WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Judgment in connection with the PerryLux affair.
Date: 2003-02-21
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, corruption, disciplinary proceedings, fraud against the EU, judgment of the Court (EU)

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/91

Lastly, the Honourable Member will note that action carried outside the Community can contribute,
directly or indirectly, to relieving the pressure of migratory flows by supporting the reception of refugees
and displaced persons in the region.

(1) OJ L 252, 6.10.2000.
(2) COM(2001) 672 final.
(3) OJ L 149, 2.6.2001.
(4) COM(2003) 49 final.
(5) COM(2002) 233 final.
(6) Council Doc 10019/02 Limite FRONT 58 COMIX 398, 14 June 2002.

(2004/C 11 E/094)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0490/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Judgment in connection with the PerryLux affair

(21 February 2003)

From a reading of the judgment handed down by the Court of First Instance on 11 September 2002 in
Case T-89/01, I gather that the Private Office of the President of the Commission was in contact with
PerryLux, the company involved in bribery and fraudulent activities.

That emerges from statements quoted in the judgment and made by the Deputy Director of
Commission’s Security Office, who claims that he was instructed to establish those contacts.

the

According to previous information, only Commissioner Cresson had contacts with that company.

Can the Commission indicate why and on whose authority the Private Office of the President was in
contact with PerryLux?

Can the Commission indicate what steps it has taken as a result of the judgment referred to above in order
to reopen the proceedings against the Deputy Director of the Commission’s Security Office?

Can the Commission confirm that the payments received by the wife of the Deputy Director of the
Commission’s Security Office from PerryLux in return for no services of any significance were made from
the Community budget earmarked for humanitarian aid operations and were, therefore, not used for the
purpose for which they were intended?

Has the Commission demanded repayment of the monies from the wife of the Deputy Director of the
Commission’s Security Office?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

1.
The first paragraph of the question infers that the Cabinet of the then President of the Commission
was involved in corrupt dealings with Perry Lux and claims that the basis for that suggestion is provided
by the judgement in Case T-89/01.

There is, however, no basis whatever for the insinuation made by the Honourable Member in the
judgement to which she refers and the Commission therefore strongly refutes that insinuation.

The Commission has thoroughly examined the judgement to which the Honourable Member refers. That
judgement does not say that ‘the Private Office of the President of the Commission was in contact with
PerryLux, the company involved in bribery and fraudulent activities’. The only passage of the judgement
which has any relation to this alleged matter is Ground 14, which forms part of the statement of facts but
is not part of the Court’s findings. The text of Ground 14 is as follows:

On 12 January 1999, the applicant was heard pursuant to Article 87 of the Staff Regulations. During
that hearing,
‘I understand the Commission to be
suggesting that Mr Perry gave this contract to my wife because of my duties at the Commission. I am

the applicant made the following statement:

C 11 E/92

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

15.1.2004

very shocked by this allegation. I don’t have the reputation of being the sort of person who is open to
things of that kind. I have no professional dealings with Mr Perry …’. During the hearing, the
applicant was asked if he had any contacts with Mr Perry after the termination of the employment
contract [i.e. his wife’s contract]. The applicant replied that he had had some dealings at the request of
the president’s cabinet and some private contacts from time to time, either by telephone, or the
occasional meeting.

The Commission strongly contested Mr W’s claim that he had no business dealings with Mr Perry, as can
be seen from grounds 40-45 of the judgement. However, the Court did not accept that as a sufficient basis
for a finding of a conflict of interest contrary to Article 14 of the Staff Regulations. However, the
argument did not depend upon Mr W’s allegation that he had had dealings with Mr Perry ‘at the request of
the President’s cabinet’ and that
issue was not debated between the parties before the Court. The
Commission in fact has no idea what evidence, if any, Mr W had for that allegation. Since there is no
the Commission naturally cannot check it. Nothing was produced during the disciplinary
evidence,
proceedings to support the allegation, and the Commission itself has no knowledge from its own sources
of any evidence which might support it.

In short, the statement referred to in the question relates to an unsubstantiated allegation by one official,
which was never tested in Court. The mere fact that it is quoted (without further comment) in a Court
judgement obviously does not make it true. Indeed, it is wholly unproven. The judgement thus provides no
basis for the insinuation in the question. If the Member thinks she has any other information which might
investigate it. If she has none, there is nothing to
shed light on the question, the Commission will
investigate (cid:1) and there never has been.

As to the possible reopening of the disciplinary proceedings, a distinction has to be made between
2.
those findings of the Appointing Authority in the disciplinary decision which the Court annulled and the
finding which it upheld.

