WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Information from Mrs Schreyer in connection with fraudulent financial dealings at Eurostat.
Date: 2003-06-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Eurostat, budgetary control, confidentiality, contract, economic offence, exchange of information, fraud against the EU, services company

C 78 E/726

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(2004/C 78 E/0776)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1815/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 June 2003)

Subject: Information from Mrs Schreyer in connection with fraudulent financial dealings at Eurostat

On 19 March 2003, the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported Planistat Europe SA to the Paris
Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging the firm’s involvement in fraud and in establishing illicit accounts
subsequently drawn on by Eurostat officials. In this connection, the spokeswoman for the Paris Public
Prosecutor’s Office, Mrs Caillibotte, is quoted in the 16 May 2003 edition of the newspaper ‘Luxemburger
Wort’ as stating that, in the light of the details of the case, the existence of a system of fictitious invoices
involving the two organisations was more than likely and that embezzlement and concealment of
embezzlement were the criminal offences which might be involved.

is based on Eurostat audit reports which have been in the possession of

OLAF’s complaint
the
Commission’s Directorate-General for Financial Control, answerable to Mrs Schreyer, since as long ago as
spring 2000. Business links with Planistat had nonetheless not been severed; rather, further contracts had
been concluded. According to Yves Franchet, Director-General of Eurostat, those audit reports were known
to Mrs Schreyer. On 17 May 2003, on the ARD television programme ‘Europa-Magazin’, Mr Franchet said
that Mrs Schreyer had tirelessly stood up for Eurostat before the European Parliament, that all problems
including the audit reports, and that
had been known to her,
everything had been brought to her attention at the appropriate time.

that everything had been discussed,

Can the Commission confirm that statement?

Does the Commission think that it was proper for Planistat to have been given new contracts in spite of
what had become known about the firm?

If not, can the Commission say why Mrs Schleyer did not stop payments to, and new contracts for,
Planistat?

Will the Commission now forward the above-mentioned audit reports to the Committee on Budgetary
Control without delay?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(11 September 2003)

These questions were discussed at the meeting of the Budgetary Control Committee meeting of 16 June
2003. Commissioner Schreyer made it clear that she had not received the audit report on Datashops
before May 2003, and she had never spoken with Mr Franchet about Eurostat. The remarks of Mr Franchet
referred to the information made available to the Commission in the context of the 2001 Discharge
procedure. In the television interview referred to, Mr Franchet also said:
‘There is no system for the
transmission of audit reports to Commissioners’ (verbatim). Mr Franchet has confirmed in writing that he
had not transmitted the internal audit report of Eurostat on Datashops to Commissioners at the time of the
interview. Mr Franchet confirmed as well that he has never met Commissioner Schreyer.

As a matter of principle, the awarding of new contracts is subject to the provisions of the new Financial
Regulation (1)
to the contracts with Planistat.
No recommendation was made in the audit report on the Datashops that the firm should be excluded
from future contracts.

in force since 1 January 2003. This also applies

The Secretariat General was first informed of OLAF’s findings on 3 April 2003, as OLAF’s investigations
are subject to rules of confidentiality provided for in Community legislation (2) and these investigations
were external investigations.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/727

On 9 July 2003, the Commission decided, on the basis of information brought to its attention, to suspend
all contracts with Planistat pending the ongoing enquiries. Eurostat has already suspended payments to
Planistat with respect to activities in relation to Data Shops. Planistat was signaled in the Commission’s
Early Warning System on 23 July 2003. On that day, the Commission instructed its authorizing officers to
terminate all contracts with Planistat.

A thorough examination of all contracts in force and the work carried out by the firm is ongoing. For work
effectively carried out, the Commission remains liable to pay the corresponding amounts. Should the
ongoing investigations of OLAF and the judicial authorities in France reveal a breach of the financial rules,
the Commission will take the appropriate action immediately. It should also be noted that the Commission
has lodged a complaint against person(s) unknown under the procedure initiated by the Paris Public
Prosecutor in response to information supplied by OLAF

On 16 May 2003, as part of the follow-up to the 2001 Discharge procedure and at Parliament’s request,
the Commission sent the Cocobu secretariat six internal audit reports drawn up by the Eurostat internal
audit service between 1999 and 2002, pursuant to the procedures laid down in the framework agreement
on the transmission of confidential documents to Parliament. Subsequently, on 20 May 2003, a summary
report on the follow-up to the internal audit reports was also sent the Cocobu secretariat.

Some of the audit reports are subject to OLAF investigations and some have also been included in the
dossiers sent by OLAF to the Luxembourg legal authorities and the public prosecutor’s office of the Paris
Regional Court. The Commission is anxious not to prejudice either the ongoing investigations or the rights
of the parties involved.

(1) Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the

general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 248, 16.9.2002.

(2) OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2004/C 78 E/0777)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1826/03

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(23 May 2003)

Subject: High-speed Italian transverse rail route: internal market, environmental impact and productivity of

investment

The Italian Government has revived the projected transverse high-speed rail
link (Lyons-Turin-Venice,
Trieste-Ljubljana). In connection with the current environmental impact assessment (EIA) for the Turin-
Lyons, Milan-Genoa and Milan-Verona stretches, the leading Italian environmental organisations have
pointed out that there have been no: cost-benefit analyses taking economic, technical and environmental
factors into account; assessments of the direct and indirect effect of the works and of alternative options,
including the zero option; credible planning scenarios and clear project documents; studies relating to
environmental impact and the full framework of environmental, rural and urban planning constraints.

In particular:

(cid:1) in the case of the Turin-Lyons line, the impact of the works on tourism in the valley (including the
initiation of building works lasting several years and requiring the moving of 8 million square metres
of excavated material), hydrogeological risks both at the construction and the operational stage, and
the impact on Sites of Community Importance (SCIs), particularly the Casellette wetlands and the
Foresto nature reserve, have all been underestimated;

(cid:1) in the case of the Genoa-Milan line, the implications for many archaeological sites (including Libarna),
the hydrogeological
implications (a 46 km tunnel, quarries, excavation of sections of the River
Scrivia), the impact on 4 SCIs (banks of the River Scrivia, Capanne di Marcarolo, Praglia and Monte
Gazzo) and one SRI
land, woodland and
(Arenziarie di Serravalle) and the loss of agricultural
countryside have been underestimated;