WRITTEN QUESTION P-0009/01 by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission. Lernout & Hauspie case: financial assistance for Sensus police project.
Date: 2001-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, EU police cooperation, Germany, exchange of information, linguistics, research project, secret service

C 187 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Whilst discharging of kerosene is only used in emergency situations where the life of people is at risk and
given the insignificant effect on ecosystems, banning kerosene discharges does not appear to be a realistic
option.

Furthermore, as the discharging of kerosene represents a substantial financial loss for the air operator,
it can be assumed that it will be used as a measure of last resort only.

(2001/C 187 E/165)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0008/01

by Lord Inglewood (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: European Defence and Security Policy and NATO

(17 January 2001)

Do the decisions taken at Nice with regard to the European Defence and Security Policy look seemlessly
and coherently into the wider framework for defence and security policy already in place as part of NATO?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(21 February 2001)

The Commission welcomes the Nice decisions on the European Security and defence policy (ESDP) and
believes they are fully coherent with the wider defence and security policy already in place as part of the
North atlantic treaty organization (NATO).

The Nice decisions concern the Union(cid:146)s ability to act where the Alliance as a whole is not engaged in cases
falling within the so-called (cid:145)Petersberg tasks(cid:146). These relate to crisis management and peacekeeping and do
not cover the issue of the territorial defence of Member States.

NATO(cid:146)s Washington Summit underlined the enhanced role attributed to crisis management policy outside
purely defence considerations. The new structures and capabilities developed under ESDP should be seen as
complementary to those of the alliance.

It is the Commission(cid:146)s understanding that both NATO members and Union Member States are ready to
play a full role in operations of this kind, within the framework of NATO or of the Union and within the
emerging dialogue and cooperation between these two organisations.

There is naturally a need to continue work on the procedural aspects of this cooperation. These are taking
place within the four Union/NATO working groups which have been meeting regularly for the past
months.

(2001/C 187 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0009/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 January 2001)

Subject: Lernout & Hauspie case: financial assistance for Sensus police project

The aim of the Sensus project, the successor to Aventinus,
is to develop an information exchange
programme for European police and intelligence services. The search for appropriate language and speech
technology forms an important part of the project.

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/155

The European Commission provides financial assistance for Sensus. According to information provided on
the Internet (http://www.sensus-int.de), coordination is in the hands of a Mr Stephan Bodenkamp. Officially
the latter works for the Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen in Munich. However, a judgment by a Munich court
(of 20 December 2000) reveals that Stephan Bodenkamp(cid:146)s real name is Christoph Kionowski, and that he
works for the German federal security service, the Bundesnachrichtendienst.

The Sensus project has its official headquarters on the same premises as the German firm Radial
Sprachtechnologie GmbH. This company forms part of a European network in which, via Radial Belgium
(Schoolstraat 1A in 2370 Arendonk), a number of so-called Language Development Companies belonging
to speech technology firm Lernout & Hauspie are also involved.

For Lernout & Hauspie, the Language Development Companies were a way of acquiring revenue. The
American business newspaper the Wall Street
this way of operating is
particularly dubious from a technical accounting point of view and is at the centre of current judicial
investigations relating to Lernout & Hauspie. One hypothesis being suggested is that the Language
Development Companies were a vehicle for money laundering.

Journal has reported that

1. When did the Commission decide to provide financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus
projects?

Why did the Commission decide to provide such assistance?

2. Who took the initiative to provide financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus projects?

3. Was the Commission decision taken at the request of any third party (persons, firms or organisa-
tions) and, if so, who were those third parties?

4.

In what budget line is financial assistance for the Aventinus and Sensus projects entered?

