WRITTEN QUESTION P-3173/01 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Obtaining of advance information by European Commission Members concerning an official investigation into possible abuses.
Date: 2001-11-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European official, access to EU information, confidentiality, corruption, fraud against the EU, regulations for civil servants

C 115 E/238

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

16.5.2002

In view of the above, will the Commission ascertain whether urgent action is needed to remedy the serious
damage which the commercial policies of Greek companies are causing this sector in all EU Member
States, and particularly in Italy?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(17 December 2001)

The Commission is aware that
the average market prices for farmed sea bass and sea bream fell
appreciably during 2001 in all Member States which are significant producers and consumers of these
species.

The Commission held discussions on this topic with representatives of Community aquaculture producers
who consider that the price drop was due to a number of factors, including the financial difficulties of
certain companies. Strategies that can be regarded, however, as seeking deliberately to distort conditions of
competition were not observed.

The Commission notes that many improvements could still be made to Community sea bass and sea
bream producers’ commercial organisation. In these discussions, therefore, it called upon the producers to
establish structures which are better tailored to modern marketing requirements.

(2002/C 115 E/257)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3173/01

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(12 November 2001)

Subject: Obtaining of advance information by European Commission Members concerning an official

investigation into possible abuses

At the end of August 2001, on official instructions from the Commission’s own departments, an extensive
and detailed investigation, as referred to in Written Question No E-2315/01 (1) by Bart Staes and myself,
was launched into evidence pointing to possible abuses within the Commission’s services. That highly
confidential investigation is now the subject of more searching inquiries by OLAF and the disciplinary
authorities. Does the Commission consider it acceptable for one of its Members to claim priority in seeking
to obtain a copy of the relevant memorandum, and to do so even before the necessary verification
procedures have been completed by the departments responsible?

in the event that one of its Members asked for and received advance
How will the Commission act,
information concerning that official
information relating to the actions of
Commission Members or Commission officials from being circulated prematurely by way of Members’
offices, or individual Members from acting to pre-empt certain information that might possibly be
interpreted to their disadvantage.

investigation,

to prevent

Can the Commission state whether one of its Members in fact asked for and received advance information
concerning that official investigation, and whether that Member is named in the investigation?

(1) OJ C 93 E,18.4.2002, p. 106.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(19 December 2001)

Contrary to what the Honourable Member states in his question the memorandum to which he refers is
not the result of an ‘official investigation’. As the author has acknowledged, it is a dossier containing
allegations of possible irregularities drawn up by a Commission official exercising the duty to report
concerns. This dossier is being thoroughly examined by the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) and the
specialist Unit of Commission’s Directorate General for Administration.

16.5.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 115 E/239

the memorandum was of

As indicated in his question, the Honourable Member was one of eight Members who wrote to the Vice-
President of the Commission responsible for Personnel and Administration and to the Commissioner
responsible for OLAF on 11 July 2001 asking them to ensure that the author of the memorandum was
allowed to complete his compilation of this document. In this letter, the Honourable Member asserted that
the author of
to give [the
Commissioners in charge of OLAF and of Personnel and Administration] the opportunity to familiarise
[themselves] with these cases and to address the problems raised by them’. The Honourable Member
himself appeared to agree with this, saying that he was ‘sure [the author’s] only aim is to give [these
Commissioners] the opportunity to find a lasting solution to the cases’ and that ‘this report could prove
important to [these Commissioners’] attempts to find a lasting solution for the problems concerned’.
Against that background of fact, the Honourable Member will surely recognise that it was therefore
necessary for the Commissioner to be informed of the developments in order to ‘familiarise’ himself and to
‘address the problems’.

it would be ‘wrong not

the opinion that

That need to be informed is strengthened by the fact, that in accordance with the Commission decision of
January 1998 on the exercise of the powers conferred by the Staff Regulations on the appointing
authority, the Commissioner in charge of Personnel and Administration is appointing authority for certain
senior grades of officials and consequently has responsibility for any decision relating to any possible
disciplinary proceedings relating to such officials. When allegations relating to officials are made, therefore,
the Commissioner is provided with the relevant information automatically and necessarily, and not in
response to any request or as a result of any effort or intention to ‘claim priority’.

Since all relevant material has been deposited with OLAF, and since OLAF undertakes its examinations of
material E under the terms of the 1999 Regulation and the Commission Decision implementing it E in a
manner which is completely separate and independent
from any other person or organisation, no
Commissioner nor anyone else is, or could be, in a position to ‘pre-empt’ or otherwise intervene in a way
that prejudices the examination or any recommendations arising from it. In addition, no Commissioner
would seek to be in that position.

The Director-General of DG Personnel and Administration and the Director of OLAF are fully aware of the
identity of the very limited number of persons who have a copy of the memorandum and their possession
of a copy is necessitated and fully justified by their explicit duties. The Commission strongly rejects
insinuations that any of its Members or their offices would seek to prematurely spread or otherwise harm
the information contained in this document. There is no foundation for such a claim or inference.

Decisions about any formal investigations will be taken in the proper fashion when the verification of the
contents of the memorandum by OLAF and DG Personnel and Administration has been completed.

(2002/C 115 E/258)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3202/01

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(20 November 2001)

Subject: Aerospace Industry’s recovery from the terrorist attacks of 11 September

What representations has the Commission received from the aerospace industry about the downturn they
are suffering after the terrorist attack on 11 September?

Is the Commission considering any package of measures to assist the industry?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(9 January 2002)

The Commission has received information from industry sources about the effects of the terrorist attacks
of 11 September 2001 on individual aerospace manufacturers, notably in relation to the downturn in the