WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Recovery of EU contributions in the event of irregularities.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EAGGF Guarantee Section, EU financing, financial control, fraud against the EU, redemption

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/57

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(7 June 2001)

The decision to part-finance the Alqueva project was adopted on 28 July 1997 (1) following a number of
studies on the basins of the rivers common to both Portugal and Spain which had concluded that the
Guadiana contained enough water for the project to be viable.

The Spanish authorities have given assurances regarding the quantity and quality of the water supply from
the dam. They undertook to abide by the requirements of Directives 91/271/EEC (2) and 91/676/EEC (3) as
well as reaffirming their commitment to the relevant international or bilateral treaties, in particular the
Spanish-Portuguese agreement (the Convention between Portugal and Spain on regularising the use of
water from cross-border rivers), under which the use of the Guadiana river (between Caia and Cuncos) and
its waters is reserved for Portugal.

The Portuguese authorities also reaffirmed their commitment to the Community directives and the
international and bilateral treaties, especially the Spanish-Portuguese Convention.

The Community part-financing laid down in the Commission Decision of July 1997 on the specific
integrated development programme for the Alqueva area was intended mainly to fund the construction of
the dam and the irrigation systems for conducting the water to the farms. Small dams and pumping
stations within this network will be also eligible for Community part-financing.

Measures to complete these irrigation systems are contained in the operational programme for the 2000-
2006 Community Support Framework for Alentejo (4).

(1) Decision C (97) 2350.
(2) Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (OJ L 135, 30.5.1991).
(3) Council Directive 91/676/EEC of 12 December 1991 concerning the protection of waters against pollution caused

by nitrates from agricultural sources (OJ L 375, 31.12.1991).

(4) Decision C (2000) 1777 of 28 July 2000.

(2001/C 350 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0927/01

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

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Recovery of EU contributions in the event of irregularities

Media reports have revealed that 90 % of the money claimed back by the Community when fraud is
discovered is in fact never repaid.

What percentage is repaid of the funds the Commission claims back? Can the Commission account for
these repayments in percentages for each Member State? What is the Commission doing to ensure that
100 % is recovered?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2001)

A distinction should be made between irregularities in indirect expenditure by the European Agricultural
Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF-Guarantee structural operations), where the recovery of amounts
unduly paid is the responsibility of the Member States, and irregularities in direct expenditure, where it is
for the Commission to recover amounts unduly paid.

C 350 E/58

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

Statistics and analyses of the financial monitoring of indirect expenditure are available in:

(cid:129) the most recent annual Commission reports (1999 (1) and 2000 (2)) on the protection of

the

Communities(cid:146) financial interests and the fight against fraud and attached tables; and

(cid:129) the first OLAF report on operational activities (1 June 1999 to 31 May 2000) (3).

With regard to indirect expenditure, the Member States are responsible for starting the appropriate
proceedings in accordance with the applicable national procedures in compliance with Community rules.

At present the Commission does not have the percentages for the amounts recovered in connection with
irregularities in direct expenditure.

It should be noted that where fraud is suspected in a direct expenditure context, the Commission refers the
matter to OLAF, which investigates it and, where necessary, starts criminal proceedings; in appropriate
cases the Commission joins a civil claim.

Matters relating to the recovery of debts are dealt with in Action 96 of the Reform White Paper (4) relating
to more effective management of recovery of unduly paid funds.

(1) COM(2000) 718 final.
(2) COM(2001) 255 final.
(3) http://europa.eu.int/comm/anti_fraud/documents/rapport_en.pdf.
(4) SEC(2000) 2204/3.

(2001/C 350 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/01

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

Subject: Disciplinary board procedure at the Commission

(28 March 2001)

As we know, the former director of ECHO, Mr Gomez-Reino, was cleared by the Disciplinary Board of his
peers which considered his case in 1999. The outgoing Commission endorsed the Disciplinary Board(cid:146)s
opinion. Former Commissioner Gradin has stated that she was faced with a fait accompli in endorsing the
disciplinary board(cid:146)s recommendation to clear Mr Gomez-Reino.

Will the Commission abolish the disciplinary board procedure and find another way of investigating and
judging officials suspected of fraud?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 June 2001)

The deliberations and the working procedures of the Disciplinary Board are regulated in Title VI and
annex IX of the Staff Regulations. According to long-standing case-law of the Court of Justice and the
Court of First Instance, a disciplinary measure may only be adopted where the facts alleged against the
official are clearly proved. It is the Disciplinary Board which gives an opinion on that matter and on any
penalty, if any, that is appropriate. The final decision is for the Appointing Authority which, in the case of
is the College of Commissioners. Under the terms of the Staff Regulations, the
A1 and A2 officials,
Appointing Authority may decide to adopt a penalty that is more severe than that proposed by the
Disciplinary Board, provided that it gives full and relevant reasons for its choice. The Appointing Authority
cannot, however, convict an official whose guilt is not considered by the Disciplinary Board to have been
proved.
In the case referred to by the Honourable Member in his question, the Disciplinary Board
concluded that they did not consider that guilt had been proved.