As to the first, the Court’s decision is final. As the Honourable Member will know, these allegations could
therefore only be reopened if there were decisive new facts: see Article 11 of Annex IX of the Staff
Regulations.

As to the finding which the Court did uphold (infringement of Article 13 of the Staff Regulations), the
Court cannot (cid:1) and does not seek to (cid:1) substitute itself for the Appointing Authority to determine the
appropriate penalty. The Court was obliged to annul the disciplinary decision, in view of the other findings
not being sufficiently proved, but it left the Appointing Authority to determine whether proceedings
should be restarted in relation to this one point (see Ground 83 of the judgement). The disciplinary
proceedings have in fact been restarted to that extent.

The Commission can inform the Honourable Member that the results of the inquiry carried out by
3.
the European Fraud Office into the PerryLux company have been forwarded to the judicial authorities in
the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Criminal proceedings are currently under way. Since the matter is now
sub judice, the Commission is not in a position to communicate any information about it.

4.
The last part of the question is clearly based on a misreading of the judgement. It was not suggested
in the disciplinary proceedings or in the Court case that Mrs W had received money improperly from the
Commission which should have been put to other uses. What was alleged was that Mr Perry’s company
had paid Mrs W (i.e. from its own funds) and that, by not declaring this, Mr W had put himself under an
obligation to Mr Perry, thus compromising his independence, contrary to his obligations under Articles 11,
13 and 14 of the Staff Regulations (see the quotations from the decision in Grounds 36 and 63 of the
judgement). There was consequently no undue payment by the Commission which could be recovered e.g.
under Article 85 of the Staff Regulations (which in any event do not apply to Mrs W since she is not an
official). Moreover, the question fails to take account of Grounds 74 and 75 of the judgement, where the
Court rejected the Commission’s arguments concerning what it saw as the peculiar circumstances of Mrs
W’s employment: the Court thus considered that there was nothing improper about the transaction
between Mrs W and Mr Perry. The judgement is final and the Commission cannot take any step that is
inconsistent with it, as the Honourable Member will no doubt appreciate: to claim in recovery proceedings
that the payment was improper is therefore impossible.

15.1.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 11 E/93

The only exception would be if a relevant new fact was to be revealed (cid:1) in particular in the criminal
proceedings mentioned in point 3 (cid:1) which had previously been unknown to the Commission and the
Court. If that was to happen, the Commission would naturally take any appropriate steps as a result.
However, those proceedings are still pending. The Commission would point out that it has intervened in
those proceedings as ‘partie civile’ in order to take advantage of any possibility of taking further steps,
should it arise.

(2004/C 11 E/095)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0529/03

by Elspeth Attwooll (ELDR) to the Commission

(18 February 2003)

Subject: Cod recovery plan

At the December 2002 Fisheries Council, the Commission agreed to present a revised long-term cod
recovery plan by 15 February 2003.

the Commission has since acknowledged that

Given that
Commission give the European Parliament a date by which it will
Furthermore, what timetable does it envisage for the adoption of the plan?

this deadline will not be met, can the
in fact present a revised plan?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(6 March 2003)

The Commission is conducting consultations with Member States and stakeholders on this issue prior to
present the proposal to Council. Following the further general consultation scheduled for 10 and 11 March
2003, the Commission will finalise its proposal that should be adopted towards the end of April or
beginning of May 2003.

(2004/C 11 E/096)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-0532/03

by Glyn Ford (PSE) to the Commission

(19 February 2003)

Subject: Removal of tariff suspension for CRTs

The Commission is proposing to end the current EC tariff suspension for the cathode ray tube (CRT) due
to an objection, proposed by the Netherlands, stating that LG-Philips in Eindhoven can supply identical or
equivalent products.

Within the south-west of England, Toshiba is a major importer of CRTs.

Were this tariff suspension to cease it would have the following effect:

(cid:1) Toshiba would be unlikely to be able to purchase the CRTs produced by LG-Philips because the

mechanical dimensions are incompatible with Toshiba 36 televisions; however,

(cid:1) if Toshiba continued to purchase its CRTs from outside the Community as it currently does, but with
the tariff applied, prices would increase, and sales would drop by around 25 %; Toshiba estimates that
this would have a knock-on effect of a reduction in the workforce in Plymouth of 50 people;

(cid:1) LG-Philips would gain a monopoly as the only producer of CRTs within the EU market.

Would the Commission indicate what it plans to do to respond to these concerns and what its future plans
are with respect to this tariff suspension?