WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/02 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Investigative methods of the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).
Date: 2002-05-29
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, fraud, operation of the Institutions

17.4.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92 E/61

(cid:1) enable specialised and small investment advisors to compete on a level regulatory playing field with
universal service providers, and provide them with the benefit of a single passport when dealing with
clients in other Member States;

(cid:1) strengthen the disciplines applying to universal service providers so as to ensure that they perform

advisory services with the same level of objectivity and impartiality as specialised advisors.

The end-result should be to facilitate an enhanced role for specialised advisors as an integral part of the
business infrastructure which supports a thriving Community equity culture.

5.

See points 1 to 4.

(1) OJ L 141, 11.6.1993.
(2) Some level of

initial capital endowment. Ongoing capital adequacy charges related to banking/trading book
exposures will not apply to specialised advisors not executing trades or holding client money/assets. A new
operational risk charge could be introduced for all banks and investment firms under current capital review.

(2003/C 92 E/061)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1504/02

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Investigative methods of the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)

Can the Commission provide statistics showing the number of cases in which the Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) has, since its creation in 1999 and during the course of internal or external
investigations,
arranged for:

a)

b)

telephone calls to be intercepted,

electronic mail from and to Members, officials and other servants of the EU institutions to be
analysed?

Can it state whether the interception of telephone calls or the analysis of electronic mail is conditional on
a particular person being under definite suspicion?

Can it indicate legislation on which such measures are based and who decides on the application thereof?

Can it state in which cases agreement was obtained from the competent national authorities?

Can it state when and how those affected were informed of such measures?

Can it state whether such measures were also taken during the course of the internal investigation opened
at the end of March 2002, the aim of which was to identify officials leaking on confidential documents to
journalists?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(19 July 2002)

The Commission has been provided with the following information by OLAF regarding the question of the
Honourable Member which concerns OLAF’s investigatory functions:

OLAF always ensures that its investigative methods comply with the law, whether European law or
the law of any Member State in whose jurisdiction a particular operation may take place, and is happy
to have this opportunity to assure the Honourable Member of the importance which it attaches to

C 92 E/62

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

17.4.2003

these issues. While OLAF fully respects the law and the rights of individuals and takes the greatest care
not to exceed its powers, OLAF does not comment on specific operational matters insofar as doing so
could prejudice the effectiveness of present and prospective investigations. Only the Member States,
not OLAF, are in a position to answer questions regarding the use by Member State authorities of
their powers in the course of investigations in which OLAF is involved.

(2003/C 92 E/062)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1517/02

by Miet Smet (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(29 May 2002)

Subject: Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in

civil and commercial matters

Chapter II, Section 5, Articles 18-21 of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 (1) contains special provisions
concerning jurisdiction over individual contracts of employment. Under these provisions, if an employee is
a defendant in a case, proceedings may be brought against him or her only in his/her Member State of
residence. Exceptions to this rule are strictly regulated. Labour law, social insurance law and fiscal law are
crucial to the substantive assessment by courts of disputes concerning employment, but fundamental
differences exist between the Member States of the Union in these fields.

Can the Commission understand the fear that Regulation No 44/2001 may make it difficult or even
impossible for a court to correctly appraise a dispute concerning an employment contract concluded under
the law of another Member State and to give judgment on it within a reasonable period of time?

Does the Commission agree that legal proceedings become very expensive and subject to long delays if
courts need to obtain information, either within their own country or from a court in the country where
the employee performs his work?

Under the existing legislation, would it be possible to ensure in a quick and simple manner that judgment
is given on a dispute by a court which is familiar with the law applicable to the contract, namely a court
in the country where the work is performed?

Might it be possible for the Commission to take measures in future to resolve this situation satisfactorily?

(1) OJ L 12, 16.1.2001, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2002)

Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters entered into force on 1 March 2002 (1). The
provisions on contracts of employment set out in Chapter II, Section 5, were amended for the express
purpose of protecting the weaker party. The rules they lay down concerning the judicial authority
responsible are more favourable to the weaker party than the general rules, which would have favoured
bringing the case before a court closer to the employer. Article 20 thus stipulates that the employer may
bring proceedings only in the courts of the Member State in which the employee is domiciled. The worker,
however, can sue the employer in another Member State, provided that the case is brought before the
courts of the state in which the latter is domiciled, or before the courts of the worker’s habitual or former
place of work.

The Rome Convention of 19 June 1980, which is binding on all Member States, stipulates that the court
before which the case is brought must apply the law chosen by the parties, although this choice cannot, in
principle, deprive the worker of the protection of the applicable legal provisions in his usual place of work.
Where there is no choice, the law of the Member State where the worker habitually works is applicable. In
trans-border cases covered only by Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, there is thus something of a disparity
between the law actually applied and the law of the court before which the case is brought. However, this