do-me/EUR-LEX huggingface dataset:
WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/03 by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission. Reinstatement of two senior officials in their positions in Paris.
Date: 2003-01-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European official, France, fraud against the EU, press, reassignment, rights of the defence, surname

C 268 E/64

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

7.11.2003

purpose of inspections, investigations and audits. Even when exceptions to the right of access apply, the
possibility of granting partial access to a document will have to be assessed. All these improvements have
significantly widened the public right of access to Commission documents.

(1) OJ L 46, 18.2.1994.

(2003/C 268 E/065)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0036/03

by Colette Flesch (ELDR) to the Commission

(21 January 2003)

Subject: Reinstatement of two senior officials in their positions in Paris

The press revealed in late December (Le Monde, 22/23 December 2002) that the two senior officials of the
Commission’s representation in France who had been recalled to Brussels two months before had been
reinstated in their positions in Paris.

What were the precise reasons for their recall to Brussels?

What are the precise reasons for their reinstatement in Paris?

Does the Commission believe these two measures represent sound personnel management?

Is the OLAF enquiry that called for the officials to be recalled still under way?

Is the Commission willing, when the time comes, to make known the conclusions of this enquiry?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(5 March 2003)

The Commission can only repeat what it said in its reply to the Honourable Member’s Written Question
E-3493/02.

The decision to move two officials working in the Commission’s Representation in Paris to another part of
the same Directorate-General, in the interests of the service, was taken to ensure that the investigation was
conducted under the best possible conditions.

This was a precautionary measure and did not in any way undermine the presumption of these individuals’
innocence. The Commission did not divulge their names and regrets that the press chose to do so.

Once these precautionary measures were no longer required for the purposes of the investigation at the
offices of the Commission’s Representation in Paris, they were lifted, after contacts with the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF).

The Commission took the measures so as to enable OLAF to conduct its internal investigation under the
best possible conditions.

The Commission can confirm that OLAF’s investigation is still under way. Parliament will be duly informed
in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 12(3) of
of the findings of the investigation,
Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations
conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (1).

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.