WRITTEN QUESTION E-1071/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Effectiveness of OLAF in combating ESF fraud in Catalonia.
Date: 2000-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Catalonia, European Anti-fraud Office, fraud against the EU, operation of the Institutions

26.1.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 26 E/151

On 11 March 2000, at the Spanish-French border that separates Basque people, Paris sent police forces to
hinder the passage of Basque citizens going to a popular march in the northern town of Bayonne. The goal
of this gathering was to denounce the dispersal of Basque political prisoners all over France and Spain and
the violation of their rights and those of their relatives. The French Government, with full agreement from
Madrid, put into force Article 2 of the Schengen Convention that exceptionally allows border close downs.
Paradoxically, we witness that, while the Vienna march was encouraged, that of Bayonne was forbidden.

1.

Can the EU Member States tell European citizens which human rights they are allowed to defend?

Can the Schengen provisions, as used by the French Government, thoroughly revoke fundamental
2.
rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the very principle of free
movement of persons inside the EU?

3.

Can the Basques live in an EU without their internal iron curtain?

Reply

(8 June 2000)

The Council would inform the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Schengen
Convention (cid:145)if public policy or national security require immediate action(cid:146) a Member State may
temporarily reinstate checks at its borders and (cid:145)at the earliest opportunity shall inform(cid:146) the other Member
States.

The free movement of persons established by the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and
the exercise of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) may therefore be restricted when the Member States exercise
their responsibilities under such circumstances (see Article 64(1) of the TEC and Articles 10(2) and 11(2)
of the ECHR).

Under such circumstances and in accordance with the decision SCH/Com-ex (95) 20 rev. 2 of 20 December
1995 of the Executive Committee set up by the Schengen Convention, which has been integrated into the
framework of the European Union, the French Government notified the Council of its decision to reinstate
temporarily, that is on 11 March 2000, checks on persons at the Franco-Spanish land border for reasons
of public policy. The Council acknowledged that notification.

Neither the Council nor the Commission, as guardian of the TEC, have seen any reason to question the
French Government(cid:146)s decision.

In this context, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in any event, responsibility for
maintaining law and order on the territory of the Member States of the European Union falls within the
exclusive competence of the authorities of each Member State. The Council is not authorised to take a
position on a matter which does not fall within the scope of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties.

(2001/C 26 E/188)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1071/00

by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Effectiveness of OLAF in combating ESF fraud in Catalonia

In recent years there have been repeated accusations of suspected fraud and irregularities in the manage-
ment of the European Social Fund (ESF) in Catalonia, Spain. According to some sources, questionable
activities undertaken in the 1990s could account for close to EUR 100 million. In the answers it provided
to written questions on these matters during the last parliamentary term, the Commission stated that it
was unable to report on the results of UCLAF activities, since they were sub judice.

C 26 E/152

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

26.1.2001

Reports of the misappropriation of € 9 million of Community funds, primarily from the ESF, by the
Catalan authorities have resurfaced in the Spanish media in recent days. Some of those already implicated
in previous cases are said to have been involved.

The Commission has failed to give details of the outcome of the investigations and activities conducted by
UCLAF or by its successor, OLAF, in spite of the ample time it has had in which to do so, the action taken
by the Spanish police, and the fact that the courts have ordered international letters rogatory.

if any, have emerged from UCLAF or OLAF
Can the Commission say what conclusions or results,
activities? Does it believe that OLAF(cid:146)s work on these cases can be described as (cid:145)effective(cid:146)? What
shortcomings as regards legislation or funding are preventing OLAF from fulfilling its remit promptly?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 June 2000)

The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commission(cid:146)s answer to his Written Question
P-258/99 (1), in which it stated that the Task Force for Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) had
offered to cooperate with the Spanish judicial authorities.

Since then, the Commission has been in regular contact with the Spanish authorities, both at central
government level (UAFSE (cid:129) the unit responsible for administering the ESF) and in Catalonia (Directorate-
General for Employment), while taking on board reports appearing in the press. The information received
by the Commission through these channels has proved insufficient or even incomplete. Nevertheless, the
Commission is still in contact with the above-mentioned authorities.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2) has informed the Commission that, having received no reports
under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery
of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an
information system in this field (3), it recently reminded the Spanish authorities of the Member States(cid:146)
obligation to report all fraud cases, including, where appropriate, new allegations appearing in the press.

OLAF has also informed the Commission that the Spanish authorities have not requested its assistance.
Under Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot
checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities(cid:146)
interests against fraud and other irregularities (4), referred to in the new legislation on the
financial
establishment of OLAF, the Commission must take account of the inspections in progress or already
carried out by the Member State, on the basis of its legislation, in respect of the same facts with regard to
the economic operators concerned.

(1) OJ C 348, 3.12.1999.
(2) OLAF succeeded the Task Force for Coordination of Fraud Prevention on 1 June 1999. See the legislation published

in OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(3) OJ L 178, 12.7.1994.
(4) OJ L 292, 15.11.1996.

(2001/C 26 E/189)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1073/00

by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission

(4 April 2000)

Subject: Euratom loans to the applicant countries

Loans by Euratom to the applicant countries are currently made solely on the basis of improving the safety
of their old Soviet-era nuclear power plants, pending their eventual closure.