WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3616/98 by Nelly MAES to the Commission. Degree of responsibility for the ECHO affair borne by the current Director of ECHO
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, MAES
Subjects: European official, budgetary control, corruption, economic offence, fraud against the EU, humanitarian aid

28.6.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 182/109

(1999/C 182/145)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3615/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Disappearance of documents, computer equipment, office furniture and office supplies when ECHO’s

external unit was shut down in June 1995

Is it true that, immediately before ECHO’s external unit was shut down in June 1995, all the documentation,
computer equipment, office furniture and office supplies ‘disappeared’? Is there a list or summary of the
equipment which disappeared? If so, what sums of money are involved?

(1999/C 182/146)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3616/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Degree of responsibility for the ECHO affair borne by the current Director of ECHO

In its answer dated 11 September 1998 to the question raised in Mr Fabra Vallés initial working document (PE
226.913) on the measures taken by the Commission in response to Special Report No 2/97 of the Court of
Auditors and the ECHO affair, the Commission indicated that just one official, who had now been suspended,
was suspected of involvement. Mr Fabra Vallés working document also posed questions about the degree of
responsibility borne by the current Director of ECHO, given that, on 3 June 1998, he had written a letter of
thanks to the firm that had perpetrated the fraud in the ECHO affair.

Will the Commission please tell me how it can continue to maintain that the current Director of ECHO could
have been unaware of the suspicions against the company accused of fraud, since no ‘decisive’ elements had
been found to incriminate the now suspended official at the time when he wrote the letter?

Can the Commission continue to maintain that the current Director of ECHO was not aware of the UCLAF
investigation, all the more so since, in February 1998, UCLAF investigators interviewed at length the official
who has since been suspended?

Can the Commission continue to maintain that the current Director of ECHO was unaware of the fact that
UCLAF was interviewing his predecessor and his predecessor’s assistant?

Can the Commission agree with the statement that: either the current Director of ECHO manifestly had no clue
about what was going on in his department or that the current Director of ECHO was particularly imprudent
in writing a letter of thanks on 3 June 1998 to the company accused of fraud, all the more so since the relevant
UCLAF report on the current inquiry had been completed as early as mid-May 1998?

(1999/C 182/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3617/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Degree of responsibility borne by the former Director of ECHO in the ECHO affair

In its answer dated 11 September 1998 to the question raised in Mr Fabra Vallés initial working document (PE
226.913) on the measures taken by the Commission in response to Special Report No 2/97 and the ECHO
affair, the Commission indicated that only one official, who had now been suspended, was suspected of
involvement.