WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/01 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Misleading information in connection with the MED case.
Date: 2002-01-09
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Belgium, EU law - national law, European Anti-fraud Office, access to EU information, fraud against the EU, legal process

6.2.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28 E/9

the total EU grant of 32,3 is assigned for Village Organisation
Almost EUR 7,85 million out of
Development and Credit. The project purpose under the component Village Organisation Development
and Credit and Savings is the promotion of 16 760 new village organisations (Vos) with about 774 000
members bringing the total number of direct beneficiaries of the programme to approximately 2 million
people in 500 000 Vos.

ALA/01/89 ‘Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction’. Approximately EUR 17 million out of the
total EU Grant of 28 million. Euro is earmarked for ‘capital
investments and subsistence grants’. The
money will be used to provide approximately 72 000 ultra poor beneficiaries with necessary inputs to
enable them to start Income Generating Activities (IGA) as well as with a subsistence grant during the first
18 months. The grant is to help them with their daily expenses until they begin to earn a regular income
from their IGA. In addition the beneficiaries will receive extensive technical support as well as relevant
business development services. Strictu sensu, therefore, we are in this specific case not dealing with a
micro-credit scheme but rather with a micro grant scheme.

(1) COM(98) 527 final.
(2) COM(98) 667 final.
(3) COM(2000) 212 final.

(2003/C 28 E/010)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3632/01

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(9 January 2002)

Subject: Misleading information in connection with the MED case

In my Written Question E-2043/01 (1) I drew the Commission’s attention to the fact that in connection
with the so-called MED case (estimated loss: EUR 20 million) it had possibly been misled by its own units
responsible for combating fraud. Within the Commission, but also vis-à-vis the European Parliament, the
impression was given that the matter had been referred to the Belgian judicial authorities as long ago as
1996, although the referral had in fact been delayed until
late 1999, shortly before the statute of
limitations would have come into effect.

In her answer, Mrs Schreyer, writing on behalf of the Commission, refuted those claims and maintained
that the anti-fraud unit UCLAF had referred the matter to the competent Belgian judicial authorities in
1996 with a view to the opening of criminal proceedings, if appropriate.

It has now emerged from the answer to my supplementary Written Question PE-2784/01 (2) that in 1996
only ‘informal consultations’ were apparently held with the Belgian judicial authorities, that there is no
correspondence relating to the consultations and that it cannot even be stated which department of the
Belgian judicial authorities was contacted.

1.
Does the Commission nevertheless stand by its position that UCLAF note No 6039 of 19 November
1996 provided it with correct and accurate information? In particular, does the Commission take the view
that informal consultations can in all seriousness be described as a referral to the competent judicial
authorities, as they were in the note in question?

2.
Can the Commission give a plausible explanation as to why, in the final UCLAF report on this case
(No 2803 of 15 May 1997), no reference whatsoever is made to the supposed referral to the Belgian
judicial authorities?

3. Why, despite repeated requests, is the Commission still refusing to provide me with a copy of its
letter of 13 December 1999 to the Brussels state prosecutor, Mr Dejemeppe?

Is it true that copies of this letter were forwarded to other Members of the European Parliament more

4.
than one year ago?

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 170.
(2) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 54.

C 28 E/10

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2003

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(11 April 2002)

In its answers to the Honourable Member’s written questions E-2043/01 (1) and P-2784/01 (2), the
1.
Commission did not state that the note of 19 November 1996 mentioned referral to the Belgian judicial
authorities, but, rather, that they had been informally consulted. The Commission would point out that
there are no longer any legal proceedings pending in the case referred to by the Honourable Member.

The Commission cannot explain why UCLAF did not refer to the matter raised by the Honourable

2.
Member in its report of 15 May 1997, which was drawn up and forwarded independently.

3.
As regards the Honourable Member’s third and fourth questions, the Commission would point out
that this document is in OLAF’s possession. It has contacted OLAF to inform it of the Honourable
Member’s request.

(1) OJ C 40 E, 14.2.2002, p. 170.
(2) OJ C 147 E, 20.6.2002, p. 54.

(2003/C 28 E/011)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3671/01

by Marjo Matikainen-Kallström (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(14 January 2002)

Subject: Activities impairing lorry traffic in the border region between Finland and Russia

Finland has some 1 300 km of border with the Russian Federation. There are many crossing places, and
international trade across this border (cid:1) which is at present the only border between the EU and Russia (cid:1)
is gratifyingly brisk.

Unfortunately, Finnish lorry drivers are increasingly becoming the victims of excessive charging, blackmail
and robbery in Russia. In addition, this year has seen a more refined form of charging: Russian customs
have founded their own companies which offer escort services to drivers. In all cases the use of these
services has been compulsory if the drivers wanted to continue their journey, in other words to do their
own job.

What measures does the Commission propose to take to curb this illegal activity at the EU’s external
border and to enable Finnish haulage firms to do their work in peace and unhindered by criminal
activities?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 April 2002)

The Commission is aware of many customs related problems occurring on the Finish-Russian border
including the problem the Honourable Member has raised concerning the escorting of lorries.
It is
worrying to note the problems relating to the extortion of money from drivers of lorries. As to the alleged
involvement of the customs services of the Russian Federation, it should be noted that it is not per se
problematic for the Customs services to offer escort services when this is appropriate. However, charges
should not be excessive and the use of such services should be limited as much as possible, which
according to your information may not be the case here.

The problems at the Finnish-Russian border will be discussed with the Russian authorities under the
regular meetings in the framework of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement between the European
Union and the Russian Federation. The Customs and Cross-border cooperation (CBC) Sub-Committee took
place in Moscow on 28/2/2002, and the issue you have raised was discussed. The Commission is currently
considering whether any further action is necessary, but the Commission will continue to rely on the
Member States and the Honourable Member to keep it informed of any developments.