WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/01 by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission. Appointment of OLAF magistrates.
Date: 2001-12-06
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, financial control, magistrate, power to appoint, public financing, recruitment

C 147 E/164

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

20.6.2002

However, certain elements regarding the implementation of the restoration programme for the wetland are
insufficient while the designation of
the area for the Natura 2000 network is still pending. The
Commission is therefore still unable to draw a definitive conclusion as to the compatibility of the overall
scheme with the nature conservation value of the site, and has now raised these issues with the Greek
authorities so that a satisfactory solution can be reached soon.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

OJ L 206, 22.7.1992.

(2002/C 147 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3389/01

by Pasqualina Napoletano (PSE) to the Commission

(6 December 2001)

Subject: Appointment of OLAF magistrates

In view of the outcome of the competition to fill a number of posts within OLAF and, in particular, the
suitability of Judges Vaudano, Piacente and Perduca,

in view of
independence with regard to the selection of officials,

the statements made by OLAF’s Director-General,

Judge Brüner, on his organisation’s

in view of the obstacles placed by the Italian Government in the way of the transfer of these magistrates,
based on its opposition as a matter of principle to the presence of magistrates within OLAF, contrary to
the position taken on the matter by the European Commission and the European Parliament and to the
attitude of the other Member States,

Will the Commission state how it intends to respond to the Italian Government’s approach, which calls
into question the basic composition of OLAF?

What measures does it intend to take in order to ensure that the posts assigned to the three magistrates
following their success in the competition remain open for them until such times as their position is
clarified?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(18 January 2002)

In its Decision of 28 April 1999 establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (1), the Commission
states that the Office is in direct contact with the police and judicial authorities for the purposes of
implementing Regulations (EC) Nos 1073/1999 and 1074/1999 (2) and of
the
procedure provided for in Article 7 of the Second Protocol (3) of the Convention on the protection of the
European Communities’ financial interests (4).

taking into account

In order to achieve these objectives and take account of the situation on the ground, the Commission, in
its communication of 28 June 2000 (5), made clear its intention to enhance the penal judicial dimension as
one of the main thrusts of its overall strategy to protect the EU’s financial interests.

To that end, the Commission specified that the ‘European Anti-Fraud Office will develop its mission of
improve its role of advice, assistance and
liaison and penal
coordination to support and supplement national action in the area of criminal prosecutions of serious
offences harmful to the Communities’ financial interests’.

judicial expertise’ and,

in so doing,

‘will

When presented, this strategy was welcomed by the Council and Parliament, which approved of the
presence of magistrates within the Office in order to strengthen the penal
judicial dimension of its
activities and to facilitate liaison with national authorities.

The recruitment of magistrates referred to by the Honourable Member is part of the strategy. It is for the
appointing authority to conclude employment contracts.

20.6.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 147 E/165

The Director-General exercising the functions of Director of the Office will take the necessary measures to
secure the services of magistrates selected in each Member State. He has already recruited a number of
magistrates and will recruit more to supplement the Office’s staff, on the basis of the procedures and
prerogatives provided for by Commission Decision of 28 April 1999.

(1) Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999).
(2) Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of
(OJ L 136,

25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)
31.5.1999).

(3) OJ C 221, 19.7.1997.
(4) OJ C 316, 27.11.1995.
(5) Protection of the Communities’ financial

(COM(2000) 358 final).

interests. The fight against fraud C For an overall strategic approach

(2002/C 147 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3391/01

by María Sornosa Martínez (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Scientific opinion on electromagnetic pollution

(6 December 2001)

In his answer to my Written Question E-1355/01 (1) on the growth in electromagnetic pollution,
Commissioner Byrne announced that:

In the face of the very rapid development of these systems and the fears to which they give rise in
terms of the health of exposed people,
the Commission has decided to take all the necessary
precautionary measures. It has therefore asked the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and
the Environment, attached to the Directorate-General
to
reexamine the matter and deliver, in autumn 2001, a new scientific opinion on the risks to human
health caused by exposure and on adequate protective measures.

for Health and Consumer Protection,

Can the Commission say what stage has been reached in the Scientific Committee’s work on this matter?
When and how will the conclusions of this report be made public?

If a draft report already exists from which conclusions can be drawn, what specific measures is the
Commission preparing in order to combat growing electromagnetic pollution, going beyond the scope of
Directives 1999/5/EC (2) and 73/23/EEC (3) and in the light of the rapid scientific progress being made in
the manufacture of this type of equipment, in order to guarantee its safe use?

(1) OJ C 350 E, 11.12.2001, p. 131.
(2) OJ L 91, 7.4.1999, p. 10.
(3) OJ L 77, 26.3.1973, p. 29.

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(13 February 2002)

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that
the Scientific Committee on Toxicity,
Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) adopted an opinion on the matter under reference at the
occasion of its 27th plenary meeting, on 30 October 2001. The text of the opinion is available on the
Europa website (1). The CSTEE has estimated in its conclusions that on the basis of the information
available at the time the scientific evidence is insufficient to propose alternatives to the limits set up by the
12th July Council Recommendation limiting the exposure of general public to non-ionising radiation. The
Commission continues to co-operate with the World Health Organisation which is engaged with the
Commission in a major epidemiological study on health effects of electromagnetic fields.

With regard to safety standards under Directive 1999/5/EC of the Parliament and of the Council of
9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual
their conformity and Council Directive 73/23/EEC of 19 February 1973 on the
recognition of