WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Mrs Cresson.
Date: 2003-02-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, European Commissioner, France, administrative procedure, budgetary control, confidentiality, fraud against the EU

C 192 E/168

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

14.8.2003

As far as the budget is concerned, the figures proposed reflect the will to ensure budget neutrality with the
current Community expenditure on improvement plans:
the Community spent EUR 970 million in
12 years. It is foreseen to cover a large part of the productive area, which has been estimated at 800 000
hectares (ha). This explains the level of EUR 100/ha. The proposed cofinancing is limited and optional.
The Community aid will be made available to nuts producers whether or not they are members of a
producer organisation.

The proposal of the Commission therefore tries to strike a balance between those Member States who
think it is excessive (cid:1) and others who think it is insufficient. It gives a degree of targeted support for
competitive production while ensuring the continuation of sustainable production in non-competitive
areas.

In addition to this scheme, the Community provides a number of tools to address this type of situation. In
fact, financial assistance towards improving production and marketing is available through the operational
fund schemes provided through Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the
common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (2). Moreover, financial assistance to support
the important environmental and social role of nut production can be obtained through the Rural
Development measures.

Consequently, the Commission is not considering further steps as suggested by the Honourable Member.

(1) COM(2003) 23 final.
(2) OJ L 297, 21.11.1996.

(2003/C 192 E/205)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0296/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 February 2003)

Subject: Mrs Cresson

According to Press Release IP/03/101 dated 22 January 2003, the Commission has decided to send
Mrs Cresson a statement, for her to comment on, setting out possible breaches by her of her obligations
when she was a Commissioner.

In doing so, the Commission is heeding the call made by the European Parliament, in its resolution of
if appropriate, Mrs Cresson’s
29 November 2001 on the protection of
financial
misconduct should be referred to the Court of Justice.

interests (1),

that,

In paragraph 21 of
employment of a dentist as scientific adviser to the former Commissioner, accusations had been made.

its resolution, Parliament recalled that,

in addition to the affair involving the

Inter alia, that:

(a)

there had been irregular conduct as regards the award of several contracts to a firm with which she
had connections, shortly before taking up office as a Commissioner,

(b)

she had had an expensive apartment in Brussels made available free of charge to one of her advisers;

(c)

she had had contracts for inconsequential studies and research awarded to a German lawyer as cover
so that he could visit her office and possibly gain access to and influence sensitive cases (Leuna affair)
with which the Commission was dealing at that time.

Can the Commission say whether it has taken up these points and whether these accusations are the
subject of the statement submitted to the former Commissioner for her comments?

(1) OJ C 153 E, 27.6.2002, p. 325.

14.8.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 192 E/169

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(18 March 2003)

As I said to the Budget Control Committee on 22 January 2003, Mrs Cresson has been invited to submit
observations in response to a statement addressed to her by the Commission and, since the issue is the
subject of an administrative enquiry, confidentiality and the rights of defence must be protected. It would
therefore not be appropriate for the Commission to provide details of the contents of the statement in
these circumstances.

The statement sent to Mrs Cresson by the Commission is based on the results of thorough enquiries by the
European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and the Commission’s Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC)
over a period of years.

(2003/C 192 E/206)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0300/03

by Margrietus van den Berg (PSE) to the Commission

Subject: Shipbreaking yard off the coast of Guinea Bissau

(7 February 2003)

On 14 January 2003 the Netherlands Honorary Consul in Guinea Bissau spoke on Radio 747AM about a
contract which the Guinea Bissau Government has concluded with the Spanish firm DDI to build a
shipbreaking yard on the Bissagos Islands. The socio-economic and political situation in Guinea-Bissau is
very difficult at present. My fear is that firms are taking advantage of the situation by concluding damaging
and inappropriate business and investment contracts with the Guinea-Bissau Government.

The Bissagos Islands as a whole form a protected area. In developing countries, old ships are dismantled
and broken up under highly unsuitable conditions, a process which causes severe environmental pollution
and has dire consequences for the health of local workers and local people, although the firms involved
enjoy substantial profits.

1.

Is the Commission aware of the plans to build a shipbreaking yard on the Bissagos Islands?

2.
Can the Commission investigate whether contracts to build a shipbreaking yard have been concluded
with the Guinea Bissau Government and whether those contracts are consistent with OECD, ILO and EU
directives governing multinational undertakings?

Does the Commission share my concern that the establishment of a shipbreaking yard will pose a

3.
serious threat to the local environment and to local employment conditions?

Is the Commission prepared to take measures to prevent damage to the Bissagos Islands? If so, what

4.
form will the measures take?

Answer given by M. Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(14 March 2003)

The Commission’s Delegation in Bissau learnt of this initiative informally and inaccurately through

1.
the medium of the local press and a non-governmental organisation.

Although the social, economic and political context is difficult, as the Honourable Member says, the

2.
Delegation will, without the outcome, take contact with the authorities to enquire about this project.