WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Bogus foundations established by interested parties and close connections with those auditing the use of ESF monies in Limburg province, Netherlands.
Date: 2001-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Social Fund, Limburg, corruption, exchange of information, fraud, management audit

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/175

The White Paper on European transport policy for 2010 (2) recognised inland waterways transport as being
particularly efficient in terms of energy consumption and use of space. The Commission notes in this
connection that the Moselle/Saône-Rhône link would form the only inland waterway connecting the North
Sea with the Mediterranean since the Rhine-Rhône canal project has been officially abandoned by the
Member State concerned. In the proposal for a decision amending Decision No 1692/96/EC of the
European Parliament and of the Council of 23 July 1996 on Community guidelines for the development of
the trans-European transport network (3) adopted by the Commission on 2 October 2001 (4), the Moselle/
Saône-Rhône link is therefore still shown as a planned inland waterway on the map of the inland
waterway network. Under the terms of Article 11 of that Decision, the modernisation or construction work
on that waterway should enable class Va/Vb to be achieved at a later date, thus allowing the passage of
vessels of 3000 tonnes.

Should a new request concerning the Moselle/Saône-Rhone link be made, the Commission would once
again examine the possibilities of funding under the abovementioned Regulation on the basis of the
intrinsic merits of the project and the available budget.

(1) OJ L 228, 23.9.1995.
(2) COM(2001) 370 final.
(3) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(4) COM(2001) 544 final.

(2002/C 115 E/182)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2849/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(17 October 2001)

Subject: Bogus foundations established by interested parties and close connections with those auditing the

use of ESF monies in Limburg province, Netherlands

1.
Is the Commission aware that various investigations are underway in the Netherlands into the way in
which the now bankrupt firm Abb MCG used ESF grants, and that, according to a report in the NRC
Handelsblad of 1 September 2001, this was a case of unmitigated fraud and corruption?

2.
Is it also aware that Abb itself set up bogus foundations which, on paper, were responsible for
executing ESF projects but in practice delegated this task entirely to Abb as subcontractor, in order to be
able to charge lucrative fees?

3.
Does it know whether bogus foundation schemes are being used elsewhere? Has it conducted specific
investigations into this matter? Can it state how often such schemes have been used in the last 10 years,
and in which Member States?

4.
Does it consider such schemes to be compatible with the relevant rules? If not, what action is it
taking against those who were involved in them, either in executing projects, including specifically Abb, or
in commissioning projects, including specifically the Netherlands province of Limburg?

Is it aware that stakeholders in Abb were closely connected with the accountants whose job it was to
5.
audit Abb’s accounts,
is the son of Abb
shareholder and supervisory board member Ton Versteegh, and that audits on the authority which
i.e. the province of Limburg, were performed by Deloitte & Touche, with
commissioned the projects,
whom Ton Versteegh used to have connections?

in particular that Joep Versteegh, who performed the audit,

Is it aware of close connections existing elsewhere between those who execute such projects and the

6.
accountants performing the relevant audits? Has it conducted specific investigations into this matter?

7.
Does the Commission consider the state of affairs described in questions 6 and 7 to be compatible
with the rules in force. If not, what action is it taking against those involved in it, either in executing
projects, including specifically Abb, or in commissioning projects, including specifically the Netherlands
province of Limburg?

C 115 E/176

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

Answer given by Mrs Diamantopoulou on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

The Commission has read reports in the Dutch press about investigations into the possibility of fraud

1.
in the case of the Abb project.

2.
The Abb project is currently investigated by the Dutch authorities, in particular the European Social
Fund (ESF) agency of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, which may refer the case to the
Dutch Prosecutor. The Commission will be informed about the outcome of these investigations.

3. and 6.
have given rise to fraudulent activities,
immediately asked the national authorities to follow up with proper legal procedures.

If the Commission had been aware of any dubious schemes and/or connections, which might
it would not have co-financed such schemes, and would have

4. and 5.
The Commission will not take any position with regard to this specific case before the
investigations under the responsibility of the Dutch authorities have been completed. Only once it has a
full picture of the case will the Commission decide in fine on the consequences it wants to draw. The
Commission’s general position on the issue is given under 3 and 6.

7. With regard to the Commission’s general position on the issue raise see answer 3. and 6. With regard
to the specific Abb case see answer 4. and 5.

(2002/C 115 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2854/01

by Heidi Hautala (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(9 October 2001)

Subject: Approval of the hormone-disrupter vinclozolin as a pesticide

the
According to the Product Monitoring Centre of the Finnish Social Welfare and Health Service,
Commission is proposing that vinclozolin D a substance which has been shown to be hazardous to health
and to affect hormones D should be approved for pesticide use. Tests on rats have shown that oral
ingestion of vinclozolin causes tumours and infertility deriving from male animals.
It has not been
scientifically proven that humans are less sensitive to the effects of vinclozolin than rats. Vinclozolin is
used as a fungicide on berries, fruit, oleiferous plants, vegetables and ornamental plants. It is often sprayed
shortly before harvest, and its use gives rise to residues in foodstuffs. The use of vinclozolin is banned in
Finland, Sweden and Denmark. In the United States it has been assigned a safety factor of 10, which in
practice means that its use is banned.

According to the EU’s chemicals strategy, decisions must be based on the precautionary principle, and the
purpose of the Pesticides Directive is to ensure a high level of protection of public health and the
environment. How can the Commission account for the fact that at the same time it is proposing that
vinclozolin be approved?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Vinclozolin is an existing active substance used in plant protection products. It is currently being evaluated
in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991, on the placing of plant protection
products on the market1 (1). The Directive provides that substances for which safe uses, according to the
criteria of the directive, have been demonstrated can be listed in its Annex I. Member States would then
have to grant authorisations of products containing the substance where the safety criteria of the directive
are fulfilled: according to these, there must be a further safety evaluation of the product in which it is
proposed to use the approved substance. Member States may also limit or prohibit the use of products
where this is justified by their particular circumstances (e.g. climate, diet).