WRITTEN QUESTION E-2019/00 by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission. Smuggled plutonium and lithium 6 ‐ Euratom safeguards.
Date: 2000-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Germany, illicit trade, nuclear fuel, nuclear safety

3.4.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 103 E/47

(2001/C 103 E/049)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2019/00

by Gerhard Hager (NI) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Smuggled plutonium and lithium 6 (cid:129) Euratom safeguards

On 17 December 1999, the Working Party for Physical Analyses and Measuring Procedures (ARGE-PhAM),
acting on behalf of the Hanau Public Prosecution Service, registered a complaint with Mr Prodi, President
of the Commission, concerning Euratom safeguards following investigations by the German authorities
into the seizure of plutonium/lithium in Munich in August 1994.

In this connection:

1. Does the Commission consider it conducive to an objective inquiry into the allegations if the authority

in question is itself given the task of carrying out fresh investigations?

2. What internal Euratom procedures are in place for investigating alleged shortcomings specifically
relating to safeguards? Who is responsible for investigating which sections and what are the relation-
ships between the members of staff involved?

3. Who was responsible for the investigation in this case?

4. To what extent are the Euratom authorities required to cooperate with national investigations?

5. Was the plant in Hanau investigated by Euratom staff in person and what form did these investiga-

tions take?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(7 September 2000)

The Commission would first wish to clarify that the complaint registered by the Working Party for
Physical Analyses and Measuring Procedures (ARGE-PhAM) was not made on behalf of or in agreement
with the German authorities investigating the seizure of plutonium/lithium to which the Honourable
Member refers. Moreover, the Commission(cid:146)s Euratom Safeguards Office (ESO) has not undertaken any
investigations upon its own initiative.

Indeed, following the seizure of material in question, a German court case was filed against a nuclear
operator. Investigations were launched by the Hanau Public Prosecution Service which, as part of these
investigations, requested ARGE-PhAM to examine the technical aspects of the case.

In general, co-operation between the Commission and the Member States on safeguards matters is subject
to the provisions of the Euratom Treaty. However,
in relation to measures aimed at combating illicit
trafficking of nuclear material, a particular agreement was reached with the German authorities, with the
objective of providing support rapidly and pragmatically. An exchange of letters of 1992 between the
German government and the Commission, agreed that the Commission would provide, on specific request
of the German authorities, the necessary technical and administrative expertise.

It was in line with these agreements, that the ESO was invited in this specific case by the Bundesminister-
ium f(cid:252)r Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit (BMUR) to provide assistance and expertise. ESO,
acting as the focal point between the German authorities and the Commission, provided the necessary
support in close collaboration with the JRC Institute for Trans Uranium Elements (ITU) in Karlsruhe which
concentrated on the scientific aspects.

Following meetings in Luxembourg on the ARGE-PhAM findings (held in May 1998 and in May 1999),
ITU and ESO concluded that at least two serious mistakes in methodology had been made by ARGE-
PhAM. The Commission informed the BMUR of these findings. BMUR fully supported this view and as a
result proceeded to inform the Public Prosecution Service in Hanau. The latter subsequently decided to
terminate the investigation and proceedings (mid 1999).

C 103 E/48

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.4.2001

The disagreement with these findings expressed by ARGE-PhAM in their complaint is therefore in no way
supported by the German authorities.

The Commission nevertheless further analysed the complaint made by ARGE-PhAM but could not identify
any new aspects additional to the elements discussed already in 1998 and 1999. In particular, there was
no evidence that a more formal internal inquiry would lead to new facts or findings.

Since, as pointed out above, the Commission had originally been requested by the BMUR to provide
assistance and expertise, there was no intention nor any reason from the Commission(cid:146)s side to initiate an
internal inquiry.

Finally, the Commission would remark that the relevant internal Commission procedures apply to all
Commission services. There are no internal Euratom procedures for investigating alleged shortcomings
specifically relating to Euratom safeguards.

(2001/C 103 E/050)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2022/00

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2000)

Subject: Transfer of Greek national from an Egyptian to a Greek prison

Mr Georgios Lembidakis, who has since 1984 been serving a life sentence to hard labour in Egypt for a
drugs related offence, has, since 1988, been seeking a transfer to serve the remainder of his sentence in
Greece, with the assistance of the Greek Ministers of the Interior, Foreign Affairs and Justice, in accordance
with the Intergovernmental Agreement of 22 December 1986 between Greece and the Arab Republic of
Egypt concerning the transfer of convicts.

In the past, Member State nationals of the European Union (such as Otto Kraling and Gunter Leonhardt
from Germany, Roland Devaux from France and Paul Collet and Maureen Plesehet from the United
Kingdom) convicted for the same offence as Mr Lembidakis were allowed by Egypt to return to their
respective countries to serve the remainder of their sentences.

In the light of Community legislation in general and relations between Europe and the Mediterranean
countries, in this case Egypt, does the Commission believe that it can help to bring about the transfer of
Georgios Lembidakis from Egypt to Greece to serve the remainder of his sentence?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(25 July 2000)

The Commission notes the efforts being made to arrange for Mr Lempidakis to be transferred to a prison
in Greece from Egypt. Such arrangements are normally covered by bilateral agreements such as that
concluded between Greece and Egypt in 1986. There is, unfortunately, no provision under existing
agreements between Egypt and the Union, either bilateral or within the context of the Barcelona Process,
that would be relevant to this case.