WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/02 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Letter from Mercedes de Sola to a witness in the Stockholm scandal.
Date: 2002-02-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Sweden, disciplinary proceedings, evidence, freedom of expression, image, rights of civil servants

C 205 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

29.8.2002

Over time, the whiplash injuries issue has been acknowledged as a major car safety issue to all
2.
observers. Therefore, the Commission decided, as part of its 4th Framework Programme on Research and
Technological Development, to launch research initiatives in this area.

These researches were considered necessary in order to collect from all available publications, relevant
information regarding:

$ biomechanical knowledge concerning neck injury;

$ achievement of suitable dummies for safety assessment in rear end collision;

$ measurement criteria regarding the neck injury risks;

with a view to introducing new designs of seat backs and head restraints systems.

These research efforts are still in progress. As soon as the results are available, the Commission will adopt
appropriate measures for the insertion of new requirements in the Community legislation.

(1) OJ L 221, 12.8.1974.
(2) OJ L 186, 25.7.1996.

(2002/C 205 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0312/02

by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(11 February 2002)

Subject: Letter from Mercedes de Sola to a witness in the ‘Stockholm scandal’

The head of the Commission’s disciplinary procedures unit, Mercedes de Sola, is said to have written to a
witness to the events surrounding the financial irregularities at the Commission’s information office in
Stockholm, calling on him to keep quiet about what he said when questioned by the investigators.

This has incensed a lot of people in Sweden, who consider the letter to be at odds with the Swedish view
of freedom of expression, and it represents a culture of government that is quite alien to Sweden.

Will the Commission publish the letter and explain Mercedes de Sola’s motives for sending it? Does it take
the view that Mercedes de Sola has acted correctly in this case?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 March 2002)

The letter referred to by the Honourable Member is a standard formal communication from the
Commission to witnesses in disciplinary proceedings and it has the following wording:

I wish to inform you that, in response to requests from several persons to whom the proceedings
underway relate, those concerned were apprised of your statements in compliance with the rights of
the defence, which the Commission has a duty to safeguard in the course of the inquiry.

I should also stress that the statements notified remain confidential. As a consequence, they cannot be
used for any purpose other than under the inquiry in progress or be divulged to anyone but the
person concerned by the proceedings, who alone may be privy to them.

The Commission transmitted the relevant parts of this standard letter, together with a full explanation of
the purpose and meaning of the letter, to the Swedish Press and to the TV 4 broadcasting station on
1 February 2002. The provision of this material was undertaken in order to respond to an item which was
apparently called ‘Silenced Witnesses’
in the Nyheterna programme broadcast on Saturday 26 January
2002.

29.8.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 205 E/113

The purpose of this standard letter is to inform witnesses that their testimonies are being made available to
defendants in an ongoing disciplinary procedure in order to allow those defendants to be informed of the
allegations against them and to enable them to prepare their defence. The intention of the letter is to
assure these witnesses that neither the Commission, nor the defendants, will be allowed to use the
testimonies in any context other than that of the relevant disciplinary procedure being undertaken.

The letter therefore has no bearing whatsoever on the rights of expression of the witnesses concerned. The
wording could only be considered to be a call to a witness to ‘keep quiet’
if it had been seriously
misinterpreted. Over many years, the Commission has had no previous complaint or claim that such
letters are motivated by an intention to secure the silence of witnesses. However, in order to avoid any
future possibility of accidental or deliberate misunderstanding, the wording of this standard letter is being
reviewed.

The letter, rather than ‘silencing’ witnesses, merely serves to keep witnesses informed of the procedure and
to assure them that the confidentiality of their statements will be respected by the Commission. A system
of notification which properly advises defendants of testimonies that relate to them, and properly advises
witnesses that defendants have been informed,
is specifically intended to be among the means of
safeguarding the civil rights of both witnesses and defendants. Rather than contradicting the essential
freedoms of expression and justice it is a procedure which is clearly motivated by the desire to protect
those precious liberties of the individual, and it is completely consistent with the best practises and ‘culture’
of democracy in all parts of the Union.

The Commission therefore maintains the view that the Head of the Disciplinary Office of the Commission
acted correctly in following the standard procedure of sending this letter.

(2002/C 205 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0315/02

by Graham Watson (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 February 2002)

Subject: Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on substances that deplete the ozone

layer

What scientific evidence exists to justify the removal of insulation material from domestic refrigerators and
freezers before disposal of the appliances?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(9 April 2002)

Old used domestic refrigerators and freezers are likely to contain ozone depleting substances such as
chlorofluorcarbons (CFCs)
in both the cooling circuit and in the rigid insulating foam used in the
construction of the storage cabinet. When CFCs are discussed in relation to the cold appliance sector
attention is often focussed on the refrigerant, but in reality more CFCs were used as the foam-blowing
agent in the production of the rigid insulating foam. It is estimated that in a domestic refrigerator the
average refrigerant charge in the cooling circuit is about 170 grams (25 % of the total CFC in the
refrigerator) compared to around 510 grams in the insulating foam (75 % of the total CFC).

It is difficult to obtain exact data on the number of domestic refrigerators and freezers that is coming into
the waste stream each year and which are containing CFCs. However, it is estimated that the stock of
domestic cold appliances in (refrigerators, combined refrigerator and deep freeze and deep freeze) in the
Community is around 230 million units.

This is based on the following calculation:

$ Number of households in the Community $ ± 150 million;

$ All households have either a fridge or combined fridge and deep freeze = 150 million units;