WRITTEN QUESTION No. 516/99 by Jens-Peter BONDE Fraud
Date: 1999-03-08
Institutions: BONDE, European Parliament
Subjects: European official, administrative sanction, budgetary control, confidentiality, disciplinary proceedings, dismissal, duties of civil servants, fraud

3.12.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 348/91

decisions which the Commission will be required to take to apply the aforementioned Directive and, where
required, Articles 92 and 93 of the EC Treaty, it will give due consideration to all elements which ensure the
correct functioning of the electricity market, including, of course, consumer protection.

Given that this is a completely new area, the Commission is currently attempting to draw up specific
assessment criteria for stranded costs in the field of State aid, and these criteria will be discussed with the
Member States. For information purposes, it can, however, be stated that the aid should cover clearly
determined costs arising from commitments made prior to the entry into force of the Directive; that it may not
be granted unless it complies with the principle of necessity; that it may not have the effect of protecting the
national market from external competition; and that it should be of a degressive nature over a reasonable
period. It would seem premature at this stage to specify whether independent experts need to be called in to
analyse these elements. The Commission feels that it does, in theory, have sufficient capacity to carry out a
proper appraisal of this dossier.

The Honourable Member is referred to the answer given by the Commission to his oral question H-0162/99
during question time at the Parliament’s March 1999 part-session (2) and the Commission’s answers to written
questions E-204/99 by Mrs Frutos Gama (3) and E-264/99 by Mr Cabezón Alonso (4).

(1) OJ L 27, 30.1.1997.
(2)
(3)
(4) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999, p. 76.

Parliamentary Debates (March 1999).
See page 35.

(1999/C 348/113)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0516/99

by Jens-Peter Bonde (I-EDN) to the Commission

(8 March 1999)

Subject: Fraud

Does the Commission take the view that there are grounds for dismissing a Commission employee because he
has approached a democratically elected member of parliament with information about fraud, and will it
ensure that the Committee of Experts and the Committee on Budgetary Control have access to all documents
without exception?

Answer given by Mr Santer on behalf of the Commission

(23 April 1999)

The Honourable Member’s question appears to refer to the case of Mr Van Buitenen. As the Commission has
already stated in its answers to several parliamentary questions (Written Questions E-30/99 by Mr Kaklamanis
and E-42/99 by Mrs Piha (1) and E-58/99 by Mr Manisco (2)) the decision to suspend Mr Van Buitenen from his
duties was a precautionary measure taken in accordance with the first paragraph of Article 88 of the
Staff Regulations, as disciplinary proceedings are under way. The decision is based on failure to comply with
the duty of confidentiality and discretion which all public officials must obey.

With regard to access by the Committee of Independent Experts to documents held by the Commission, the
Commission can confirm that it has forwarded all the documents the Committee has requested. With regard to
information sent to the Committee on Budgetary Control, the Commission would refer the Honourable-
Member to the interinstitutional agreement on the transmission of confidential information to the European
Parliament under the discharge procedure or for any other purpose in connection with the monitoring of the
exercise by the Commission of its powers for implementation of the budget, management and administration,
which is submitted to Parliament for its approval.

See page 13.

(1)
(2) OJ C 341, 29.11.1999, p. 41.