WRITTEN QUESTION P-3450/01 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Access to documents related to the security service affair.
Date: 2001-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European security, access to EU information, confidentiality, dissemination of EU information, operation of the Institutions, provision of documents

6.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 134 E/233

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(25 January 2002)

The Commission is sending directly to the Honourable Member and to the Parliament’s Secretariat a table
containing the information requested.

(2002/C 134 E/247)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3450/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Access to documents related to the security service affair

(6 December 2001)

In its answer to my written question E-2489/01 (1), the Commission refuses to provide me with certain
documents related to the security service affair. By way of justification, it refers to the OLAF Regulation
(EC) No. 1073/1999 (2). However, the documents which I requested date from 1998, i. e. before OLAF was
set up.

The Commission also refers to ‘transparency rules’. Under Regulation (EC) No. 1049/2001 (3) concerning
public access to documents, which entered into force on 3 December 2001, it is not sufficient to refer to
legal proceedings in progress alone to deny access to documents. The Commission must also explain in
what way the legal proceedings might be compromised.

One reason for my question was the suspicion that the Commission has not forwarded all the information
contained in the documents requested to the competent judicial authorities. If that were the case, it would
undoubtedly be in the public interest to make that fact known and enable the judicial authorities to carry
out a thorough investigation.

Finally, the Commission makes no mention in its answer of my right of access as a Member of the
European Parliament to confidential information pursuant to Article 197 of the EC Treaty.

Is the Commission now prepared to provide me with the documents concerned?

Can the Commission confirm that the documents I have requested contain indications that Commissioner
Lamy had already met Commission officials in 1997 and that, therefore, his statement contained in the
answer to my written question E-1174/01 (4), which was confirmed and corroborated by the Commission,
that during his time as a member of the board of Crédit Lyonnais he met Commission officials formally
only once between 1 and 3 May 1998, is not in accordance with the truth?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 99.
(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.
(3) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.
(4) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 219.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2002)

The Honourable Member is referring to Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the Parliament and of the
Council of 30 May 2001, which recently entered into force, regarding public access to European
Parliament, Council and Commission documents. The four documents requested were the UCLAF (the
Commission’s fraud prevention task force) report to the Secretary General of 12 March 1998, Mr Trojan’s
reply of 3 April 1998, Mr van der Spree’s note of 23 April 1998 on the security contract (including all
annexes) and Ms Ventura’s subsequent reply. As regards these documents, the Commission can only
reiterate its answer to the Honourable Member’s written question E-2489/2001 (1). The Commission
believes it is important not to jeopardise ongoing investigations, and that it is thus sometimes justifiable to
deny access to documents relating to inspections and investigations in progress.

C 134 E/234

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

6.6.2002

As regards the document originating from the Commission’s financial control service, the Commission
would like to stress the fact that, as this was an internal financial control service note and not a finalised
official report, it contained some elements which had not been fully corroborated when it was written.
This document and all related documents thus count as exceptions under Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001,
Article 4(1b), protecting the privacy and personal data of individuals, and Article 4(2.3), justifying non-
disclosure after a request for access to documents.

Contrary to the claim made by the Honourable Member, Article 197 (formerly Article 140) of the EC
Treaty, whilst stipulating that Members have the right to obtain answers to the questions they put to the
Commission, does not give them automatic right of access to confidential documents. Requests to access
documents must be made in accordance with the above-mentioned Regulation governing public access to
documents. As regards inter-institutional relations, the framework agreement signed on 5 July 2000
specifies the terms for the transmission of any confidential documents which are requested by the
Parliament.

Finally, the Honourable Member seems to be implying that the Commission’s answer to Written Question
E-1174/01 (2) is incorrect. It is clear that the answers given have been taken out of context. The above-
mentioned question referred to a questionnaire to which Mr Lamy replied before Parliament’s hearing on
the investiture of the new Commission. The aim of this questionnaire was to identify the risks of any
possible conflict of interest posed by Mr Lamy’s role as a member of the board at Crédit Lyonnais, and the
reply to the above-mentioned question referred specifically to this matter.

As indicated in the reply to Parliament’s questionnaire and as confirmed in the answer to Written Question
E-1174/01, in his role as a Director of Crédit Lyonnais Mr Lamy met Commission officials formally only
once, between 1 and 3 May 1998. Mr Lamy has indeed had contacts with Commissioners and
Commission officials, in his capacities as the former head of President Delors’ cabinet, a member of the
board of the European Movement in France, and in other fields entirely unrelated to his role at Crédit
Lyonnais.

The meeting to which the Honourable Member refers, which is mentioned in the annexes of one of the
documents requested, was held at the request of the European Anti-Fraud Office (EAFO, in conjunction
with UCLAF), as one of the many hearings comprising an UCLAF investigation.

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 99.
(2) OJ C 318 E, 13.11.2001, p. 219.

(2002/C 134 E/248)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3462/01

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(4 January 2002)

Subject: Rules governing the therapeutic use of liquid oxygen

Increasingly often medical conditions linked to respiratory failure and their treatment, especially long-term
treatment, make it necessary to reject electrical oxygen generators (which are not portable) in favour of
liquid oxygen using portable cryogenic equipment. Patients suffering from these ailments often have
problems, either because a medical prescription is still required in certain parts of the country or the
Community, or because the connections for the apparatus have not yet been standardised. Furthermore, it
has not yet been approved for use on various modes of transport, which means that oxygen patients are
less mobile.