WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/02 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Financial control 1: vital need, in response to negative public opinion, to recruit and retain officials who take a critical attitude.
Date: 2002-09-13
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European official, administration of the Institutions, administrative sanction, communications policy, corruption, fraud, fraud against the EU, image, personnel administration

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/25

The Commission has produced and produces reliable accounts.

In spite of certain remarks
9.
concerning accrual based accounting aspects, the Court of Auditors has consistently given assurance on
the reliability of the accounts.

(1)

Financial Regulation of 21 December 1977, as last amended by Council Regulation No 762/2001 of 9 April 2001
and Commission Regulation No 3418/93 of 9 December 1993 laying down detailed rules for the implementation
of certain provisions of the Financial Regulation, as last amended by Regulation No 1687/2001 of 21 August 2001.

(2) This differs from cash-based implementation because of elements such as carryovers.
(3) The IFAC (International Federation of Accountants) issues international accounting standards for the public.
(4) OJ C 359, 15.12.2001.

(2003/C 242 E/029)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2557/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Financial control 1: vital need, in response to negative public opinion, to recruit and retain officials

who take a critical attitude

1.
Is the Commission aware that large sections of public opinion in the Member States have little faith
in the purpose, effectiveness, resolve and transparency of the European Union, seeing it as a vast
organisation which they suspect of maintaining an unnecessarily centralist bureaucracy, wasting money
and being susceptible to nepotism, profiteering and fraud, an attitude which helped bring about the
resignation of the previous European Commission in the spring of 1999 and led to a low turnout in the
subsequent elections to the European Parliament?

2.
Does the Commission wish to remove the suspicions felt by citizens by publicly providing
convincing evidence to the contrary, or is it resigned to seeing the situation described in the first question
continue indefinitely?

3.
Does the Commission consider the unfortunate situation described in the first question as a reason to
show itself to be even more meticulous than non-profit institutions, national authorities of the Member
States, local authorities and companies in managing its finances and seeking to understand what has gone
wrong and what needs to be improved?

4.
Does the Commission agree that, in the light of the above, it is extremely inadvisable to remove from
their posts officials who criticise the management of finances or to restrict their opportunities for voicing
criticism, including in cases in which it considers that it has very strong grounds for refuting the criticism,
since this gives rise to the suspicion that unlawful practices are being concealed, remain unpunished and
are continuing?

5.
Does the Commission agree that recruiting and retaining officials who take a critical attitude is a
necessary and inevitable counter to the enduring suspicions referred to in the first question, and that this is
an essential means of refuting such suspicions?

6. Would it not be advisable, in the view of the Commission, both in its capacity as manager of public
affairs at EU level and in terms of protecting its own position, to present a positive image of an EU that
counts among its ranks officials who take a critical attitude and that at all times allows independent
experts to examine the way in which the Commission is organised?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 January 2003)

1.

The Commission does not share the opinion expressed in the first paragraph of the question.

The Commission favours a strict, ‘zero tolerance’ approach to fraud and corruption.

C 242 E/26

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

Significant means have been put in place to deal properly with cases of this kind:

(cid:1) The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) initiates and carries out its investigations entirely indepen-

dently;

(cid:1) rules have been adopted on whistleblowing;

(cid:1) a fraud-proofing mechanism for new proposals has been set up;

(cid:1) new legislation gives new means to prevent and to combat fraud (cid:1) for example the new Financial

Regulation; and

(cid:1) an Investigation and Disciplinary Office has been set up.

However, these instruments cannot interfere with the fundamental principles of the right to fair treatment
under the law, protection of the rights of the defence and the presumption of innocence.

The Commission launched 36 specific financial management measures under its Reform White Paper
presented in March 2000 (1). These actions are well under way and following the Council Decision on
25 June 2002, the new Financial Regulation will come into force on 1 January 2003.

The Commission rejects the accusation of centralised bureaucracy. About eighty percent of the Community
budget is disbursed through shared management with the Member States.

With regard to the low turnout at European elections, more general questions need to be asked about
falling public interest in elections, since the phenomenon is not confined to elections to the European
Parliament. The Commission does share the Honourable Member’s concern about the low turnout at
European elections and contributes, together with the other Institutions, to improving and strengthening
communication with the public.

2.
The Commission is diligently pursuing all wrongdoing which affects the Community’s financial
interests or the integrity of its officials. It is open to scrutiny by the European Parliament and the Court of
Auditors. The Commission answers queries from individuals, civil society and the press. But
the
Honourable Member will also understand that legal principles impose restrictions on information relating
to current investigations, in the interests of protecting both the investigations themselves and the principle
of the presumption of innocence (see reply to point 1 above).

