WRITTEN QUESTION E-1918/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Misappropriation of funds by Eurostat and the duty of the officials responsible to provide compensation.
Date: 2003-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, audit, damages, disciplinary proceedings, financial control, fraud against the EU

C 58 E/116

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Where Spain is concerned, the Commission has no knowledge of any such irregularities. As already
indicated in the Commission’s joint answer of 13 February to Written Questions E-3487/00, E-3488/00
and E-3489/00, all Spanish public authorities responsible for preventing and fighting forest fires were
using, at that time, around 100 helicopters. In order to do so, they had concluded contracts with private
helicopter operators, applying the public procurement rules governed by the provisions of Royal
Decree 2/2000 of 16 June 2000, which transposes the Community public procurement Directives into
Spanish law.

According to information available at the time, if there are not enough Spanish helicopters, the companies
registered in other States.
employed by the public authorities
The Commission has no knowledge of any helicopters being hired in breach of the procedures applicable
under Community public procurement rules.

temporarily hire civil helicopters

Regarding compliance with the rules on competition, the fact that two companies hold 90 % of the market
is not
in itself evidence that Community rules have been infringed, and the Commission has no
information allowing it to give an opinion on the matter.

Under Council Regulation (EEC) No 2158/92 of 23 July 1992 on protection of the Community’s forests
against fire (3), Community aid totalling EUR 13,3 million was granted to Spain from 1996 to 2002.

However, the Regulation only covers preventive measures (information campaigns, studies to identify the
causes of fires, the creation of protective infrastructure such as tracks, firebreaks and water supply points,
monitoring and the training of specialised personnel). Forest fire fighting with helicopters from outside the
Community has therefore never been funded within this framework.

Regarding the application of Council Directive 2000/79/EC of 27 November 2000 on the organisation of
working time of mobile workers in civil aviation (4), the deadline for transposition is 1 December 2003.
The Commission will check when the time comes whether the Member States have fulfilled their
obligations and will take, if necessary, the measures provided for in the EC Treaty.

If the inspections carried out by the Spanish labour authorities in 1999-2000 uncovered irregularities with
respect to the treatment of workers employed by subcontractors, it is up to the Spanish authorities to draw
conclusions from this, in particular regarding compliance with Council Directive 92/50/EEC of 18 June
1992 relating to the coordination of procedures for the award of public service contracts (5).

(1) OJ C 187 E, 3.7.2001.
(2) OJ L 373, 31.12.1991.
(3) OJ L 217, 31.7.1992.
(4) OJ L 302, 1.12.2000.
(5) OJ L 209, 24.7.1992.

(2004/C 58 E/133)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1918/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Misappropriation of
compensation

funds by Eurostat and the duty of

the officials responsible to provide

In autumn 1999, an audit produced by Eurostat’s internal audit service revealed that revenue of more than
EUR 920 000 from the sale of statistical data had not been registered in the Community budget as
required, but had been misappropriated, on the instigation of leading Eurostat officials and with their
approval.

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/117

According to Article 28 of the Financial Regulation then in force, however, all measures or situations
which may have given rise to or modified a debt due to the Communities had to be preceded by a forward
estimate of the amount due, which had to be presented to the financial controller of the institution for his
approval and to the accounting officer for registration.

Is it true that, in the cases set out in the above audit, this did not take place?

If so, does the Commission agree that, according to Article 73 of the Financial Regulation, the officials
concerned are liable to disciplinary action and to payment of compensation? What steps has the
Commission taken to initiate the relevant proceedings?

The above audit was forwarded to the Commission’s Financial Control Directorate-General by Eurostat.
According to Article 29 of the Financial Regulation, the financial controller was obliged to inform the
Commission that, in this case, the competent authorising officers had not adhered to the procedure set out
in the Financial Regulation on the collection of revenue due to the Community.

Has the financial controller in fact informed the Commission and/or the financial control Commissioner,
as required by the Regulation?

