WRITTEN QUESTION P-3581/01 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Suspected cases of fraud and favouritism in the Commission.
Date: 2002-01-08
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commissioner, appeal to the Court (EU), fraud

C 160 E/148

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

4.7.2002

Reply

(25/26 March 2002)

The matter of the seizure of the Galician fishing vessel referred to by the Honourable Member has not
been formally submitted to the Council.

In the absence of a fisheries agreement between the Community and Morocco, all Parties are required to
respect the rules of international law. It is thus for the flag state to make the appropriate representations to
the Moroccan Government.

(2002/C 160 E/186)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3581/01

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Suspected cases of fraud and favouritism in the Commission

In the resolution which it adopted on 29 November 2001 on the annual report on the fight against fraud
(A5-0393/2001), the European Parliament criticised the time being taken to investigate suspected cases of
fraud and favouritism in the European Commission. In paragraph 21 thereof, it recalled that a former
Member of the Commission had been accused of having misused official vehicles for private purposes.

Ii also recalled that a former female Member of the Commission had been accused of irregular conduct as
regards the award of several contracts to a firm with which she had connections, shortly before her taking
up office as a Commissioner, of having an expensive apartment in Brussels made available free of charge
to one of her advisers and of having contracts for inconsequential studies and research awarded to a
German lawyer as cover so that he could visit her office and, possibly, gain access to, and influence,
sensitive cases (Leuna affair) with which the Commission was dealing at that time.

Parliament called once again on the Commission to bring an action, where appropriate, before the
European Court of Justice under Article 213 of the EC Treaty for breach of obligations by former Members
of the Commission.

Can the Commission indicate the action which it is currently taking in order to comply with Parliament’s
call?

Can it also indicate when the former Commissioners involved were interviewed, or will be interviewed, in
connection with these accusations?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 February 2002)

The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) has stated that it is conducting an investigation into the use of
staff vehicles by a former Commissioner due to be completed shortly.

With regard to the other former Commissioner referred to by the Honourable Member, the Commission
would point out that a criminal investigation into several aspects of the dossier is still under way before
the examining magistrate in Brussels. OLAF is monitoring the case in conjunction with the Belgian
authorities.

As was stated in the answer given by the Commission to written question E-4073/00 by the Honourable
Member (1), the Commission is carrying out an administrative enquiry into one of the specific points of the
European Parliament resolution referred to by the Honourable Member.

4.7.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 160 E/149

It is therefore too soon to decide whether or not to refer the case to the Court of Justice under Article 213
of the EC Treaty.

The appropriate hearings can, naturally, be organised during the course of the various investigations.

(1) OJ C 235 E, 21.8.2001.

(2002/C 160 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3592/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(8 January 2002)

Subject: Agri-environmental measures and traditional olive groves

Agri-environmental aid to traditional olive-growing areas is vital for maintaining an ecosystem which is
important to the preservation of biodiversity (plant and animal
life) and natural beauty in Portuguese
regions experiencing serious economic and social decline, as well as a worsening rural exodus, as
illustrated in the latest census figures (2001). Olive growing is still an important source of income and
jobs.

To a question about the criteria adopted in the national provisions governing agri-environmental measures
to protect traditional olive-growing areas, the Portuguese Government answered that these had been
decided by the European Commission.

These criteria > in particular the use of the physiographic index (which, under national rules must be
equal to 3, 4 or 5) > are having the effect of disqualifying much of the traditional olive-growing land, in
the regions of Trás-os-Montes and Alto Douro, in Beira Interior and Alentejo.

The Commission:

> Will it explain what were its reasons for taking the decision?

> What measures does it intend to take to remedy this problem?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(12 February 2002)

The purpose of the agri-environment measures is to promote agricultural methods that are of greater
benefit for preserving and improving the environment, natural resources and cultivated areas of high
natural landscape value, and of greater benefit as regards the traditional characteristics of agricultural land
and protection of genetic diversity. Consequently aid is granted under this heading only for agri-
environment commitments that in a measurable way exceed the simple application of normal good
agricultural practice.

The criteria to which the Honourable Member refers apply to agri-environment aid for traditional olive-
growing and were included in the rural development plan negotiated in partnership with the Portuguese
authorities on the basis of their proposal and approved by the Commission. They go beyond the
parameters of good agricultural practice as mentioned above. The premiums are not an aid to olive-
growing as such but are an incentive to agricultural practices that benefit the environment (e.g. prohibition
on phytopharmaceuticals, pruning at least every three years, weed control etc.).

The aids paid are calculated as as to offset the income losses and additional costs incurred and at the same
time provide an adequate financial incentive. They do not amount to a mere transfer of income. That
would be incompatible with the rules applicable.