WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/03 by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Conflict of interests at the Commission.
Date: 2003-02-27
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, dominant position, duties of civil servants, information technology industry, rules of procedure, unpaid leave

C 280 E/66

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

State aid control policy is aimed at avoiding that undue distortion of competition affects trade between
Member States. It is the responsibility of the competent authority within the Member States to design and
to decide on the promotion of sports activities and its funding, either at amateur or professional level,
while respecting the Community rules on State aid where necessary. As to the distinction between amateur
and professional football clubs, the distinction seems indeed relevant as only the latter might be considered
to be ‘undertakings’.

As already indicated, professional football clubs which are considered to be undertakings are subject to the
State aid rules even if the peculiarities of sport have to be taken into account in the spirit of the Nice
Declaration. Since the application of State aid rules is relatively new in this sector, the Commission’s policy
has to be developed on the basis of individual cases.
In its practice up to now in this sector the
Commission has found that under certain circumstances financing may not constitute State aid in the sense
of Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty, i.e. when the state subsidies served an educational objective (see the
Commission decision in file N 118/00, published on the Commission’s website) or where the financing
was granted for the construction of stadiums which can be under certain, restrictive, conditions considered
as general infrastructure.

The Commission will continue to develop and clarify its policy in this area, when it will be asked to give
its views in specific cases. Of course, certainty as to the position of the Commission regarding a particular
situation can only be obtained via proper notification by the Member State under the state aid rules.

(2003/C 280 E/068)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Conflict of interests at the Commission

Mr Detlef Eckert, head of the INFSO.01 unit (Analysis, policy planning, eEurope (cid:1) strategy formulation
unit reporting to the Director-General) has been granted unpaid leave (CCP) for three years.

According to the Financial Times, Mr Eckert is currently working for Microsoft. It would appear that he
dealt with the Microsoft case and the firm’s dominant position as part of his responsibilities in formulating
a strategy for the sector, as confirmed by Mr Ed Black, President of the Computer & Communications
Industry Association.

1. What administrative measures does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis this manifest instance of
a conflict of interests?

2.
On what information did the Commission’s spokesman base his statement that Mr Eckert had not
dealt with the Microsoft case, given that the people he was in contact with firmly maintain that the
opposite was true?

3. What investigations has the Commission conducted into the damage which any proven convergence
of interests between Mr Eckert and Microsoft would cause to EU industries and the Commission’s supplies?

Can the Commission guarantee that

4.
Commissioner Monti, did not receive information, however incomplete, on the Microsoft case?

the competition services, placed under the authority of

Does the Commission not consider, in any case, that all the strategies relating to the IT sector should

5.
immediately be reviewed?

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/67

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that an official on unpaid leave (CCP) is subject
in active employment, namely the obligations of independence,
to the same obligations as an official
dignity and confidentiality.

In the event of the Commission learning that an official is engaging in an activity that has not been
authorised or that an authorised activity is being exercised in a way that is not consistent with his or her
obligations, the Commission will take appropriate measures.

The Honourable Member may be aware that the Commission is currently considering whether it would be
appropriate to establish more detailed rules governing the granting of CCP and the conduct of officials on
such leave.

With regard to the case raised by the Honourable Member, it must be pointed out that the Directorates-
General of the Commission have to be in contact with the various players of the sectors for which they
have responsibility. Hence it is possible for any enterprise to be in contact with the Directorate-General for
the Information Society.

As far as questions regarding competition are concerned, the Information Society DG,
like the other
Directorates-General, is associated with the inter-service consultations of the Competition DG, which is the
lead department for such questions.

It should be noted that, in this case, the official in question was asked to sign declarations, especially to the
effect that he would respect the obligations imposed on him by the Staff Regulations in order to ensure
that he was aware of all potential consequences.

(2003/C 280 E/069)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0572/03

by Luigi Vinci (GUE/NGL) to the Council

(28 February 2003)

Subject: EU-Mexico relations and the ‘Digna Ochoa case’

The famous lawyer Digna Ochoa y Placido, known all over the world for her work in defence of human
rights, was murdered in Mexico City on 19 October 2001. The judicial proceedings concerning the ‘Digna
Ochoa case’ have aroused indignation, in particular attempts to shelve the investigations on the part of the
deputy Attorney General Sales Heredia, who was forced to resign after being denounced by organisations
belonging to Mexican civil society.

Since the importance of the case transcends the borders of Mexico, does the Council not consider that it
should closely monitor events in connection with the murder investigation, and can it say what its
assessment of the case is?

Does the Council not consider that the issue should be raised in all contacts between the EU and Mexico,
not least in view of the fact that the Treaty between the Union and Mexico contains a ‘democratic clause’
which can definitely be used to exert due political pressure to try to put a rapid and definitive end to
human rights violations in Mexico?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council would point out that the European Union, in a public declaration on 29 October 2001,
1.
firmly condemned the killing of Ms Digna Ochoa y Plácido, a leading human rights activist in Mexico.
On the same occasion, the EU said it was convinced that the Mexican Government would continue its
efforts to uphold and safeguard human rights and to protect the physical
integrity of human rights
campaigners. The European Union also expressed its hope that the killing of Ms Ochoa y Plácido would be
investigated without delay and the culprits identified and brought to justice.