WRITTEN QUESTION P-1430/01 by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Budgetary regulations applying to OLAF.
Date: 2001-05-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administrator, budget

C 340 E/226

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to its answer to his Written Question E-0411/01 (1).

That answer is still valid.

(1) See page 22.

(2001/C 340 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1419/01

by Luciano Caveri (ELDR) to the Commission

(17 May 2001)

Subject: Fighting dogs

Measures have been taken in a number of European countries to combat the spread of breeds of fighting
dogs, both because they are dangerous (cid:129) as demonstrated by numerous attacks by dogs (cid:129) and the
unlawful use of such breeds by criminals to guard property or hold cruel dog fights for the purposes of
betting.

Does the Commission consider it useful to draw up a European legal framework aimed at the strict
regulation or, in certain cases, the elimination, of such dog breeds?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(26 June 2001)

In the absence of a harmonised definition of fighting dogs, the Commission takes the view that the issue
raised by the Honourable Member falls, in principle, within the remit of the Member States.

At the moment, the Member States have very different positions with regard to fighting dogs.

The Commission does not have a sufficiently sound scientific basis to draw up European legislation in this
area. In the light of this, it does not feel able to table any proposals on this issue.

(2001/C 340 E/263)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1430/01

by Christopher Heaton-Harris (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Budgetary regulations applying to OLAF

(4 May 2001)

The establishment plan of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for 2001 attributes to OLAF a maximum
of 53 permanent posts in Category A.

Can the Commission confirm that this limit has not been respected and that OLAF has instead almost 80
permanent A-Grade Officials on its payroll?

If this is the case, does the Commission agree that this is an irregularity and a serious breach of budgetary
regulations, and was this approved by the Commission(cid:146)s Financial Controller?

4.12.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 340 E/227

Is it true that the Director of OLAF indicated this problem to the Commissioner in charge of the Budget
and Financial Control as early as October 2000, in connection with the first reading of the budget for
2001 and, if so, what was her reaction, and can the Commission indicate all other areas of the budget
where budgetary regulations are violated in the same or similar manner?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(31 May 2001)

The budgetary authority decided an establishment plan in the 2000 budget procedure that foresaw 194
permanent and 30 temporary posts for the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF). The breakdown included
83 permanent and 15 temporary A posts, 60 permanent and 15 temporary B posts.

For the budgetary year 2001, the preliminary draft budget (PDB) of May 2000 proposed 300 posts for
OLAF, including 100 permanent and 24 temporary A posts, and 81 permanent and 26 temporary B posts.
During the 2001 budget procedure the Budgetary Control Committee of Parliament prepared a draft
amendment, which proposed a radical change to the breakdown suggested in the Commission(cid:146)s proposal,
for instance reducing the number of permanent A and B posts by 34, and increasing the temporary posts
correspondingly.

The Director of OLAF raised the matter with the member of the Commission responsible for the Budget in
September and October 2000. The administrative and budgetary difficulties that such a decision would
imply were raised. Having pointed these out to the budgetary authority during the first reading, the
member of the Commission responsible for the Budget wrote to the Chairman of the Parliament Budgets
Committee on 1 December 2000, after the Council had rejected the amendment in its second reading at
the end of November, but before the Parliament(cid:146)s Budgets Committee had voted its second reading opinion
in early December. She drew attention to the implementation problems that this was likely to create for
the Commission, if adopted by Parliament.

This was one of several comments on the implementation difficulties posed by certain budgetary
amendments, rejected by the Council but that were being reconsidered by Parliament in its second reading.

The budgetary authority voted the amended OLAF establishment plan on 14 December 2000, and this is
reflected in the published 2001 budget, which foresees now less permanent A-posts than the budgetary
plan 2000 and less permanent posts than permanent officials already working in OLAF. Footnote 14 to
the OLAF establishment plan states that 76 permanent posts (cid:145)(cid:133) would remain in the reserve until,
pursuant to paragraphs 20 and 21 of the resolution of 16 May 2000 (cid:133) a fresh assessment has been made
of the suitability of all staff currently working for OLAF and the Commission has accepted the resulting
transfer decisions by the Director. The budgetary authority requests an opinion for the OLAF Supervisory
Committee prior to a decision on the release of these posts(cid:146).

OLAF and the Commission took steps to resolve the problems posed by this new situation.

In close consultation with the Directorate General for Personnel and Administration, certain officials were
redeployed; this redeployment exercise is continuing.

The OLAF Supervisory Committee gave its agreement on a revised OLAF establishment plan, by written
procedure on 30 March 2001. The Commission approved and published the preliminary draft
supplementary and amending budget (PDSAB) 3/2001, which contains this revised establishment plan,
designed to assure the fulfilment of the missions entrusted to OLAF. The PDSAB 3/2001 is currently
awaiting its first reading in the Council before being submitted to Parliament.
Its adoption by the
budgetary authority will mark the unblocking of the 76 new posts.

C 340 E/228

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.12.2001

As of 15 May 2001, the number of permanent A posts occupied in OLAF totals 71, including one by
a temporary official (Article 2b of the Staff Regulations: conditions of employment of other servants of the
European Communities). DG Financial Control was informed of the Commission(cid:146)s PDB 2001 and the
PDSAB 3/2001, but Parliament(cid:146)s bugetary amendments are not subject to the Commission(cid:146)s financial
control scrutiny.

This case raises important issues concerning the executibility of the budget, and is without precedent.

(2001/C 340 E/264)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1431/01

by Bruno Gollnisch (TDI) to the Commission

(4 May 2001)

Subject: Time-share holiday swindles

The number of abuses and swindles perpetrated by time-share holiday (cid:145)professionals(cid:146) has been growing for
several years now.

Hundreds of people have fallen and are still falling prey to these mafiosi of the tourist trade, who sell or
resell annual stays in non-existent flats and then disappear into thin air once they have collected the
money.

Such behaviour has in some cases seriously damaged the tourist industry(cid:146)s reputation in several parts of
Spain (particularly Tenerife and Denia), in south and south-west France (particularly Canet-Plage) and in
French overseas departments (Guadeloupe).

Does the Commission intend to carry out in-depth investigations into what already appears to be a serious
problem?

Does it intend to take action against the agencies, companies and even banks that are knowingly involved
in such cross-border swindles?

Were it to be established that, owing to the laxity of their public authorities, some States were failing to
show the proper diligence in combating such activities, would the Commission consider calling upon them
to take action?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(20 June 2001)

The Commission is aware of the swindles and abuses mentioned by the Honourable Member in sales of the
right to use immovable properties on a timeshare basis.

Directive 94/47/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 October 1994 on the protection of
purchasers in respect of certain aspects of contracts relating to the purchase of the right to use immovable
properties on a timeshare basis (1) protects purchasers in certain clearly specified areas (2). However, it does
not cover the kind of practices mentioned by the Honourable Member. The Member States alone can take
action against such practices.

The Commission mentioned the problems relating to the application of Directive 94/47/EC in its report
dated 4 November 1999 (3). This report sets out a series of points for discussion with a view to extending
and reinforcing protection for purchasers. Before entering into a debate on possible changes or
amendments to Directive 94/47/EC, the Commission is currently awaiting Parliament(cid:146)s opinion on the
report in question.

(1) OJ L 280, 29.10.1994.
(2)

For example, the vendor is obliged to provide certain pre-contractual
information, the purchaser has rights of
withdrawal and cancellation, and the vendor is prohibited from asking for advance payments during the withdrawal
period.

(3) SEC(1999) 1795.