WRITTEN QUESTION P-3478/00 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Payments to the firm Fléchard.
Date: 2000-10-31
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: agro-industry, butter, fraud against the EU

C 174 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

19.6.2001

Is it true that the damage to the Community budget arising from this butter fraud can be expected to

2.
amount to at least € 45 million?

3. What consequences has this had for FlØchard?

(a) Was the firm placed on the blacklist (Regulation No 1469/95)?

(b) Were all payments to the firm from the Community budget halted? If so, when? If not, why not?

(c) Has the firm been asked to repay export refunds or other forms of aid wrongly paid to it? If so, when

and what amount? If not, why not?

4.
Does the Commission stand by its position (letter of 5 July 2000 from Commissioner Schreyer/
D(2000)408) that it cannot provide any information on the payments made to FlØchard from the
Community budget?

Does the Commission not consider full information to be necessary in view of the severity of the

5.
allegations made against the above firm?

(2001/C 174 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3478/00

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(31 October 2000)

Subject: Payments to the firm FlØchard

According to reports in the press, the firm FlØchard is once again involved in a case of fraud in connection
with manipulated butter. Early in 1992 allegations had already been made regarding the firm(cid:146)s involvement
in the fraudulent diversion to Poland of butter intended for the former Soviet Union.

In a letter delivered to me by an usher on 5 July 2000 the Commissioner responsible for budgetary matters
invoked the provisions of the framework agreement between Parliament and the Commission to justify her
refusal to disclose to me what sums FlØchard has received from the Community budget in recent years.

Is the Commission now prepared to answer the following questions:

(cid:129) Is it true that FlØchard received the following sums in Community aid for exports to third countries:

(cid:129) 1996: FF 29 129 659 (2 069 tonnes of butter);

(cid:129) 1997: FF 105 747 713 (6 931 tonnes of butter);

(cid:129) 1998: FF 72 907 357 (3 932 tonnes of butter).

(cid:129) If so, since when has the Commission been in possession of this information?

(cid:129) If not, what are the correct figures?

Can the Commission also state what sums have been paid to the firm in connection with food aid?

Finally, if appropriate can the Commission state what sums in processing aid the firm has received from
the Community budget?

Joint answer
to Written Questions E-3240/00 and P-3478/00
given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(14 December 2000)

Investigations into adulterated butter are being conducted by the authorities of the Member States, in
cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). No final conclusions have yet been drawn as to

19.6.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 174 E/29

whether the firms under investigation were involved in fraud. It is up to OLAF to keep Parliament
informed of operational developments in its regular contacts with the institutions pursuant to Article 12(3)
of Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999
concerning OLAF investigations (1).

The Commission would point out that only the authorities responsible in the Member States may take
measures against a firm deemed to be unreliable (including suspension of the payment of amounts due for
current operations) and enter that firm(cid:146)s name on the black list under Council Regulation (EC) No 1469/95
of 22 June 1995 on measures to be taken with regard to certain beneficiaries of operations financed by the
EAGGF Guarantee Section and Commission Regulation No 745/96 of 24 April 1996 laying down detailed
implementing rules (2). OLAF receives the relevant reports from the Member States.

The Commission would stress that the aid in question constitutes expenditure managed directly by the
Member States, whose task it is to reclaim any sums unduly paid. At this stage, OLAF reports that no steps
have yet been taken at national level to recover the aid. First, the exact quantities of ineligible products and
their final destination (whether covered by aid or not) must be determined. For the same reason the loss to
the Community budget has not been quantified.

In the letter referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission pointed out that it had no access to
the detailed information held by the national payment agencies which fell outside the scope of its
inspection powers and that under the Community rules such information had to be treated in confidence.
In particular, data on individual firms might be covered by business secrecy. Here the Commission would
also refer to the provisions on protecting the confidentiality of personal data, as laid down in Article 8 of
Regulation 1073/1999.

The Commission will not fail to inform Parliament of the action taken on the investigations under way, in
accordance with existing arrangements.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.
(2) OJ L 145, 29.6.1995; OJ L 102, 25.4.1996.

(2001/C 174 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3242/00

by Ioannis Souladakis (PSE) to the Commission

(20 October 2000)

Subject: Civil war in Sudan

The long-running civil war raging in Sudan has taken on a more international dimension as, in addition to
the Sudanese Government and the revolutionaries, multinational companies and foreign governments have
become involved. The objective of all those involved is the territory with abundant oil deposits located in
the southern region of the country. To date the UN(cid:146)s policy on the war in Sudan has not helped to bring
about peace but has contributed to maintaining the violence and tension. During the cold war period the
UN supported the Sudanese Government, while after the end of the cold war and because of the growing
Islamic movement, it has supported the revolutionaries, who are mainly situated in the southern region of
the country.

Recently, diplomatic signals have been observed from the UN with regard to a policy being applied which
will put an end to the bloody conflicts caused by the oil deposits. This policy will be based on the model
of the peace process being attempted in Sierra Leone, linked to the embargo on diamonds from that
country. Certain elements in Washington are expressing the wish that European Union countries should
collaborate in this initiative.

In view of the above, and given the danger that the fighting will spread on a larger geographical scale
within the African continent, and given the constantly increasing importance of oil for the economies of
the EU countries, is the Commission aware of Washington(cid:146)s actions on this issue and what initiatives does
it intend to take to encourage a gradual peace process in Sudan, with the aim of a conclusive end to the
civil war?