WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/00 by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Corruption within the European Commission (return of misappropriated funds).
Date: 2000-05-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fraud against the EU

6.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 72 E/55

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(3 July 2000)

The Commission is sending the information requested direct to the Honourable Member and to Parliament(cid:146)
Secretariat. However some clarifications are needed. The national accounts system on which the data are
based is ESA 79 and the nomenclature of branches is the general industrial classification of economic
activities within the European Communities/classification and nomenclature for input/output (NACE-
CLIO).

They show investment (GFCF/gross fixed capital formation) by the economic branches concerned rather
than spending on capital goods.

The branches available differ slightly from what was requested: construction makes no distinction between
private owners and others,
financial services includes only credit and insurance, and transport and
communications are often grouped together.

It should also be pointed out that the new national accounts system, ESA 95, has broadened the concept
of investment by including certain intangible investments (software and databases,
literary or artistic
works) expenditure on mineral or oil exploration, regardless of whether or not it is successful, expenditure
on software development and civilian and military equipment (buildings, airports, hospitals, vehicles, etc.).

This explains why the figures under ESA 95, which should all have reached Eurostat by September 2000,
are up for 1995 by between 3,8 % for Portugal and 17,1 % for Denmark.

(2001/C 72 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1421/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Corruption within the European Commission (return of misappropriated funds)

Can the Commission indicate what progress has been made in recovering BEF 5,5 million against the estate
of Mr Berthelot and all misappropriated funds related to the Leonardo project, and is the Commission
prepared to make a report to the European Parliament detailing the extent of the misappropriation, the
attempts made to prevent discovery and the success in recovering funds?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 July 2000)

In December 1999, the Commission issued two debit notes for a total value of BEF 5,5 million against
Mr Berthelot (expiry date 31 January 2000). The notes were contested but the Commission did not accept
the arguments put forward by Mr Berthelot(cid:146)s lawyers. Since Mr Berthelot died in March 2000, a reminder
and a formal notice to pay were sent to those entitled under him in March and April 2000 respectively. As
no payment was made, the Commission started enforced recovery proceedings.

With regard to the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the Commission identified and recovered the amounts
relating to expenditure considered as ineligible during the audit conducted by the office assisting it with
programme implementation (Leonardo technical assistance office (cid:129) TAO). At the beginning of February
1999, the Commission notified the Brussels Prosecution Service of four cases linked to the operation of
this office for information purposes. The investigation is under way and the Commission has not yet been
informed of the results. The Commission has not uncovered any irregularity in the management of
projects under the programme checked on the spot by its departments. Moreover, following the checks
made by its departments into beneficiaries,
the Commission regularly issues recovery orders against
beneficiaries in respect of ineligible expenditure amounts.

C 72 E/56

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.3.2001

In the course of the discharge procedure, the Commission has already reported to the rapporteur for the
discharge for Parliament(cid:146)s Committee on Budgetary Control on the situation regarding the Leonardo
programme and on the monitoring of activities and rules relating to scientific visitors. The Commission
has also transmitted all the reports drawn up by its departments on the matter to the Committee on
Budgetary Control.

(2001/C 72 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1424/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Incorporation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental

Freedoms into the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union

Does the Commission accept that the wording of Article 6(2) of the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on
European Union which states that:
(cid:145)The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on
4 November 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, as
general principles of Community law(cid:146) constitutes an incorporation of the aforementioned European
Convention into the Consolidated Treaty on European Union?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2000)

Article 6(2) of the Treaty on European Union to which the Honourable Member refers, requires that
fundamental rights be respected as general principles of Community law. The Commission feels that this
provision, which raises previous decisions by the Court of Justice to primary law status, does not have the
effect of incorporating the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental
Freedoms into the consolidated version of the Treaty. The same goes for fundamental rights resulting from
common constitutional traditions to which Article 6 also refers.

The Commission would point out that the draft Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
which is now being drafted will, in accordance with the mandate given by the Cologne European Council,
contain the rights to freedom and equality as well as procedural rights guaranteed by the European
Convention.

(2001/C 72 E/064)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1425/00

by Charles Tannock (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(5 May 2000)

Subject: Treaty violations

Would the Commission accept that to deprive a European Union citizen of the right to enter freely his or
her own country of origin when that country is an EU Member State would constitute a prima facie
violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and, therefore, of Article 6 of
the Consolidated Version of the Treaty on European Union?