WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Suppression of information about compliance with EU rules and subsidy conditions as a consequence of national, regional and local confidentiality rules.
Date: 2001-05-18
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Social Fund, access to information, confidentiality, financial control

C 81 E/28

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.4.2002

What steps will the Council take to offer support to the population oppressed by the present regime?

What steps will it take at international level to ensure respect for civil and human rights?

What steps has it taken in the context of international relations to prevent the supply of arms to and the
training of the fundamentalists from being supplied with arms and trained?

Reply

(20 November 2001)

In reply to various oral and written questions over the past weeks and months, the Council has repeatedly
and extensively informed the European Parliament of its position concerning various aspects of the Afghan
problems, and in particular of action taken in respect to the humanitarian crisis and regarding the
alleviation of suffering of Afghan women. In the absence of particular new developments, the Council
therefore invites the Honourable MEP to revert to the replies given to questions O-0032/2001, O-0052/
2001, H-0170/2001, H-0481/2001 and E-0088/2001.

(2002/C 81 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1473/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(18 May 2001)

Subject: Suppression of

information about compliance with EU rules and subsidy conditions as a

consequence of national, regional and local confidentiality rules

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Netherlands province of Friesland has introduced (cid:145)confidentiality(cid:146)
rules stipulating that politicians and officials will be liable to penalties if they help to bring confidential
information to the attention of third parties, and that such third parties also include the Commission (see
press report in Spits for Friday 20 April 2001)?

Is the Commission also aware that it was financial assistance granted to the SCI computer company,
2.
which has since led the Commission to demand repayment of € 1,5 million and caused a local politician to
be blamed for the repayment demand because he had passed on confidential
information to the
Commission, that provided the impetus for the rules referred to in paragraph 1?

3.
Is the Commission aware of other cases where local, regional or national authorities in Member
States use confidentiality provisions to protect themselves from investigations into the misappropriation of
EU financial assistance or infringements of European rules? In what Member States other than the
Netherlands do such provisions also apply?

4.
Are provisions that prohibit politicians and officials from passing on information to third parties
obstructing the Commission in its efforts to obtain the information it needs to monitor for misappropri-
ations of EU financial assistance and investigate violations of European rules, thus preventing it from
carrying out the checks for which such information is necessary?

Does the Commission consider the fact that local, regional and national governments have the right
5.
to use national
legislation to protect themselves against the leaking of information to third parties,
including the Commission, as grounds for simplifying or reviewing the rules on providing EU subsidies
and complying with EU commitments?

6.
If the answer to question 5 is in the negative, how will the Commission prevent situations from
arising again and again where lack of information will cause it make wrong decisions or be forced to
abandon any attempt to demand repayment?

4.4.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 81 E/29

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(3 September 2001)

The Commission does not as yet have sufficient information to deliver a detailed opinion on the issue
raised by the Honourable Member.

Nonetheless, the Commission has looked into the situation and it would appear that the case in point may
involve the European Social Fund. The matter has been referred to the relevant department,
the
Directorate-General for Employment and Social Affairs, so that it can carry out the necessary checks.

However, the following points should be made regarding the principles involved:

(cid:129) Grants awarded by the Commission are systematically subject to the condition that the recipient
permits full unrestricted access to all the supporting documents or other evidence required by the
Commission(cid:146)s inspectors. This point is clearly stated in the vade-mecum on grant management
(Article 8 of the General terms and conditions applicable to grant agreements of the European
Communities). In the event that the applicant does not comply fully with this requirement, the
Commission is entitled to terminate the grant agreement and, in that case, to demand total or partial
reimbursement of any amounts already paid.

(cid:129) If the Commission were to become aware that specific provisions or specific procedures had been laid
down nationally or in an individual case to hinder the right of access to evidence, it would of course
then have to, firstly, take the necessary corrective financial action and, secondly, issue a strong formal
protest against the use of such practices, which contravene Community rules.

(2002/C 81 E/036)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1475/01

by Bart Staes (Verts/ALE) to the Council

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Public access to EU documents

May I draw the Council(cid:146)s attention to the fact that answer P-3572/00 (1) (23 April 2001) throws no light
on the questions asked. According to the Belgian Foreign Affairs Ministry, Decision 2000/527/EC (2) was
reached in reaction to a specific request by a member of the public with which the Council did not wish to
comply (P-11 meeting of Wednesday 18 October 2000).

I consequently would still like to have an answer to the questions raised in Written Question P-3572/00:

1. When was the request concerned submitted to the Council?

2. Who submitted that request?

3. To which documents did the request relate?

4. Why did the Council not wish to comply with the request?

5. To what extent did that request and the Council(cid:146)s refusal induce the Council to resort to an emergency

procedure in order to restrict public access to European documents?

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001, p. 17.
(2) OJ L 212, 23.8.2000, p. 9.

Reply

(20 November 2001)

In reply to the question of the Honourable Member of Parliament, the Council underlines that the reasons
which led it to adopt Decision 2000/527/EC are set out in detail in the recitals of that decision. It does not
wish to comment on the opinion allegedly expressed by a ministry of a Member State on the background
of this decision.