WRITTEN QUESTION E-2978/02 by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission. Adulteration of butter in the European Union.
Date: 2002-10-22
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, France, Italy, access to information, agro-industry, butter, competence of the Member States, disclosure of information, fraud against the EU, judicial investigation

C 242 E/32

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

9.10.2003

programme. Moreover, the Commission was basing its arguments on the implementation forecasts for the
period up to 31 December 2002 which had been presented by the Ministry of Economic Affairs a few
weeks before the meeting. These forecasts showed a sum of EUR 7,5 million from the ESF for this
programme, whereas during the meeting the Secretary-General of the Ministry of Health presented
implementation forecasts which were considerably higher and which could amount to EUR 60 million for
the programme as a whole.

(2003/C 242 E/035)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2978/02

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(22 October 2002)

Subject: Adulteration of butter in the European Union

On 6 July 2000, an OLAF press release announced the smashing of a butter-adulteration network in the
EU, which had adulterated several tens of thousands of tonnes of butter between 1995 and 2000.

On 19 March 2001, the Commission revealed that it could not name the companies involved, since the
information was exclusively in the possession of OLAF, and the issue was ‘sub judice’ in accordance with
the rules of the Member States. The Commission has not, to date, announced that its position has changed.
Is the Commission still prevented from knowing the names of the companies involved, and therefore
unable to take the appropriate measures to protect the Community budget, consumers and farmers?

When does the Commission intend to learn the names of these companies, and what measures does it
intend to take when it does so?

Could the Commission specify just what it means by ‘sub judice’ and likewise state the specific legal
reasons preventing it from learning the names of the companies concerned and thus taking the requisite
action?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(20 January 2003)

The Honourable Member is hereby informed that criminal proceedings are under way in two Member
States (France and Italy) in respect of the matter to which he refers, and that the principle of secrecy of
judicial proceedings applies.

This principle, which in Italy is governed by Article 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and in France
by Article 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, applies to any person not involved in the investigation
proceedings.

With regard to Belgium, the documents obtained from the Italian authorities by the European Anti-Fraud
Office (OLAF) as part of its coordination and assistance activities were transmitted, with the agreement of
those authorities, to the Belgian paying agency, which is currently considering whether to pass them on to
the national judicial authorities.

The Member States concerned are bound by a due diligence requirement as regards the recovery of aid
paid unlawfully in the form of indirect subsidies funded by the Guarantee Section of the European
Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF). Nevertheless, the Commission will carefully monitor
follow-up to these cases. It should be noted that OLAF has set up a Magistrates Unit whose responsibilities
include helping to ensure more effective follow-up for criminal and judicial proceedings.

The Commission would also refer the Honourable Member to the answer given to Written Question
E-2702/02 (1), which provides a detailed description of measures adopted to combat the serious problem of
food adulteration.

(1) OJ C 110 E, 8.5.2003, p. 92.