WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3618/98 by Nelly MAES to the Commission. Delayed and indifferent response of the European Commission to the ECHO affair
Date: 1998-12-03
Institutions: European Parliament, MAES
Subjects: European official, budgetary control, corruption, economic offence, fraud against the EU, humanitarian aid, recruitment

C 182/110

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

28.6.1999

Will the Commission kindly explain to me how it can continue to maintain that the then Director of ECHO
was not aware of the existence of a number of staff recruited irregularly (i.e. in a manner other than that laid
down in the Staff Regulations), given that, in a note (Sgz/mg D(94) 192) dated 18 February 1994, the Private
Office of Commissioner Marín stated that there were 12 people on the ECHO staff who had been irregularly
recruited and charged to operating appropriations and another four recruited and charged to the ‘Studies’
budget line. In that note, the Director of ECHO concerned estimated the percentage of ‘submarines’ on the
ECHO staff at between 3 % and 15 %.

(1999/C 182/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3618/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Delayed and indifferent response of the European Commission to the ECHO affair

On 14 July 1998, Commissioner Gradin stated before the plenary sitting of the European Parliament that,
‘during last week’ (i.e. the week beginning 6 July 1998), suspicions that had arisen against one official on the
ECHO staff were strong enough to allow the Commission to initiate legal proceedings. The UCLAF report on
the inquiry into the four suspect ECHO contracts was completed on 15 May 1998.

1. What was the Commission doing between 15 May and 14 July?

2.

Is it true that, as long ago as 9 February 1998, the official concerned had made a very extensive statement
to the UCLAF investigators that the four ECHO contracts were bogus and had been used to pay the salaries
of external staff? If so, why did the Commission wait until July 1998 before taking disciplinary and legal
proceedings?

(1999/C 182/149)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3619/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Involvement and responsibility of Commissioner Marín in the ECHO affair

In the European Commission’s answer dated 11 September 1998 to the questions 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, much information is given about the European
Commission’s attitude to what are called mini-budgets, whereby the salaries of external staff are paid from
operating appropriations. The Commission released details of the correspondence between Commissioner Van
Miert and Commissioner Marín and of that between Mr Marín’s Private Office and the officials responsible for
ECHO. A reading of that correspondence is most instructive.

1. How does the Commission explain away the disparities between the numbers of staff in employment
which Mr Marín notified to Mr Van Miert in his letter of 24 February 1994 and those set out in the note
dated 18 February 1994 from the Director of ECHO to Mr Marín’s Private Office?

2. Does not the Commission find it strange that Mr Marín did not inform Mr Van Miert about the
12 members of staff who ‘had been irregularly recruited and charged to operating appropriations’ and the
four members of staff who had ‘been recruited and charged to the’ Studies ‘budget line’? (See note Sgz/mg
D(94) 192).

3. How did it come about that, despite Mr Marín’s instructions of 24 February 1994 to the then Director of
ECHO to put an end to the charging of staff to operating appropriations or study contracts, ECHO’s
external unit was not closed down until June 1995?