WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Administrative investigations against Mrs Cresson.
Date: 2003-04-07
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commissioner, France, administrative procedure, award of contract, budgetary control, confidentiality, duties of civil servants, fraud against the EU, written question

C 280 E/128

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

21.11.2003

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 June 2003)

The Commission learned on 12 March 2003 the results of the checks performed by the Irish and British
authorities which were published on the Internet the same day (1). These checks concerned mainly products
based on chicken fillets processed in the Netherlands and intended for the catering trade and followed on
from the investigations carried out by the same authorities in 2001 and 2002.

These chicken fillets had been subject to the addition of water and other ingredients such as salts,
polyphosphates, animal and vegetable proteins, flavourings and flavour enhancers. The animal proteins
used are generally extracted from milk (casein and caseinates), or are protein hydrolysates obtained from
the processing of animal by-products. The presence of salts, polyphosphates and proteins has the deliberate
effect of retaining a significant proportion of water in the end product.

As the Commission stated in its answers to Written Questions E-2418/02 from Mrs Jackson (2) and E-
2331/02 from Mrs Corbey (3), this type of procedure is not illegal, as long as the ingredients used meet the
applicable regulations in terms of authorisation and labelling.

According to the information communicated to the Commission,
the bovine proteins used in the
Netherlands for the production of the chicken fillets concerned are from establishments in Spain and
Germany. Additional
investigations carried out in 2002 by the German and Spanish authorities at
establishments that produce these hydrolised proteins did not find that the law was being broken.

investigations in Ireland and the United Kingdom have shown that

the
However,
European law on labelling (4) persist. The infringements recorded in respect of the products from the
Netherlands included labelling likely to mislead consumers about the real nature of the product, an
incomplete list of ingredients, an incorrect percentage of meat, and the use of the word Halal in a product
containing pork.

infringements of

At the meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health on 8 April 2003, the
Commission reminded the Member States in which such products are produced and marketed of their
obligation to enforce the existing legislation and to encourage the national authorities to cooperate further
in order to ensure greater effectiveness in their inspections and to intensify inspections whenever repeated
infringements of the legislation are found.

(1) http://www.foodstandards.gov.uk/news/pressreleases/chickenwater0303.

http://www.fsai.ie/press_releases/120303.htm.

(2) OJ C 28 E, 6.2.2003, p. 234.
(3) OJ C 52 E, 6.3.2003, p. 152.
(4) Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000 on the approximation of
the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs (cid:1) OJ L 109,
6.5.2000.

(2003/C 280 E/147)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Administrative investigations against Mrs Cresson

In the answer to my Written Question E-0296/03 (1) Vice-President Kinnock, on behalf of the Commission,
refused to give information concerning the investigations which the Commission has opened against
Mrs Cresson following Parliament’s resolution of 29 November 2001 (2).

21.11.2003

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 280 E/129

In paragraph 21 of the resolution on the protection of the Communities’ financial interests, Parliament had
recalled that, in addition to the affair involving the employment of a dentist as a scientific adviser, the
ex-Commissioner had been accused:

(a) of

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) of having an expensive apartment in Brussels made available free of charge to one of her advisers;

(c) of having 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 the time.

The Commission justified its refusal to answer by stating that the defendant’s rights must be protected.

1.
Can the Commission state how Mrs Cresson’s rights as a defendant would be endangered if the
Commission were to provide information revealing whether it has followed up Parliament’s calls and
recommendations in this matter and investigated the allegations referred to above. Would such
clarifications not perhaps even be in Mrs Cresson’s interest?

Can the Commission state how its refusal can be reconciled with Article 197 of the EC Treaty, which
2.
requires the Commission to answer questions put by Members of
the European Parliament? The
Commission surely cannot seriously take the view that this requirement has been met when it answers a
question by stating that it has no intention of answering?

Will the Commission now give a proper answer to my Written Question E-0296/03?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 168.
(2) OJ C 153 E, 27.6.2002, p. 325.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Article 197 of the EC Treaty provides that ‘the Commission shall reply orally or in writing to questions put
to it by the European Parliament or by its Members.’

The Commission has replied to Written Question E-0296/03 of the Honourable Member, explaining that
the Commission decided to address a statement to Mrs Cresson and that it would not be appropriate, for
reasons of confidentiality and rights of defence, to provide details of this statement.

The Commission would point out that it is a general and fundamental legal principle that nothing should
be said in relation to contentious matters which are the subject of legal proceedings which might prejudice
the outcome of those proceedings. The Commission regards this principle as also applying at the ‘pre-
litigation’ stage.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that
the EC Treaty must be interpreted
consistently with fundamental principles, as established by the European Court of Justice. Thus, it considers
that Article 197 EC must be applied in a manner which does not imply that risks should be taken with the
possible abridgement of rights of natural justice.

The Commission further notes that under the discharge for 2001, it has agreed to inform Parliament on
the outcome of the procedure. That undertaking will be fulfilled.

Meanwhile, a refusal to provide information in a Parliamentary answer because of reasoned consideration
of fundamental legal principles cannot fairly be construed to be a failure to answer questions in a way that
deliberately or accidentally contravenes the Treaty.