WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Conclusion of decision-making on accusations of fraud involving payments for flax growing in Spain and other accusations against Commission Members.
Date: 2001-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Commissioner, Spain, administrative transparency, aid to agriculture, corruption, fraud against the EU, image, interinstitutional relations (EU)

3.7.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 187 E/205

The Commission considers that the new tax provision adopted by the Netherlands is in accordance
3.
with Community legislation, which specifically prevents the Member States from imposing tax or other
restrictions on their citizens(cid:146) freedom of movement and freedom of establishment outside their own
country.

The Commission does not consider that any specific Community measure is necessary to deal with

4.
the issue raised in this question.

(2001/C 187 E/223)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0243/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(7 February 2001)

Subject: Conclusion of decision-making on accusations of fraud involving payments for flax growing in

Spain and other accusations against Commission Members

1.
Has the Commission noted the report in the Netherlands Financieel Dagblad of 23 January 2001
headlined (cid:145)European People(cid:146)s part threatens crisis(cid:146), which draws attention to the marked increase in the
land area devoted to flax growing in Spain in the late 1990s from 186ha to 91 000ha, with the
subsequent sharp fall to 20 000ha, and to the subsidies granted by the European Union to boost flax
growing and the shared responsibility of the then Spanish Agriculture Minister?

2.
Can it confirm that the OLAF anti-fraud unit opened an investigation into the lawfulness and
appropriateness of the grant of subsidies referred to in paragraph 1 above, and to determine who carries
political responsibility for any misuse of these payments? Can it confirm that the investigation has now
been concluded?

3. What are the Commission(cid:146)s conclusions in relation to the OLAF investigation? If conclusions cannot
be drawn at this time, by what date can they be expected to be announced?

Is the Commission prepared to make the conclusions of the OLAF investigation public and submit

4.
them to the European Parliament?

Under what procedure and by what deadline does the Commission think the final conclusions will be

5.
reached in this matter?

Does the Commission agree that if fraud has in fact been committed, the subsidies paid out will have
6.
to be recovered, as has already happened in the Netherlands specifically in relation to ESF payments made
in violation of the rules?

7.
Does the Commission agree that one of the lessons that must be learned from the previous
Commission(cid:146)s resignation in 1999 is that complete openness must be maintained and that concern to
protect
the reputations of those involved must not be allowed to override the need for an open,
transparent and reputable approach by political leaders in Europe, not least because the European Union(cid:146)s
image will otherwise once again be seriously tarnished? Is the Commission prepared to act promptly- in
response to growing public indignation (cid:129) so as to meet the requirements of openness and integrity?

8. What is the Commission(cid:146)s reaction to reports that an MEP from the Spanish Partido Popular now
claims to be in possession of enough material to force six Members of the Commission (cid:129) not including
the former Spanish Agriculture Minister (cid:129) out of office? Does it agree that this at least raises the
suggestion that Members of the Commission could be guilty of disreputable conduct that could only result
in their resignations if made public?

9.
Does it share the view that the accusations referred to in paragraph 8 must, in the interests of
administrative integrity, either be substantiated as soon as possible or be conclusively refuted? Is it
prepared to take the initiative in that connection?

10.
How will the Commission act to remove all foundation from accusations levelled by Members of
the European Parliament against Members of the European Commission on the grounds of their possible
vulnerability to accusations of fraud?

C 187 E/206

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

3.7.2001

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(21 March 2001)

1.
Yes, the Commission is aware of the article referred to by the Honourable Member. As regards the
increase in sown surface areas, the Honourable Member is referred to the answer to Written Question
P-1382/99 by Mr Colom i Naval (1) and the Commission(cid:146)s replies to Parliament on 5 February 2001 in
connection with the budget discharge for 1999.

Yes, as it stated in a press release issued on 9 February 2001, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
2.
launched an investigation, which covered a number of Member States, in order to examine the legitimacy
and effectiveness of granting flax subsidies. It is not OLAF(cid:146)s task to establish any political responsibility.
It was only on 19 March 2001 that OLAF submitted its (cid:129) confidential (cid:129) report to Parliament and the
Commission.

3. and 5.
appropriate action as a result.

The Commission is currently examining OLAF(cid:146)s report

in detail and will certainly take

4.

6.

This question is no longer relevant as OLAF has already transmitted its report.

Yes.

The Commission considers that there is now greater openness in its relations with Parliament. Indeed
7.
that was one of the reasons why the two institutions concluded a framework agreement on 5 July 2000.

The Commission is convinced that preserving the Union(cid:146)s image is a collective task for all players involved
in the European integration process. In this context, it sets great store by the principle that any debate on
matters such as those raised in the Honourable Member(cid:146)s question must be based on real, objective facts.

8. and 9.

The Commission has no reason to feel under threat.

The Commission has noted with satisfaction that, since the present Parliamentary legislature began and the
new Commission took office, the two institutions have worked together closely in a spirit of loyal
cooperation and mutual trust. It feels that this climate of understanding must be maintained, as it is vitally
important if the institutions are to play a full part in building Europe. It is sure that Parliament shares this
view.

The Commission considers that, if evidence of fraud does emerge, thought will have to be given to

10.
the question of whose responsibility it would be to pursue that fraud and to take appropriate action.

(1) OJ C 27 E, 29.1.2000.

(2001/C 187 E/224)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0246/01

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

Subject: Internal Commission note of 12 October 1990 on BSE

(31 January 2001)

A number of press reports in recent days have quoted an internal Commission note dated 12 October 1990,
summarising the discussion in the Standing Veterinary Committee on 9 and 10 October of that year,
which also came to light while Parliament(cid:146)s committee of inquiry was conducting its investigation in 1996.

The note clearly shows that the Commission, whose mouthpiece in this instance was Mr Mansito, in fact
echoing the views of his principal superior, the then Director-General for Agriculture, Guy Legras, had
decided (cid:145)not to provoke unfavourable market responses(cid:146) and hence (cid:145)not [to] talk about BSE any more(cid:146). The
Commission(cid:146)s intention was (cid:145)to request the United Kingdom (cid:133) not to publish any more of their (sic)
research results(cid:146), and it considered that (cid:145)the BSE affair (cid:133) [had to] be minimized by using disinformation(cid:146).