WRITTEN QUESTION E-0930/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Disciplinary board procedure at the Commission.
Date: 2001-03-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: ECHO, European official, administrative sanction, disciplinary proceedings, fraud against the EU

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.

11.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 350 E/59

In the course of the Reform being undertaken in the Commission, on 28 November 2000 the College
adopted a consultative document (1) on the reform of disciplinary proceedings. That document sets out the
details and reasons for the Commission(cid:146)s proposals for making changes to the rules relating to the
composition and working procedures of the Disciplinary Board and to other features of the disciplinary
system. The Commission proposes to maintain the role of the Disciplinary Board, whilst modifying certain
procedural rules concerning its composition and working procedures.

(1) SEC(2000) 2079.

(2001/C 350 E/063)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0931/01

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

(28 March 2001)

Subject: Lost (cid:129) 16 million kronor

Messrs Perry Lux of Luxembourg were hired by ECHO to carry out three aid projects in Bosnia for a sum
corresponding to 24 million Swedish kronor. The project fizzled out in a large-scale fraud case. The
equivalent of some 16 million Swedish kronor disappeared.

What is the Commission doing to locate the missing money and is it giving serious consideration to ways
of calling the officials responsible to account for their errors in connection with the fraud case?

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(25 June 2001)

Based on information obtained in March 1997 that four operational contracts totalling € 4 million for
humanitarian aid were suspicious, UCLAF launched an inquiry with controls on the spot in Luxembourg,
Ireland and former Yugoslavia. The inquiry report concludes, among other things, that further inquiries are
necessary by the national judicial authorities to establish the ultimate beneficiaries of funds which have not
been traced to date.

As suggested by UCLAF ECHO has issued immediately a recovery order against (cid:145)Perry Lux Informatic(cid:146) for
one of the four contracts. This recovery order was contested within a law suit filed in April 1998 in the
Court of First Instance of the European Communities (T-132/98). Later on this company went bankrupt
and the liquidators requested that the Court suspend the proceedings, awaiting the outcome of a penal
procedure launched by the judicial authorities of Luxembourg. The Court accepted this request on 25 June
1999. The penal procedure is still ongoing and the Commission is defending the financial interests of the
Community as a civil party in this procedure.

As far as the three other contracts which were concluded with two subsidiaries of Perry-Lux in Ireland: The
two subsidiaries were already dissolved in 1996, before the UCLAF investigation started. The investigation
has not enabled the Commission to identify, for example, a liquidator against whom a recovery could have
been launched. Therefore, the Commission will defend the Communities(cid:146) financial interests as described
under 2 within the on-going penal procedure in these cases as well.

As concerns the disciplinary measures taken in relation to this matter, the Commission refers to the
detailed answers it has already given in the framework of the discharge procedure for the general budget
1999 (Blak-report).