WRITTEN QUESTION E-1771/02 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Minutes of Mr Pascal Lamy's hearing before the Commission's anti-fraud unit.
Date: 2002-06-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European Commissioner, access to EU information, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU, interinstitutional relations (EU), judicial investigation, security services

12.12.2002

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 309 E/159

for the Commission when preparing its
The input received from the stakeholders was very useful
proposals for the CFP reform. The Commission is now highly interested in ensuring the participation of
stakeholders in the debate through the Advisory Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture and through the
Committee on Social Dialogue. Both Committees have been created by the Commission, the first to be
consulted on all questions concerning the common fisheries policy and the second to enable the dialogue
the Commission has undertaken a
between the social partners at European level. Furthermore,
communication action to explain the reform and discuss with the sector in each Member State.

This initiative was launched immediately after the adoption of the first package of reform proposals by the
Commission and includes visits to the Member States by both the Commissioner in charge of Agriculture
and Fisheries and the so-called ‘Blue Team’ which consists of Commission officials (mainly directors and
heads of unit) from Directorate-General Fisheries. The idea behind this communication initiative is to allow
for a presentation of the Commission proposals in face-to-face meetings with sector representatives, to
discuss the various elements of the proposals and to listen to the concerns of the industry about the
reform.

The Commissioner in charge of Agriculture and Fisheries has already visited three Member States and he
will go to a number of other Member States during the second half of 2002. The ‘Blue Team’ participates
in meetings organised by the sector and it has so far attended a dozen events in the Member States while
several other events have been scheduled. Furthermore, a considerable number of other meetings of the
‘Blue Team’ will be staged in the months to come with a view to covering many of the fisheries dependent
areas of the Member States and to explaining the next reform proposals that will be presented by the
Commission in the second half of 2002 and 2003.

In addition to this,
the establishment of Regional Advisory Councils as a mean to better involve
stakeholders in the management of the resources at regional and local level is one of the issues at stake in
the debate.

(2002/C 309 E/187)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1771/02

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(21 June 2002)

Subject: Minutes of Mr Pascal Lamy’s hearing before the Commission’s anti-fraud unit

In his answer to my Written Question E-0645/02 (1), Mr Prodi, President of the Commission, confirmed
that, while still a member of the Board of Directors of Crédit Lyonnais, Mr Pascal Lamy met officials of
UCLAF (the unit for the coordination of fraud prevention) on 20 November 1997 in Paris.

During his hearing before the European Parliament in the summer of 1999 prior to his appointment as
Commissioner, Mr Lamy failed to disclose that meeting. It is alleged that the subject of that meeting was
the contract with Group 4-Securitas. When that contract was concluded in 1992, and in subsequent years,
serious irregularities occurred (2)
in which senior officials in the Commission’s security services were
involved (manipulation of the procedure for awarding the contract for the benefit of Group 4-Securitas,
recruitment of ‘ghost’ employees, nepotism and covert surveillance of other Commission departments).

The answer to my Written Question E-0645/02 notes laconically that the European Anti-Fraud Office
(OLAF) does not have minutes of [the] meeting [in question].

Has the Commission actually asked Commissioner Lamy and the Commission officials involved

1.
whether or not minutes were taken at the meeting of 20 November 1997?

Is it true that, in this instance, as in the Fléchard case, minutes were, apparently, actually taken but

2.
have since disappeared without trace?

C 309 E/160

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

12.12.2002

Is it true that, at that meeting, Mr Lamy instructed UCLAF officials not to proceed with certain lines

3.
of investigation in a bid to conceal his own role and his failure in the security service affair?

Is this the real reason behind the Commission’s refusal to grant me access to certain documents

4.
related to the security service affair (see answer to my Written Question P-3450/01) (3)?

5.

Is the Commission now prepared to forward those documents to me?

(1) OJ C 205 E, 29.8.2002, p. 183.
(2) Details may be found in the report dated 15 March 1999 by the Committee of Independent Experts on allegations

regarding fraud, mismanagement and nepotism in the European Commission.

(3) OJ C 134 E, 6.6.2002, p. 233.

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(13 September 2002)

1.
In its answer to the Honourable Member’s Written Question E-0645/02, the Commission stated that,
according to the information provided by OLAF, the Office does not have the minutes of the meeting held
in Paris on 20 November 1997 as part of the investigation conducted at the time by UCLAF.

The answer given by the Commission is based on information provided by the service which replaced
UCLAF and took over its files.

The Honourable Member’s question appears to imply that when the Commission claims not to have
2.
minutes or records, they must have disappeared without trace. The Commission cannot accept this
interpretation and would be grateful to the Honourable Member for bringing to its attention any facts
which lead her to think that minutes of the meeting of 20 November were, in fact, taken.

3.
No representative of the Commission’s services other than the UCLAF staff took part in the meeting
referred to by the Honourable Member, but the Commission finds it extremely hard to imagine that
Mr Lamy, who was then a member of the Board of Crédit Lyonnais and had no hierarchical link with
UCLAF staff, could have given any instructions to the members of UCLAF in charge of the investigation.

The Commission is well aware that the contract concluded with the Group 4 Securitas firm was a point of
controversy in the management of contracts under previous Commissions, but this has been compre-
hensively analysed and inspected from a wide variety of angles, including:

(cid:1) by UCLAF,

(cid:1) by the Committee of Independent Experts,

(cid:1) by an administrative investigation carried out within the Commission,

(cid:1) by several disciplinary proceedings against officials, and

(cid:1) by a judicial inquiry, carried out by an examining magistrate following an application from the public

prosecutor’s office in Brussels, which resulted in no further proceedings.

It is very hazardous to speculate that anything related to the meeting on 20 November 1997 might have
cast a different light on this matter.

The Commission’s reasons for refusing the Honourable Member access to the documents requested in

4.
her Written Question P-3450/01 are those given in the answer to that question.

The Commission has nothing to add to the answers given to the Honourable Member’s Written
5.
Questions P-3450/01 and E-0645/02 concerning her request for access to certain documents. Indeed, the
reasons justifying non-disclosure of these documents remain valid for the document emanating from the
financial controller, i.e., the protection of ongoing investigations and the protection of the privacy and
personal data of individuals.