WRITTEN QUESTION E-1919/03 by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission. Hearings of officials involved in the Eurostat affair.
Date: 2003-06-12
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, disciplinary proceedings, fraud against the EU, operation of the Institutions

C 65 E/102

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

(2004/C 65 E/114)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1884/03

by Christopher Huhne (ELDR) to the Commission

(6 June 2003)

Subject: Trade intensity in euro area

Will the Commission please estimate the relationship between trade growth and GDP growth in each of
the Member States and indicate whether the advent of the euro has yet had any effect in increasing the
trade intensity of GDP growth in participating Member States, compared with non-participating Member
States, since its introduction on 1 January 1999?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(16 July 2003)

The Commission has conducted research in the past into the effects of the creation of the internal market
on trade and gross domestic product (GDP) growth but has not recently updated these estimates.

Although to date the Commission has not made estimates for the specific contribution of the euro’s
introduction on trade developments, a number of studies indicate the introduction of the single currency
has led to a significant increase in trade as stated in the reply by the Commission to the Honourable
Member’s Written Question E-1883/03 (1).

(1) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 106.

(2004/C 65 E/115)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1919/03

by Herbert Bösch (PSE) to the Commission

(12 June 2003)

Subject: Hearings of officials involved in the Eurostat affair

On 19 March 2003, the Director-General of OLAF informed the French judicial authorities in writing of
the possible implication of senior Eurostat officials in fraud.

In a statement to Eurostat of 19 May 2003 (IP/03/709), the Commission made it clear that the officials
mentioned in the OLAF dossier had not been heard by OLAF regarding the unresolved accusations against
them.

Can the Commission state how this is to be reconciled with Article 4 of the Commission Decision of
2 June 2000 on the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud,
corruption and other illegal activities, which requires such hearings to take place before conclusions are
drawn by OLAF in which officials concerned are referred to by name?

According to Article 4 of the above-mentioned Decision, the hearing may only be deferred in cases
necessitating the maintenance of absolute secrecy for the purposes of the investigation and requiring the
use of investigative procedures falling within the remit of a national judicial authority, in agreement with
the President of the Commission or its Secretary-General respectively.

Can the Commission state when, and by whom, the decision was made to defer the hearing involving the
officials concerned, and how this decision was justified?

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/103

Can the Commission state when, by whom, and in what form the Secretary-General of the Commission
was informed that OLAF had called in the Paris judiciary?

Can the Commission state when, by whom, and in what form the President of the Commission was
informed?

Can the Commission further state when, by whom, and in what form the Vice-President responsible for
disciplinary matters, the anti-fraud Commissioner, and the Commissioner responsible for Eurostat were
informed?

Answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(4 September 2003)

Those questions were already discussed during the Budgetary Control Committee (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.

In accordance with Article 4, first paragraph of Commission Decision 1999/396/EC, ECSC, Euratom of
2 June 1999 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention
interests (1), conclusions
of fraud, corruption and any illegal activity detrimental to the Communities’
referring by name to a Member, official or servant of the Commission may not be drawn once the
investigation has been completed without the interested party’s having been given the opportunity to
express his views on all the facts which concern him. To date, the Commission understands that the OLAF
investigation has not yet been completed. Article 4 of the Commission Decision of 2 June 1999 does not
require officials to be heard in such circumstances as when the elements were sent to the Paris Prosecutor.
The Commission has been informed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) on 12 May 2003 that
what was sent was related only to the external part of the enquiry.

OLAF first informed the Commission (Secretary General) about the existence of an enquiry on the
Datashops on the 3 April 2003 without giving any details on the substance of its findings. OLAF specified
that officials might be involved, without imparting their names, that information on the enquiry should be
withheld from the interested parties in order to maintain absolute secrecy to protect the enquiry and that
the dossier had been brought before the public prosecutor in Paris. Any decision to defer the hearing
involving the officials concerned was therefore taken by OLAF under the powers granted to the Office by
the Regulation.

On 22 April 2003, OLAF asked the Legal Service to file a claim against X with the Prosecutor’s Office in
Paris with the objective to obtain redress for the full amount of the financial loss. OLAF sent a copy of this
communication to the Secretary General on 8 May 2003.

On 29 April 2003, the Secretary general informed, in confidence, the Head of the President’s cabinet about
the elements known to him at the time.

On 14 May 2003, the Secretary General informed the Heads of Cabinet of Messrs Prodi, Kinnock, Solbes
and of Mrs Schreyer, as well as the head of the Legal Service, as OLAF had stated on 12 May 2003 that
the Secretary General could now use the information supplied to him. The Heads of Cabinet informed
their Commissioners on the same day.

(1) OJ L 149, 16.6.1999.

(2004/C 65 E/116)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1926/03

by Roberto Bigliardo (UEN) to the Commission

(13 June 2003)

Subject: Prefix 709

In Italy telephone bills for Internet connections with the prefix 709 (connections at an extra charge not
covered by service contracts) are ruining many families.