WRITTEN QUESTION P-1578/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. OLAF investigation in connection with the Commission's Vienna representation.
Date: 2003-05-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Austria, Commission Delegation, European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, audit, exchange of information, interinstitutional cooperation (EU), labour law, report, white-collar worker

C 51 E/110

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

In the wake of the ‘mad cow’ crisis, beef and veal producers found themselves in a situation of great
distress (drop in consumption and production prices), reinforced in France by the characteristics of French
farms, where the role of suckler herds is very important.

the
In these circumstances the introduction of a price stabilisation system was justified.
Commission itself recognised the special circumstances and the exceptionally difficult economic context
that lay behind the measures taken.

Indeed,

Does the Commission intend, therefore, to take greater account of the non-commercial aspects of this
matter and to forego these penalties completely or, at least, exact only symbolic fines?

Answer given by Mr Monti on behalf of the Commission

(18 June 2003)

The Commission would refer the Honourable Member to the answer it gave to Written Question P-1419/
03 by Ms Mathieu (1).

The Commission is of course fully aware of the particular difficulties faced by the beef and veal sector, as is
amply illustrated by the range of measures it has adopted to stabilise the market. Over a billion and half
euro have been spent by the Commission on these efforts, and France has been authorised to grant over
EUR 300 million in direct aid to farmers affected by the crisis. All of these factors were taken into
consideration in the decision of 2 April 2003.

In its decision the Commission took account of what the Honourable Member refers to as the ‘non-
commercial aspects of this matter’. Exceptionally, it made use of a special provision of its guidelines on
setting fines (2) in order to substantially reduce the fine it would otherwise have imposed (by 60 %).

As for the possibility of reviewing the decision, it is not, in principle, for the Commission to go back on its
decisions. If they consider that the Commission’s decision is flawed in fact or law, the parties have the
right to appeal to the Court of First Instance. The parties have indeed publicly declared their intention to
use the legal remedies provided by the EC Treaty.

(1) See page 86.
(2) OJ C 9, 14.1.1998.

(2004/C 51 E/124)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1578/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(2 May 2003)

Subject: OLAF investigation in connection with the Commission’s Vienna representation

In my Written Question E-1966/01 (1) of 5 July 2001 I drew the Commission’s attention to irregularities at
its Vienna delegation. The Commission was already in possession of facts relating to these irregularities at
the time, but had not taken any action: in a letter of 3 December 1999 the Austrian private employees’
trade union had informed the Commission that for years a large number of staff members at the
Commission’s delegation in Austria had been employed on a fee basis, thus circumventing social and
labour law. A report by Financial Control drawn up following an audit carried out between 7 and 11 July
1999 also contained indications of serious irregularities.

in a letter of 11 April 2003, Ms Schreyer informs me that OLAF ‘hopes’

Further to my question an investigation was begun by the European Fraud Investigation Office (OLAF).
Now,
to conclude this
investigation in June 2003. The delay was ‘partly’ due to the fact that the agent in charge of the
investigation had had to be replaced by another official in December 2002 because of health problems.

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/111

Can the Commission confirm that the delay was caused mainly by the fact that after my question it
1.
took a further seven months for the abovementioned audit report by Financial Control to be passed on to
OLAF? If so, can the Commission explain why the transfer of documents took so long?

2. Was this an exception or is it quite usual for document transfers between the Commission and OLAF
to be similarly delayed?

3.
Does the Commission agree with me that, in accordance with the rules on internal investigations, the
audit report should have been forwarded to OLAF spontaneously in 1999, without any request being
made? What steps is the Commission taking to avoid this happening again in the future?

(1) OJ C 115 E, 16.5.2002, p. 21.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(7 July 2003)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) states
that the report had been originally sent to OLAF by the Financial Controller in February 2000. OLAF
received the report from the Financial Controller again in January 2002 in response to the requests made
in September 2001 and January 2002 by its new director, who had not been duly informed on his arrival
at OLAF that the report had been received for the first time in 2000. These facts are now the subject of an
internal inquiry.

The Commission would point out that delays in the transmission of documents to OLAF are not common
occurrences. It would recall that, under Article 7(1) of Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1073/
1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (1)
and of Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 (1), institutions, bodies, offices and
agencies must forward to the Office without delay any information relating to possible cases of fraud or
corruption or any other illegal activity. Moreover, the Commission endeavours to encourage the most
rapid and efficient communication as possible between the Commission departments and OLAF and to
remedy any specific difficulties that might arise.

(1) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2004/C 51 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1579/03

by Ulla Sandbæk (EDD) to the Commission

(8 May 2003)

Subject: Nickel in coinage

It is argued that coins contain nickel in order to guard against counterfeiting. Have steps been taken to
develop alternatives to nickel? Are there specific plans to phase out nickel in all euro coins and, if so,
within what timescale? Is it an objective to apply the nickel directive to euro coins in the future, thereby
ensuring a nickel-free coinage?

Have statistics been compiled of the number of allergy sufferers today, including children, thus providing a
general picture of the number of allergy sufferers affected?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(21 May 2003)

In the Commission’s view, the normal use of euro coins does not represent a health risk for European
citizens. The Commission is not aware of any particular cases of patients suffering from nickel allergy
which can be traced back to the handling or use of EUR 1 and EUR 2 coins (the six other coins do not