5. What financial assistance (in euros) has to date been paid for the Aventinus and Sensus projects?

6.
Is the Commission aware of the involvement of the German federal security service, the Bundesna-
chrichtendienst? If so, why did the Commission nevertheless decide to provide financial assistance for the
Aventinus and Sensus projects? If not, will the Commission be taking action to recover the assistance paid
out, given that crucial information on the Aventinus and Sensus projects failed to be provided to it?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(2 March 2001)

1.
The Commission decided to fund the Sensus and Aventinus cost-shared research and technology
development projects after evaluation of proposals submitted under various calls published by the
Telematics Applications Programme of the Fourth Framework Programme of the Community activities in
technological development and demonstration (1994-1998) (1). Aventinus-I was
the field of research,
formally approved for funding by the Commission in its decision E/1389/95 of 26 July 1995. Aventinus-
II and Sensus were approved for funding by the Commission in its decision E/1791/97 of 3 September
1997. In the case of Sensus, a further Commission decision (E/696/99) to modify the original decision was
taken on 25 May 1999 to permit Europol to join the project.

2.
The above-mentioned proposals were evaluated by the Commission according to the rules and
procedures governing the Fourth Framework Programme of the Community activities in the field of
research, technological development and demonstration, with the assistance of independent experts. As
a result of the evaluation, they were proposed for funding having been deemed to be highly relevant and
technically excellent.

Following evaluation, the proposals were granted Community financial support by the Commission,

3.
as detailed under point 1. above, after consultation with the programme committee.

C 187 E/156

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

As explained above, the projects originated from proposals submitted in response to public calls
4.
published in the Official Journal. The corresponding Commission decisions were taken in accordance with
all relevant rules and procedures.

Sensus and Aventinus-I and -II were funded under the budget line B6-6121.113 of the Telematics

5.
Applications Programme (1994-1998).

6.
A maximum Community contribution of € 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus-I, of which
€ 2 341 190 was subsequently claimed and paid. A maximum Community contribution of € 550 000 was
approved for Aventinus-II, of which € 513 777 was subsequently claimed and paid.

A maximum Community contribution of € 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of which € 478 753 has
been paid as of 31 December 2000. Further cost claims are in progress.

7.
These projects were aimed at developing technologies to facilitate cross-border collaboration between
law enforcement and security agencies. The Commission is aware that AfA (Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen),
which was involved both in Aventinus and Sensus through its test centre for language technology, is
a governmental body reporting to the German Federal Chancellery. As such, AfA has legitimate interests in
the research areas addressed by the projects.

The Commission does not consider that it was misinformed about the objectives and results of the
projects. As all tasks foreseen in the project work programmes have been successfully completed, the
Commission has no specific grounds at this time to ask for recovery of any of the money paid to date. The
Commission will nevertheless give due consideration to the information which was recently brought to its
attention and assess whether this information may lead it to reconsider its position, including, but not
limited to, carrying out a financial audit in accordance with the terms of the contracts.

(1) OJ C 230, 26.8.1993.

(2001/C 187 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0012/01

by Luis Berenguer Fuster (PSE) to the Commission

(17 January 2001)

Subject: Decision on the proceedings against Spain concerning state aid to the electricity sector

The Commission has stated on various occasions that there is no legal incompatibility preventing Vice-
President de Palacio from intervening in the proceedings concerning state aid to Spanish electricity
undertakings to meet the costs of the transition to competition.

Recently, the Spanish press has reported the valiant efforts of Mrs de Palacio to gain control of the
proceedings so as to prevent the Spanish Government from coming under fire (cid:129) no doubt substantially
the same government of which she was a member. The Spanish press has also pointed out that the Vice-
President(cid:146)s battling approach has succeeded in securing the postponement of the proceedings against
Spain, which were to be dealt with at the Commission meeting of 21 December 2000.

Does the Commission still believe that Vice-President de Palacio is not seeking to defend the interests of
the Spanish Government in the proceedings concerning state aid to Spanish electricity undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(1 March 2001)

It is not customary for the Commission to comment on press articles expressing only the author(cid:146)s views;
moreover, in this case, the Spanish press places very divergent interpretations on the matter.