If so, can the Commission state when this took place? Can the Commission provide me with a copy of the
relevant communication?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

Those questions were already discussed during the Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control (Cocobu)
meeting on 17 June 2003, but the Commission nevertheless wishes to give a precise answer to all the
questions raised by the Honourable Member.

OLAF investigations are still ongoing in this case and the Commission therefore would not like to draw
conclusions or interfere with those inquiries.

The Commission has opened a disciplinary proceeding against three officials.

As a follow-up to the internal audit report of Eurostat, the Director General of Eurostat, by note of
24 September 1999, approved the recommendations of the Internal Audit report and instructed the
Director responsible to implement them.

An action plan was established, the main features of which are the following:

(cid:1) Termination of the agreements in question;

(cid:1) Recovery of the amounts remaining in the bank accounts.

The three conventions with the contractors were terminated by 31 December 1999.

A total amount of 413 KEUR has been recovered by the end of 2000 in accordance with the financial
procedures in place.

In general terms, chapter 4 of the new Financial Regulation of 25 June 2002, applicable from 1 January
2003, contains detailed rules of liability in case of misconduct committed by a financial actor (Articles 64
to 68 of the Financial Regulation). According to Article 73 of the old Financial Regulation and Article 65(1)
of the new Financial Regulation, possible measures in case of misconduct include disciplinary action as
well as the payment of compensation as provided for in the Staff Regulations, and in particular in
Article 22 thereof.

C 58 E/118

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

There are no records indicating that either the Commission or the Commissioner responsible for Financial
Control were informed by the Financial Controller about the findings of the audit report, which was
finalized in June 2000.

The draft report was sent to OLAF on 17 March 2000.

(2004/C 58 E/134)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-1935/03

by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission

Subject: Implementation of the Telecoms Package

(5 June 2003)

The Telecoms Package consists of the five Directives on electronic communications. The Telecoms Package
must be implemented by 24 July 2003 at the latest. A number of Member States of the European Union
will not be able to meet that deadline. The Netherlands, where implementation will be secured on the
adoption of a new Telecommunications Act, is one of the Member States to which that caveat certainly
applies.

1.
Can the Commission indicate the legal consequences for market players if Member States fail to
implement the new regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services by the due
date?

In the Commission’s view, does the new regulatory framework include provisions on the basis of

2.
which market players may take direct legal action if implementation is delayed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(10 July 2003)

In its contacts with the Member States, the Commission has consistently stressed the importance of a
timely and effective transposition of the new regulatory framework for electronic communications. On a
point of detail, it should be noted that while the deadline for transposition of four of the Directives in the
new package is 24 July 2003, Member States have until 31 October 2003 to transpose Directive 2002/58/
EC of the Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and
the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic
communications) (1). As far as the situation in the Netherlands is concerned, the Commission has not been
informed by the Netherlands authorities that the deadlines for transposition will not be met. Consequently,
it is at this stage hypothetical to speculate on the legal consequences of a failure to meet the deadline for
transposition in that country.

In any event, the legal consequences for market players in a Member State which fails to transpose the new
regulatory framework for electronic communications on time will depend on the legal
framework
applicable at national level to those parties at the relevant time. The Commission is not in a position at
this point usefully to comment on what those consequences may be on a hypothetical or generalised basis.

The Commission would recall that it is for the courts, and ultimately the European Court of Justice, to
decide on the circumstances in which a particular provision in a directive can be relied upon by third
parties against
in the event of a failure to transpose. The Commission would refer the
Honourable Member to the case law on this subject, notably that flowing from the judgment of the Court
of Justice in the Van Gend en Loos case (2).

the state,

(1) OJ L 201, 31.7.2002.
(2) Case 26/62 Van Gend en Loos [1963] ECR 1; see also Case 148/78 Ratti [1979] ECR 1629 and Joined Cases C-6/

90 and C-9/90 Francovich and Others v Italy [1991] ECR I-5357.