WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/02 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. False figures at Eurostat/Eurogramme.
Date: 2002-06-10
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Eurostat, administration of the Institutions, award of contract, business ethics, fraud against the EU, services company, services contract

C 301 E/202

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

5.12.2002

At present, Poland has not yet determined a final list of such sites.

Therefore, the Commission considers the following types of sites as being ‘environmentally sensitive areas’
in the field of nature protection:

(a)

sites listed in the latest inventory on Important Bird Areas (IBA) for candidate countries and if
available, equivalent more detailed scientific inventories endorsed by national authorities;

(b) wetlands of international

importance designated under Ramsar Convention or qualifying for such

protection;

(c) areas to which the Bern Convention on the conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats

(Article 4) applies, in particular sites meeting the criteria of the Emerald network;

(d) areas protected under national nature conservation legislation.

this position,

its transport
On the basis of
infrastructure projects,
including Via Baltica, align with the principles and procedures of Community
directives, including the Habitat and Birds Directives, in order to minimise the impact on any site that falls
under one of the above mentioned categories, Poland should also ensure that a proper environmental
impact assessment is carried out in line with the requirements of Council Directive 97/11 EC.

the Commission considers that Poland should,

for all

(1) OJ L 228, 9.9.1996.
(2) Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of the effects of

certain public and private projects on the environment, OJ L 73, 14.3.1997.

(3) 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.

(4) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2002/C 301 E/213)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1649/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: False figures at Eurostat/Eurogramme

It has been reported in various sections of the media that the EU Statistical Office Eurostat has been using
false figures, at least some of which were derived from cooperation with the firm Eurogramme in
Luxembourg.

1.
It seems that in at least two cases Eurogramme, which cooperates closely with Eurostat, submitted
falsified turnover figures in connection with invitations to tender. This may be deduced from a comparison
of the commercial register in London with the figures submitted to the Commission. Did the Commission
check Eurogramme’s figures at the time? Why were the contracts awarded to Eurogramme?

2.
The Commission became aware, at the latest, in December 2000 in the light of an internal audit
‘In its
report that Eurogramme was using falsified figures. The press has quoted that report as stating:
tender, Eurogramme supplied false information about the firm’s financial and operational resources.’ In
addition, Eurostat was said not to have ‘adequately checked’ the figures supplied. Why were they not
checked properly?

After the submission of the audit report, did not the head of Eurostat have doubts about further

3.
cooperation with Eurogramme?

The audit report mentions the possibility of debarring Eurogramme from further contracts on
4.
account of the false statements. Why did the Commission not so debar it, in accordance with its declared
‘zero tolerance policy’?

5. Was the audit report of December 2000 submitted to the Member of the Commission responsible, or
was he unaware of it?

5.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 301 E/203

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(5 August 2002)

There have been various media reports that the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat)
used false figures in connection with its cooperation with the Luxembourg company, Eurogramme.

1.
In 1999, in relation to an invitation to tender (not involving the Prodcom project) to which it had
replied, Eurogramme Limited (Succursale Luxembourg) S.à.r.l was asked to submit its balance sheets for
1997 and 1998, together with the corresponding tax certificates. Pending this information, the award of
the contract was suspended. Following this request, the company provided financial reports filed with the
relevant authorities, along with certificates relating to social security, VAT and the payment of income and
company tax.

the additional

On the basis of
information requested and the corrected documents supplied by
Eurogramme, Eurostat considered that the firm had not deliberately intended to commit fraud or make
false declarations and that it was thus not ‘guilty of serious misrepresentation’ under Article 29 of the
Directive on public service contracts. Consequently, Eurostat decided that it was not legally entitled to
debar Eurogramme from invitations to tender.

A different stance could have made the Commission liable to action on the ground of discrimination in the
treatment of tenderers. At the time, external data bases were not consulted, which in any case is still not
required by legislation on public contracts.

2.
By way of a supplement to the answer given in paragraph 1, Eurostat points out that at the time of
the events it had neither the means nor the habit of conducting systematic checks on the financial status of
every company that answered an invitation to tender. Since then, and in the light of the conclusions of the
internal audit report, Eurostat has introduced the necessary measures and now carries out a stricter check
on the financial reports submitted by companies in connection with invitations to tender.

The document which the honourable Member mentions became available in December 2000 and

3.
refers solely to the Prodcom project and the related contracts for 1998 and 1999.

This document was followed up internally at Eurostat (see also paragraph 2). In the invitations to tender
for 1999 and subsequent years, the information collected on the form was in line with the requirements of
the Directive on public contracts (see also paragraph 1). In the light of the above, and in view of the facts
as a whole, it was not felt that cooperation with Eurogramme should be suspended.

In the light of these explanations, it was felt that the matter came under administrative management

4.
and the Member of the Commission was not specifically informed at the time.

As for the first query in part 4 of his question, the honourable Member is referred to the answer given in
paragraphs 1 and 3 above.

(2002/C 301 E/214)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1650/02

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(10 June 2002)

Subject: Snus and cigarettes

The EU has a ban on most forms of oral tobacco including, outside of Sweden, the ‘snus’ product
1.
sold in that country. Would the Commission please state the relative health risk of using snus compared to
the risk of smoking cigarettes?

2. What is the evidence that Swedish smokers have successfully switched to snus, and what would be
the likely health impact if the rest of the EU were able to replicate Swedish tobacco consumption patterns?