WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/01 by Esko Seppänen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. The Fléchard affair.
Date: 2001-04-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: fraud against the EU

C 350 E/74

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

11.12.2001

As already pointed out in the reply to Written Question E-936/01 by Mr Sj(cid:246)stedt (1), (cid:145)the Commission has
not signed any contract relating to the Berlaymont building.
In July 1997 the Commission signed
a Memorandum of Understanding with the Belgian State and the not-for-profit development company S.A.
Berlaymont 2000 (70 % owned by the Belgian State and 30 % owned by two banks). That Memorandum
included the provision that the Commission would only return to the building and bear relevant costs of
renovation works if renovation was completed satisfactorily and according to best practice.(cid:146) The costs of
renovating the building after removal of the asbestos were estimated to be € 324 million.

The provision mentioned above retains its validity. Meanwhile,
the Commission and the Belgian
Government are currently re-examining the Memorandum of Understanding with a view to establishing
a contract which fixes the final cost of the building, precisely describes the work covered by the contract,
and sets down a firm delivery date.

(1) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 155.

(2001/C 350 E/080)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1119/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The FlØchard affair

What measures has the Commission taken to resolve the (cid:145)FlØchard affair(cid:146) and to find possible culprits
among the Commission(cid:146)s own officials?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The so-called (cid:145)FlØchard(cid:146) case has during more than two years been exhaustively examined by the
Commission, the Parliament Committee on Budgetary Control, the European Court of Auditors and the
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The Commission has over this time on numerous occasions supplied
information to the various bodies. The Honourable Member is advised to consult this comprehensive
documentation available to the Parliament, f. ex. the Commission reply of 10 May 2000 to the Court of
Auditors presidential letter, the reply of 19 March 2001 to the questionnaire addressed to the Commission
by the (cid:145)FlØchard(cid:146) working group of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the member responsible for
Budget(cid:146)s statement to the Parliament in April 2001 for the 1999 discharge. In addition, OLAF transmitted
in March 2001 its report concerning the minutes of the Commission interservice meeting of 7 January
1994 to the Commission and to the Parliament.

The Commission is of the view that the case is thoroughly documented and does not see any possibility,
nor need, to take further measures to resolve it.

(2001/C 350 E/081)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1120/01

by Esko Sepp(cid:228)nen (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(6 April 2001)

Subject: The Commission(cid:146)s staff policy

The Commission is reforming its staff policy with the aim of improving the efficiency of its operations.
This is a perfectly correct objective. Some staff representatives have already threatened legal action if the
reforms do not satisfy officials. If a strike occurs, will the Commission take the line that the officials should
be paid for the time they are on strike?