The Commission shares the Honourable Member’s view of

the importance of rigorous and
3.
meticulous financial management, which must be at least as effective as that of organisations of equivalent
size and responsibility and certainly as rigorous as that of non-government organisations, national or
regional authorities and large companies.

4.
The Commission fully recognises the fundamental right of expression that officials and other
employees of the Communities enjoy. That right includes the expression of opinions which differ from the
position of the Commission. Obviously, however, and as confirmed by the European Court of Justice,
freedom of expression, like any fundamental right, does not constitute an unfettered prerogative but may
be subject to reasonable limits on the exercise of that right in the interest of the service.

Fair and well-founded criticism of
the Commission’s systems, procedures and activities is therefore
acceptable. Where serious irregularities are involved, officials are obliged to report their suspicions. This
obligation is set out
in Commission Decision of 4 April 2002 on raising concerns about serious
wrongdoings (2), which also offers protection to members of staff who comply with this duty (3). Building
upon best practices in the Member States, the Decision further provides for the possibility of last resort to
disclose information on possible irregularities outside the Commission in the unlikely case that neither the
Commission nor OLAF have taken appropriate action within a reasonable time despite the official having
raised concerns about serious irregularities in good faith.

Under the current reform, the Commission proposes to insert similar provisions into the new Staff
Regulations. Parliament has been consulted on these proposals by the Council in June 2002.

9.10.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242 E/27

However, where officials use that right to settle disagreements over lawful policies in a manner which
denigrates those policies or the Institution which employs the official concerned, then this may obviously
cause irremediable harm to the relationship of trust that must exist between the official concerned and the
Commission. This relationship of trust is not only in the interest of the service, but also in the public
interest. Writing criticism does not absolve the officials from doing their duty. When senior officials have
they are expected to take actions with others in the
the task to steer reform and modernisation,
administration to bring in the agreed reforms. The Honourable Member is no doubt aware that the Staff
Regulations contain specific provisions on the requirement that staff behave with integrity and discretion,
even after they have left the service.

5.
The Commission agrees that, irrespective of considerations of public opinion, employees with critical
views are essential for any responsible organisation to be able to identify and remedy the weaknesses
which inevitably occur in systems and structures of any degree of complexity. Various means of reporting
such weaknesses are regularly used effectively within the Commission.

6.
The Commission would refer to the answer to question No 5 above. Its organisation, its systems,
procedures and activities are under close and continuous scrutiny of the Court of Auditors, the Council,
the Parliament and the Ombudsman by virtue of the Treaty on the European Union and institutional
arrangements.

(1) COM(2000) 200 final.
(2) Adopted under No C (2002) 845.
(3) The new regime reinforces and extends the arrangement introduced in 1999 (Decision 396/1999 of 2 June 1999 (cid:1)

OJ L 149, 16.6.1999).

(2003/C 242 E/030)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2560/02

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(13 September 2002)

Subject: Conflicting concerns and views regarding the consequences for teeth and bones of fluorine intake

by human beings

1.
Is the Commission familiar with an article entitled ‘Fluorine causing early ageing among Indian
peasants’ that appeared in the Netherlands daily paper ‘De Volkskrant’ on 21 August 2002 and in which it
was reported that inhabitants of Jharana Khurd and other villages in the central part of the Indian state of
Rajasthan are showing rapid signs of ageing at a young age as a result of contracting the disease fluorosis
from the drinking of water naturally containing fluorine? Is it aware that, as reported in the article,
fluorosis gradually leads to brittle bones and teeth and a crooked back and knees, and that, whilst it is
possible to halt the process of deterioration with the help of vitamins C and E, calcium and antioxidants,
the damage cannot be reversed?

2.
Does the Commission recall that, in the 1950s and 60s, in a number of European countries, it was
argued that fluorine waste from the steel, aluminium and nuclear power industries should be used to
combat tooth decay in children by adding it to drinking water, following the example of the Americans?
Does it also recall that this proposal met with a great deal of opposition because of fears of brittle and
swollen bones, damage to the nervous system, hyperactivity in children and possibly cancer, with the result
that fluorine ultimately did not automatically become a component of drinking water?

3. What is the Commission’s view regarding the proposal announced at the end of July 2002 by the
then Belgian Minister for Public Health and the Environment to actively discourage or to prohibit the use
of fluorine in toothpaste, chewing gum, fluorine-containing food supplements for human consumption,
fluoride tablets and fluoride drops? Would implementation of this measure contravene EU rules and if so,
why?

4.
Does the Commission have information available for comparing the effects on the health of those
living in areas of the EU where the drinking water naturally contains fluorine, or where fluorine has been
added to the drinking water, with those living in areas where that is not the case? Does that lead to the
generally accepted conclusion that fluorine is in general bad for health, but that, where used only in small
quantities which are not swallowed, it can be good for teeth?