WRITTEN QUESTION E-0999/01 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. 1999 discharge - agriculture.
Date: 2001-03-30
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU aid, EU control, fraud, milk product

C 40 E/18

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

14.2.2002

The request for a Commission decision (E/696/99) to allow Europol(cid:146)s involvement after its charter had
entered into force (cid:129) required according to Article 7,
indent 8 of Council Decision 94/801/EC of
23 November 1994 adopting a specific programme for research and technological development, including
demonstration in the field of telematics applications of common interest (1994 to 1998) (1), because of the
status of Europol as an international organisation (cid:129) was initiated by the unit responsible for the contract,
according to the rules and procedures governing the Fourth Framework Programme (see the Commission(cid:146)s
reply to the Honourable Member(cid:146)s written question E-1066/01 (2)).

(1) OJ L 334, 22.12.1994.
(2) See p. 19.

(2002/C 40 E/017)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0999/01

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(30 March 2001)

Subject: 1999 discharge (cid:129) agriculture

The information provided by the Commission in connection with question 2.7 of the second questionnaire
on the granting of the discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European
Union for the 1999 financial year does not reply to the questions raised in various aspects. Can the
Commission therefore clarify the following points?

With regard to question 2.7(b):

(cid:129) Can the Commission be more specific than merely stating that it is monitoring the matter? Can the
Commission guarantee that the falsification of dairy products by the enterprise concerned did not
involve intervention or aid schemes?

(cid:129) Does the Commission(cid:146)s answer imply that it is responsible only for the falsification of dairy products

which benefit directly from intervention or aid schemes?

(cid:129) Did OLAF or the French authorities notify the Commission of the falsification of milk by the

enterprise concerned?

Supplementary Answer
given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

Within the resources available the Commission takes note of fraud allegations appearing in the press or
brought to its attention by other means. As mentioned in the reply to question 2.7 (b) of the second
questionnaire on the granting of discharge for the financial year 1999, it does not seem that the case
mentioned by the Honourable Member involved any Community subvention, but the Commission is not in
a position to give a clear-cut guarantee on this matter. No new information has surfaced and no further
action is foreseen at this stage.

Adulterated products are not eligible for aid under the dairy aid schemes or any other scheme. The
Community regulations define the products eligible and an adulterated product will not fulfil such
definitions. The implementation is the responsibility of the Member State. The regulations include control
provisions, which must be enforced by Member States to ensure, inter alia, that adulterated products do
not benefit from any Community aid. The Commission verifies the implementation and shortcomings that
can lead to financial corrections imposed on Member States within the clearance of accounts procedure.
Any suspicion of fraud is referred to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

An adulterated product may also breach other Community legislation on standards, denomination and
labelling. Also in these areas are Member States responsible for implementation and controls that again are
subject to verification by the Commission(cid:146)s control bodies.

14.2.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 40 E/19

The Commission has only obtained information on this alleged case of adulterated milk through the press.
There is no communication on the basis of Council Regulation No 595/91 of March 1991 concerning
irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common
agricultural policy and the organization of an information system in this field and repealing Regulation
(EEC) No 283/72 (1) from the French authorities concerning these allegations.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.

(2002/C 40 E/018)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1066/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 April 2001)

Subject: Origins of the Aventinus and Sensus projects

Aventinus and its successor, Sensus, have been subsidised by the Commission since 1996. The two
projects seek to develop an information exchange programme for European police and security services.
Aventinus (Advanced System for Multinational Drug Enforcement)
is concerned principally with the
international drugs trade. The Gesellschaft
f(cid:252)r Multilingual Systeme mbH of Munich, subsequently
Lernout & Haspie(cid:146)s (L & H) Sail Labs, coordinates the project. The Bundesnachrichtendienst and Europol(cid:146)s
predecessor, the European Drugs Unit, are also involved in Aventinus.

Sensus took over from the Aventinus project in May 1998. This time coordination is in the hands of the
German secret agent Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski of the Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen in Munich.
This organisation is a cover for the Bundesnachrichtendienst. On 25 May 1999 the Commission changed
the original decision E/1797/97 of 3 September 1997 in such a way that Europol could take part in the
project (E/696/99). In November 1999 Europol effectively joined the Sensus partners(cid:146) Gesellschaft f(cid:252)r
Multilingual Systeme mbH and the Italian firm Datamat. Stephan Bodenkamp/Christoph Kionowski is now
behind three of L & H(cid:146)s Language Development Companies. This gives him access to L & H(cid:146)s language
technology.

In reply to question P-0009/01 (1), Commissioner Erkki Liikanen said that Sensus and Aventinus I and II
had been financed from budget line B6-6121.113 of the Telematics applications programme (1994-1998).
A maximum contribution of € 2 500 000 was approved for Aventinus I, and of this € 2 341 190 was
applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of € 550 000 was approved for Aventinus II, of which his
€ 513 777 was applied for and paid. A maximum contribution of € 2 250 000 was approved for Sensus, of
which € 478 753 was paid on 31 December 2000.

On the basis of what decisions and/or published invitations to submit proposals was a satellite
1.
organisation of the Bundesnachrichtendienst (the Amt f(cid:252)r Auslandsfragen) able to take part in the Sensus
ands Aventinus projects even before the original decision E/1791/97 had been amended on 25 May 1999?

2. What
Aventinus and Sensus? Who makes use of these products

language technology projects have been completed and/or marketed since 1996 under

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 154.

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(1 August 2001)

AFA was part of a consortium which submitted a proposal under the 4th call of
Applications Programme of
Development of the Community (FP4).

the Telematics
the Fourth Framework Programme for Research and Technological