WRITTEN QUESTION E-3623/02 by Helmut Kuhne (PSE) to the Commission. Alleged misuse of EU funds in Portugal.
Date: 2002-12-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Portugal, Structural Funds, fraud against the EU, labour law, project management, tourism, use of aid

10.7.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161 E/117

The Commission does not underestimate the importance of this issue but the low incidence of the use of
unpaid personal leave for other temporary employment means that the matter cannot be regarded as ‘one
of its main problems’. Instead, it is an issue to be seen in the context of the modernisation of the career
structure and administration of the Commission and it is, and will continue to be, considered and
monitored seriously within those parameters. Clearly, despite the low incidence of alternative employment
leave, the Commission would not be willing to tolerate any engagements which
whilst on personal
involved conflicts of interest.

The rules governing leave on personal grounds derive in part directly from the Staff Regulations. In
addition, the Commission is currently considering whether it would be appropriate to draw up a ‘code of
conduct’ in order to ensure that officials on such leave and their potential employers are also fully apprised
of these obligations. This may include more detailed information on the range of obligations incumbent on
the official taking leave on personal grounds as well as a revision of the rules implementing the principle
of incompatibility.

(1) OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 83.
(2) Oral reply, 17.12.2002.
(3) Articles 16 and 17 of the Staff Regulations.

(2003/C 161 E/119)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3623/02

by Helmut Kuhne (PSE) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Alleged misuse of EU funds in Portugal

A letter from an EU citizen has drawn my attention to a case in which EU funds have allegedly been
misused. The case involves the Quinta da Marínha Golf Resort in Cascais, which was allegedly operated by
a firm called ‘Six-Investimentos Turisticos SA’.

According to my correspondent, that firm ‘unjustifiably’ received funds from the EU with which, inter alia,
to finance the construction of a gigantic hotel. In this connection, it is also alleged that the firm failed to
comply with the provisions which must apply when EU funds are being used with regard to the training of
the Quinta Da Marínha staff.

Finally, the firm is also accused of having pursued a policy of concluding consecutive six-monthly or
yearly contracts with the staff and/or the practice of concluding subsequent contracts using the name of a
different firm so that, in the event of a staff member being made redundant, the firm would not be liable
for any financial compensation, as would be the case if an employee of the firm had been employed for
more than one year.

Can the Commission confirm that appropriations from the structural funds were indeed allocated to this
project and/or to this firm?

If so, can the Commission indicate the criteria on which the local authorities assessed the project as being
eligible for aid and whether it agrees with them?

With regard to the accusations of circumvention of worker’s rights, does the Commission have any means
at its disposal with which it might directly or indirectly penalise such conduct by undertakings?

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2003)

The Honourable Member’s question refers to possible irregularities concerning a project for investment in
tourism in Portugal, part-financed by the Structural Funds.

The assistance granted to the project in question fell under an aid scheme approved by the Commission
(SIFIT (cid:1) Tourism support system). It constituted operational assistance under the Community support
framework II for Portugal:
‘Operational programme for the modernisation of the economic fabric’. In
accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the Portuguese authorities themselves select the projects to
be part-financed.

C 161 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

10.7.2003

The Portuguese authorities have provided the Commission with the following information:

(cid:1) the project in question concerns the construction of a four-star hotel at Quinta da Marínha in the

Lisbon/Cascais region;

(cid:1) the beneficiary of the assistance is the company ‘Guia (cid:1) Sociedade de Construções e Turismo’. Under
the contract signed on 31 March 1999 between ‘L’Instituto para o Fundo de Turismo’ and the
company, assistance was provided in the form of a repayable grant of EUR 1 999 191,59 towards a
total investment of EUR 15 350 141,15;

(cid:1) the Portuguese authorities ascertained that the project had been completed during an on-the-spot

check on 10 April 2000.

Projects financed by the Structural Funds must comply with Community legislation.

Compliance with legislation on workers’ rights is a matter for the Portuguese authorities or the competent
jurisdiction in Portugal.

(2003/C 161 E/120)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3624/02

by Olivier Dupuis (NI) to the Commission

(16 December 2002)

Subject: Thailand: forced return of Mr Sok Yuen to Cambodia

Mr Sok Yuen was arrested on 24 December 1999 following a complaint by a Thai politician, who alleged
that Thailand was harbouring a Cambodian ‘terrorist’. Two months previously he had been forced to make
a confession, which was filmed. Initially he was sentenced to six months in prison for entering the country
illegally and was held in prison after his sentence ended on 26 June 2000, pending the result of an
extradition request from Cambodia. This request was made in a legal context which does not allow the
extradition of people accused of political crimes. The Cambodian authorities then accused Mr Sok Yuen,
who is a member of a major opposition party, the Sam Rainsy Party (SRP), of being responsible for a
missile attack in 1998 against the Cambodian Prime Minister, according to the Prime Minister Hun Sen
himself. This accusation is very widely considered to be without foundation. The Thailand Criminal Court
thus decided to send Mr Sok Yuen, a refugee and a prisoner of conscience, back to Cambodia, where he
risks an unfair trial, years of imprisonment and other human rights violations. The United Nations High
Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Thailand granted Mr Sok Yuen refugee status and offered him the
chance of moving to a third country. Having received refugee status, Mr Sok Yuen has been recognised as
having a ‘well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or political
opinion’. The decision to extradite Mr Sok Yuen amounts to forced repatriation, which is a violation of the
principle of ‘non-refoulement’ under Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. This
article states that a refugee may not be expelled or returned ‘in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of
territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality,
membership of a particular social group or political opinion’. Although Thailand has not ratified the 1951
Convention, it has the status of an ordinary law and is applicable in all States, particularly with regard to
the principle of ‘non-refoulement’.

What information does the Commission have on the case of Mr Sok Yuen? How does the Commission
intend to help him avoid extradition and obtain his immediate and unconditional release? What action
does the Commission intend to take to encourage the Cambodian authorities to put an end to persecution
of democratic opposition members and ensure full respect for the liberty and fundamental rights of all
Cambodian citizens?

Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission

(10 January 2003)

The Commission is well aware of the background of Mr Sok Yoeun’s case. The Commission is naturally
concerned by the deterioration of Mr Yoeun’s health while in prison and is aware of recent interventions
by European representatives with the Thai and Cambodian governments requesting that Mr Yoeun be
allowed to rejoin his family in Finland.