do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Publication of the Lowe report on the ECHO fraud.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: access to EU information, confidentiality, fraud against the EU

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/129

The subsidies awarded by the Commission by way of sponsorship for this diary have been as follows:

(cid:129) 1998/1999 academic year: € 32 000 (budget heading B3300; commitment introduced in 1998 by the
Directorate-General for Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual Media, formerly DG X);

(cid:129) 1999/2000 academic year: € 38 000 (budget heading B3306; commitment introduced in 1999 by the

Directorate-General for Education and Culture);

(cid:129) 2000/2001 academic year: as no call

for proposals was issued as part of the activities of the
Directorate-General for Press and Communication, no subsidy was awarded from the 2000 budget,
nor will any be awarded by that Directorate-General from the 2001 budget.

(2001/C 340 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0937/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

Subject: Publication of the Lowe report on the ECHO fraud

(28 March 2001)

It is in the general
interest that the report drawn up by Philip Lowe, a senior Commission official,
concerning the irregularities at ECHO in respect of the three projects involving contracts with Messrs.
Perry Lux, in which large sums of money disappeared, be published.

When will the Commission be publishing this report and why has it not yet been published?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(11 June 2001)

The report by Mr Lowe was drawn up for the purposes of an administrative investigation that was initiated
in order to clarify all the possible responsibilities for certain alleged actions and,
the
regularity of specific contracts signed by the Commission for financing humanitarian actions.

in particular,

The Commission grants very broad access to information to Parliament in order to ensure transparency
and openness. However, as already pointed out in the framework of the 1998 discharge procedure (1) two
exceptions to this access require and justify confidentiality. The first concerns sensitive reports on
administrative investigations which may lead to other procedures, and the second concerns detailed
minutes of the disciplinary board.

Mr Lowe(cid:146)s report necessarily contained references that have direct implications for individual rights. It
must, therefore, remain confidential and cannot be published.

(1) Statement by the Member of the Commission responsible for the budget in the plenary debates on 11 April 2000.

(2001/C 340 E/148)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0948/01

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Use of alkyphenols

1. Will the Commission indicate the current position on restrictions on the use of alkyphenols in EU
legislation and in the national laws of the Member States?

Is the Commission aware that alkyphenols are used in industrial detergents, spermicidal lubricants

2.
and pesticide sprays and are known hormone disrupters?
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The Swedish exemption concerning the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sweden, cadmium, chemical fertiliser, derogation from EU law, environmental protection, health policy

18.9.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 261 E/219

But who was responsible for the erroneous appointment? Has any reprimand been issued to the deputy
director-general at the Commission who signed Mr Berthelot(cid:146)s contract of appointment?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 May 2001)

Disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and are ongoing in relation to a number of officials and/or
other staff in connection with the file on Mr Berthelot(cid:146)s contract.

The appointing authority has also decided to undertake an additional inquiry to clear up any responsi-
bilities of other parties connected with this matter.

The Commission will inform Parliament of the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings as soon as the final
conclusions have been reached after due process.

(2001/C 261 E/249)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0939/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: The Swedish exemption concerning the cadmium content of phosphate fertilisers

On accession Sweden was given an exemption for its maximum values for the cadmium content in
phosphate fertilisers until 31 December 1998. Nothing then happened, but the Commission has since
proposed as a compromise that the exemption should be extended for a further three years while the
Commission reviewed the need for common measures in this field. Sweden also had its exemption
regarding the use of cadmium as a pigment extended by three years while a further review took place.

What is now happening on this matter? Will the EU bring itself into line with the Swedish exemptions or
vice-versa, or will there be a compromise between the two positions?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(22 May 2001)

is currently evaluating risks to health and the
The Commission, together with the Member States,
environment linked to the presence of cadmium in fertilisers. When this evaluation is complete, the
Commission will, if necessary, issue a proposal concerning any measures at Community level.

A study of the use of cadmium as a pigment, a stabiliser and for plating metals was recently completed,
and is currently being examined by the Scientific Committee for Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment
(CSTEE). This study aims to update previous evaluations of risks to health and the environment.

In the light of these results and any other relevant information, the provisions of Council Directive 76/
769/EEC of 27 July 1976 relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances
and preparations (1) could be amended by 1 January 2003.

(1) OJ L 262, 27.9.1976.
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0928/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Dismissal and pensions.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European official, dismissal, fraud against the EU, supplementary pension

C 318 E/154

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

13.11.2001

Commission and national authorities, in close co-operation with other interested parties, keep the use of
dental amalgams under constant scrutiny and follow attentively the development of substitutes and their
impact on health.

(1) OJ L 169, 12.7.1993.

(2001/C 318 E/166)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0928/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Dismissal and pensions

A Danish documentary shown on Swedish TV has outraged the public. It reported on a number of
problems involving the EU administration and organisation.

One item referred to Hubert Onidi, an official who used to work in ECHO. He was dismissed from the
Commission for involvement in fraud relating to ECHO projects. According to the documentary, the aid
money was found in his wife(cid:146)s bank account in Luxembourg.

Despite being sacked for irregularities, Mr Onidi
employers refuse to pay a pension if
Commission not follow the same principle?

is receiving a pension from the Commission. Many
the employee is dismissed for irregularities. Why does the

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 June 2001)

In the case referred to by the Honourable Member, the appointing authority decided to remove the official
from his post and to reduce his pension rights.

The sanctions of dismissal and pension reduction were considered by the responsible authorities to be
appropriate to the gravity of the offences for which the official was formal guilty. Those offences did not
include fraud as the question says, they related to various failures to meet the obligations of independence
and honesty to which officials are bound under the Staff Regulations.

Since the case is still pending before the European Court of First Instance, the Commission is not in
a position to provide further information.

(2001/C 318 E/167)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0934/01

by Jonas Sj(cid:246)stedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(28 March 2001)

Subject: ISO and the (cid:145)Nordic(cid:146) methods

Salmonella contamination of meat can be detected using either the ISO or the Nordic method. In the EU
the former has been the rule. However, on 10 March 1998 Commissioner Fischler told the European
Parliament that the Council was discussing the possiblity of using the Nordic method as a reference
method.

How many Member States are now using the Nordic method as the reference for ascertaining whether
meat is contaminated by salmonella? What is the Commission doing to promote the use of the Nordic
method rather than the ISO method as the reference method?