WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Cellule de Communication.
Date: 2003-04-04
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU control, European Anti-fraud Office, European official, France, award of contract, budgetary control, communications industry, disciplinary proceedings, fraud against the EU, power to appoint

C 280 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

I’m further informed that a similar case happened a few years ago. In the town of Ardud, the police
warned the Greek Catholic priest that he would be arrested then called the members of the congregation
one by one and told them the same. Also in 1995, in the city of Craiova, the Orthodox Bishop had the
Greek Catholic church demolished, with the involvement of the army and the police.

Is the Council aware of such discrimination against the Uniate minority in Romania?

In the context of accession negotiations, will the Council raise the issue of religious persecution?

Is the Council ready to demand an end to such religious discrimination against the Catholic minority or
any other religious minority in Romania?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council attaches the utmost importance to the respect, by the candidate countries, of human rights,
including religious freedom. With regard to Romania, the Council notes that the Commission’s 2002
Regular Report on Romania’s progress towards accession, which was issued in October 2002, has
concluded that, in general, Romania continues to fulfil the Copenhagen political criteria.

As regards the specific issue raised by the Honourable Parliamentarian, the Regular Report states that
freedom of religion in Romania is guaranteed by the Constitution and is observed in practice. There is
however a particular issue concerning the property of churches. In this regard, the Report notes that ‘In
July 2002, Parliament adopted legislation that clarified the process of restituting property confiscated from
churches. The legislation extends the scope of the previous law in several important respects. However,
only church property is covered and there is presently no legal framework for the restitution of actual
churches. This is a particularly important issue for the Greek-Catholic Church which had a large number
of properties confiscated by the Communist regime but still has no legal redress. The Government has
committed itself to producing specific legislation on this issue but delays in preparing such a law means
that there has been no substantial progress.’

In the framework of the pre-accession strategy, the Union will continue to monitor the situation in
Romania in the light of the Copenhagen criteria for accession and, should the need arise, will discuss the
matter with the Romanian side, in particular within the bodies established by the Europe Agreement such
as the Association Council and Association Committee.

(2003/C 280 E/143)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1291/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(4 April 2003)

Subject:

‘Cellule de Communication’

1.
On the basis of the report submitted in August 2001 by the official Paul van Buitenen, in a letter of
12 April 2002 Commissioner Neil Kinnock informed the chairman of the Committee on Budgetary
Control, Diemut Theato, that on 8 April 2002 an administrative inquiry had been initiated into the case of
the ‘Cellule de Communication’, which, at the behest of the former Commissioner Edith Cresson, and
under the leadership of the current Director-General François Lamoureux,
is alleged to have awarded
contracts to French firms under dubious circumstances. Mr Kinnock stated that the inquiry would be
completed and that the claims made by Mr van Buitenen would be ‘verified’ by ‘late June 2002 at the very
latest’. Is it the case that this inquiry has still not been completed?

2. Why has the inquiry continued at least nine months beyond the final deadline given by Mr Kinnock?

How can it be that more than 18 months after the submission of the Van Buitenen report the

3.
Commission has still not satisfactorily verified the claims made in it?

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/125

Is it the case that as long ago as October 1999, in an unexpurgated version of his book ‘Blowing the
4.
Whistle’, i.e. one in which he identified the alleged guilty parties by name, Mr van Buitenen forwarded to
Romano Prodi, who had just taken office as President of the Commission, the relevant information
concerning the ‘Cellule’? Why did the Commission not instigate a full investigation of those allegations at
the time?

If the administrative inquiry concerning the ‘Cellule de Communication’ has already been completed,
if

5.
what disciplinary action has the Commission taken on the basis of
appropriate, against Mr Lamoureux?

in particular,

its outcome,

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(6 June 2003)

The Honourable Member may recall that, as I said to the President of the Budget Control Committee in
April 2002, the Appointing Authority took a decision on 8 April 2002 to open an administrative inquiry
into a number of alleged irregularities relating to the awarding of contracts allegedly deriving from the
the Appointing Authority mandated the
this decision,
‘Cellule de communication’. By virtue of
Investigation and Disciplinary Office of the Commission (IDOC) to carry out the inquiry and to report
on potential individual responsibilities. This inquiry followed investigations conducted by the Commission’s
former anti-fraud unit, now OLAF, into numerous allegations made by Mr Van Buitenen, including those
related to the ‘Cellule de Communication’, even before the publication of his book.

The Administrative Inquiry report was produced in October 2002. The Honourable Member will
appreciate that, for any inquiry to be thorough and conclusive, the possibility of additional investigative
measures taken in the course of an inquiry should be allowed for. In this particular case, the sheer volume
of the material consulted, the number of persons heard and the thoroughness of the analysis conducted
has meant that it has proved impossible to maintain the time frame originally envisaged.

In addition, according to Article 5 of the Commission Decision of 19 February 2002 on the conduct of
Administrative Inquiries and Disciplinary Proceedings (1), each person implicated in any inquiry is given the
right to comment on the conclusions of the report before its finalisation. Obviously, fulfilment of that
necessary requirement has time implications.

On the basis of the conclusions of the Administrative Inquiry report, the Appointing Authority decided on
10 February 2003 to open disciplinary proceedings against nine officials or former officials of the
Commission. The Honourable Member will understand that the rights of the persons concerned to
confidentiality and due process imply that the Commission must refrain from disclosing their identity.
However, in view of the reference to a name in the Honourable Member’s question, it should be noted that
the above-mentioned report did not recommend any disciplinary action against Mr François Lamoureux.

(1) C (2002) 540.

(2003/C 280 E/144)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1293/03

by Claude Moraes (PSE) to the Council

(4 April 2003)

Subject: Progress on the Seville European Council proposals

Can the Council give its view of progress on the Seville European Council proposals on dealing with illegal
immigration and the formation of a European border guard or border police around the external EU
border?

Reply

(22 July 2003)

The Council attaches great importance to the follow-up to the conclusions of the Seville European Council,
in particular with regard to combating illegal immigration and border control.