WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Financial control 3: holding of a completely public debate, with the participation of independent experts, on improving financial management.
Date: 2002-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Court of Auditors, accounting system, financial control, financial management, implementation of the budget

C 161 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

government (which can be increased if export volumes exceed certain levels) and regular consultations
between both sides. It should be stressed that neither the measures (duties and undertakings) nor the
Salmon Agreement restrict the quantity of Atlantic salmon originating in Norway that can be imported
into the Community. Therefore, they do not create a captive market for the Community industry. Indeed,
statistics show that the total import volume into the Community of farmed Atlantic salmon originating in
various third countries represented around 70 % of the total Community market during the last five years.

In February 2002 after consultations with the Norwegian authorities concerning price developments for
salmon on Community market, the Commission, on its own initiative, initiated a review of the existing
measures. The duties and undertakings remain in force pending the outcome of this review, as will the
Salmon Agreement, which was extended by the mutual consent of the Norwegian government and the
Commission. Definitive findings are scheduled for next year.

The two above-mentioned investigations in which the Commission is currently engaged will both examine
if so, whether these have caused injury to the
whether unfair trade practices have occurred and,
Community industry.
If it is the conclusion of these investigations that trade defence measures are
warranted, proposals will be made as appropriate. In the case of Norway, the question of minimum import
prices would also be re-examined. It should be noted that measures cannot be applied where it is shown
that they would be contrary to the overall interest of the Community. The assessment as to whether the
Community interest calls for intervention has to based on an appreciation of the various interests of all
parties directly concerned, including those of the processing industry and consumers. However, it should
be recalled that it is not within the remit of anti-dumping proceedings to give judgements on the
comparative quality of salmon of different origins, nor to examine specific environmental aspects.

(2003/C 161 E/027)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2559/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Financial control 3: holding of a completely public debate, with the participation of independent

experts, on improving financial management

1. What place does the Commission see for views on financial management and financial control which
clash with its own? Does it seek to learn lessons from such conflicting views concerning how it can
improve its organisation, or does it regard the expression of such views as a hostile offensive which must
be repulsed with all the means at its disposal?

2. Where the existence of problems has been established, does the Commission seek to resolve them as
quickly as possible or does it prefer to conceal the problems, delaying a solution?

Can the Commission guarantee that,

3.
in future, the response to criticism by officials of financial
management and financial control will not be to transfer those concerned to another post or to dismiss
them, but to hold a public debate for the purpose of assessing the actual facts and to actively invite critical
officials, former officials and external experts to give their comments?

Can the Commission guarantee that the accountancy service, the Court of Auditors and OLAF will in
4.
future have complete freedom to act and will on no account meet with attempts to keep their contested
findings out of the public debate or to elevate, from the start, the Commission’s assessment to the status of
irrefutable final conclusions?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

1.
Reforms on financial management and control have been introduced under the Commission reform
White Paper of March 2000. The recasting of the Financial Regulation (1) was one such. These reforms are
the result of intense consultation and negotiation both within and outside the institution. These reform
proposals have been welcomed by Parliament, Council and Court of Auditors (2).

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/27

The Commission always tries to resolve any problems that arise, quickly and effectively. The price of
2.
a rapid response must not be the implementation of bad solutions. The pace will depend on the
complexity of the problem detected.

As concerns the financial management system, the Commission would point out that a critical
3.
review of its accounting system, both externally, notably by the Court of Auditors, and internally by its
own services, has led it to take remedial action which culminated in the adoption, in June 2002, of the
recast of the Financial Regulation. This revised Financial Regulation sets out the principles of an integrated
accrual accounting system based on those applied (Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom), or being
introduced (Spain, France), in some Member States. This recasting was welcomed by the Court of Auditors,
supported and improved by many amendments by the European Parliament and decided by the Council.
The allegation made by an official that this new law would increase the risk of fraud was not substantiated.
This allegation puts in question the efforts of all the Institutions and the Member States involved in the
recasting.

Therefore, the Commission does not turn a blind eye to criticism of its financial management system. The
Commission does not consider it constructive to engage in a public debate about issues which have already
been fully identified, publicly disclosed, and subjected to ongoing remedial action.

Transparency and constructive criticism must not lead to disorder and inefficiency. Officials are bound by
their obligations under the Staff Regulations and have a duty to be honest, tactful and discreet and to
follow established procedures.

4.
As regards the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), the Commission would draw the Honourable
Member’s attention to the fact that the Director of OLAF, in his third annual activity report presented on
17 October 2002, stated that the Commission had scrupulously respected its operational independence.

Regulations (EC) No 1073/1999 (3) and (EC) No 1074/1999 (4) on the investigations conducted by OLAF
contain provisions on confidentiality and data protection and on the communication of information by
OLAF. The final reports of investigations are usually addressed to the competent authorities of the Member
States and/or the institutions, bodies or organisations concerned for further action.

As regards the Court of Auditors the Honourable Member will know that the Court is an autonomous
Institution. The Commission is grateful to the Court for its constructive recommendations.

The rights and duties of the Accounting Officer are laid down in the Financial Regulation as well as in the
Staff Regulation.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) OJ C 228, 13.8.2001.
(3) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning

investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(4) Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2003/C 161 E/028)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2574/02

by Kathleen Van Brempt (PSE) to the Commission

(16 September 2002)

Subject: Euro cent coins

Europeans feel that there are too many euro cent coins and that they look too similar, according to a
survey by Eurostat. In practice it appears that little or no use is being made of the smallest coins of 1 and
2 euro cents. Finland, for its part, has never put coins of 1 and 2 cents into circulation.