption
Date: 1998-05-13
Institutions: European Parliament, WEMHEUER
Subjects: EU Member State, European official, civil service, corruption, criminal law, fraud, fraud against the EU













EUR-Lex - 91998E1467 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91998E1467

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1467/98 by Rosemarie WEMHEUER to the Commission. Procedure in cases of suspected corruption  


Official Journal C 050 , 22/02/1999 P. 0038 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1467/98by Rosemarie Wemheuer (PSE) to the Commission(13 May 1998)Subject: Procedure in cases of suspected corruptionIn late 1994/early 1995 the Commission submitted a report to the Council on combatting corruption, based, I understand, on studies on combatting corruption in all Member States.In view of the ever increasing importance of combatting corruption effectively, and particularly in view of the circumstances:1. What further measures does the Commission propose to take in this field, and which of the Commission's departments is responsible?2. On what principles does the Commission act in cases of suspected corruption? Is an investigation always automatically initiated as soon as a suspicion arises, or is a decision taken on the basis of whether an investigation is desirable? In particular, are there guarantees that disciplinary sanctions in accordance with the regulations will be imposed for corruption without fear or favour?3. According to what rules is a decision taken on whether the prosecuting authorities of a Member State should be involved? Who initiates such involvement and in what form are the prosecuting authorities informed?4. Am I right in assuming that the relevant Commission department is able to carry out its investigation in a fully independent manner and without fear or favour, and is not exposed to any kind of outside influence?Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission(30 July 1998)As the Honourable Member is aware, the Commission attaches the utmost importance to the fight against fraud and corruption, including corruption involving Community officials.In reply to points 1 and 4 of the Honourable Member's question, the Commission would recall that it has been actively involved in the adoption by the Council of legal instruments on the basis of the EC Treaty, notably the Convention on the protection of the European Communities' financial interests, the first Protocol to this Convention and the Convention on the fight against corruption involving officials of the European Communities or officials of Member States of the European Union(1). The last two of these instruments are particularly important in that they will, among other things, remedy the situation existing in certain Member States, for instance Belgium, where the criminal law does not have provisions covering the offence of corruption involving Community officials. However, they still have to be ratified in order to come into force.In its communication of 18 November 1997(2), the Commission set out its existing policy and its intentions in relation to action in the fight against fraud and corruption involving Community officials. This communication identified lines of action of which the first concerned the strengthening of the role of the Commission's anti-fraud task force (UCLAF) in internal Commission enquiries, notably through the formalisation of rules relating to the responsibilities and independence of action of UCLAF as well as its relations with the judicial authorities.In parallel with this action, the Commission reorganised UCLAF and transformed it into a task force directly attached to the Secretary general with effect from 1 May 1998. As part of this reorganisation, an anti-corruption cell and a separate criminal law expertise and liaison cell have been created, reflecting the particular importance which the Commission attaches to the fight against corruption and to cooperation with judicial authorities.In reply to points 2 and 3 of the Honourable Member's question, the Commission would underline that it is for the director of UCLAF to decide whether or not to initiate an enquiry into cases of alleged or suspected corruption. This decision is based exclusively on an evaluation of the nature and strength of the evidence available.Following the completion of each investigation, a report is prepared by UCLAF setting out the factual evidence and the extent to which this confirms or disproves the initial suspicion or allegation.If the report concludes that further action may be required by internal or external authorities, it is made available to the authority responsible for any decision regarding administrative, disciplinary or judicial procedures. As appropriate, judicial authorities of a Member State are requested by UCLAF to cooperate under the provisions of Article 209a of the EC Treaty. UCLAF provides as required the necessary assistance to national authorities. Where evidence has been collected on the basis of an enquiry carried out outside the Commission under the terms of Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities(3), the evidence will in any event be passed to the authorities of the relevant Member State by virtue of the provisions of Article 8 of that Regulation.The Commission on 14 July 1998 further clarified the conditions under which suspect cases are referred to the judiciary or the appointing authority. The director of UCLAF has the sole responsibility for the swift notification of cases, while keeping the hierarchy informed. The appointing authority has the competence to launch disciplinary procedures. The judiciary has the competence to bring criminal cases to court.(1) OJ C 316, 22.11.1995; OJ C 313, 23.10.1996; OJ C 195, 25.6.1997.(2) Sound financial management and administration, improving action against incompetence, financial irregularities fraud and corruption (SEC(97) 2198).(3) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996.