WRITTEN QUESTION P-2283/00 by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission. Legal certainty.
Date: 2000-06-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Community budget, Denmark, European Anti-fraud Office, aid system, fraud against the EU, fund (EU), rights of the defence

13.3.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/185

As mentioned in the question, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of the United
Kingdom have issued a joint statement which called for the basic raw data on the human genome to be
made freely available. However this statement also recognised that intellectual property protection for gene
based inventions has an important role in stimulating the development of important new health care
products.

Directive 98/44/EC is fully consistent with this statement. The Commission does not believe that this
statement or indeed any other developments in this field justify, at this time, a review of the provisions of
the Directive. The Directive does however require the Commission to report on an annual basis as
from July 2001 on the development and implications of patent law in the field of biotechnology and
genetic engineering. These reports will help to ensure that the scope of the Directive remains relevant to
this fast moving area of technology.

(2001/C 81 E/235)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2283/00

by Jens-Peter Bonde (EDD) to the Commission

(29 June 2000)

Subject: Legal certainty

Has the Commission apologised to the Nordvestjydsk Folkecenter for Vedvarende Energi now that the
Danish Public Prosecutor has found that there were no grounds for prosecution for fraud involving EU
resources?

Will the Commission impress it on OLAF that a person has to be treated as innocent until prosecution or
conviction?

Does the Commission believe that legal certainty is served if the withdrawal of charges by the Public
Prosecutor is followed by civil proceedings, bringing fresh uncertainty to the Nordvestjydsk Folkecenter for
Vedvarende Energi to follow the three years it has already suffered?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2000)

The fact that criminal proceedings have not been the outcome of the investigation by the European Anti-
Fraud Office is a matter for the judicial authority alone; neither the Office nor the Commission has any say
in the matter. Consequently, there is no reason for the Commission to apologise.

Community law recognises important fundamental principles, and the arrangements connected with the
setting up of the Office (1) provide that its investigations must be conducted in accordance with the Treaty
and with full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. The very nature of the Office(cid:146)s work
(administrative investigations) means that it cannot infringe the presumption of innocence, since it is not
empowered to undertake judicial proceedings.

The civil proceedings aimed at recovering sums wrongly paid are being carried out in accordance with the
rules laid down in the contracts and the relevant legislation. They are independent of any criminal
prosecution, though they can, if necessary, be joined to such proceedings.

In this case, it should be noted that the Commission has cancelled the specific contract with Folkecenter
and asked for full repayment of all the money that has been paid under this contract since the summer of
1997.

(1) See Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of
the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L
136, 31.5.1999).