WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Continuation of OLAF's investigations into Eurostat.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, France, fraud against the EU, judicial proceedings, provision of services, services company

C 70 E/80

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

vacuum in our consciousness, in our identity as Europeans. It would be better if there were no text at all
rather than the text as it now stands. Better complete silence about our entire past than a lie. Others, more
sanguine than us, will have the job of sorting this out at some later date. This is not by any means meant
to reignite the antagonism between clericalism and anti-clericalism and between Christianity and other
religions. Such antagonism has already caused more than enough harm in European countries. Nor do I
mean to suggest that our minds are closed to opposing points of view in the European project we are
trying to develop. We can refer to Christianity while at the same time rediscovering the roots that bind
Europe to the Jewish people and declaring our desire for a dialogue with Islam. As believers we can refer
to religion and as citizens to classical Greece and the traditions of humanism. (…) In order to enrich and
stimulate the debate I have appointed two groups of eminent figures, one to examine the spiritual and
cultural dimension of Europe and the other the question of intercultural dialogue within the European
Union and in the Mediterranean region.’

Can the Commission:

(cid:1) state whether Mr Prodi was speaking in his personal capacity or on behalf of the Commission and,

in the latter case, whether the Commission shares the position of its President?

(cid:1) state whether it shares its President’s position regarding the Preamble to the European Constitution?

(cid:1) supply the names of the members of the working groups referred to by Mr Prodi, explain their
missions and objectives, state whether they receive any remuneration or reimbursement of expenses
(and if so how much), provide information on their experience and background, and specify when
their work began, when it will be completed and what use will be made of it?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(18 July 2003)

As the Commission has stated on several occasions in reply to oral and written questions by Members of
Parliament, its members are politicians who exercise a political function and provided they respect the
obligations which go with their office, they remain free to express personal opinions in total independence
and on their own responsibility.

The Honourable Member will agree that the question of religious values is for every citizen a subject of a
highly sensitive and personal nature.

The Commission does not consider it inappropriate that its members express their own views on particular
issues at public events, to which they have been invited, provided that they respect the obligations of their
office.

With regard to the question in the third indent, the Commission would refer the Honourable Member to
President Prodi’s webpages at http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/group/spirit_en.htm ‘Inter-
cultural Dialogue in the Mediterranean Area’ and http://europa.eu.int/comm/commissioners/prodi/group/
michalski_en.htm ‘Reflection Group on the Spiritual and Cultural Dimension of Europe’.

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the members of those groups receive no
remuneration, but the Commission bears the costs of their attendance at meetings in the usual way.

(2004/C 70 E/082)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2205/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Continuation of OLAF’s investigations into Eurostat

(2 July 2003)

On 19 March 2003 the European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, filed charges with the Paris Public Prosecutor’s
Office against Planistat Europe SA, and drew the attention of the judicial authorities to the possible
involvement of Eurostat Director-General Yves Franchet and Eurostat Director Daniel Byk in fraudulent
activities. The charges were filed in France, not least because both Eurostat officials hold French nationality.

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/81

Although the Paris authorities had by then already opened proceedings, the Commission called on OLAF,
in press releases of 19 and 21 May 2003, to continue with its investigations and take statements from the
two officials.

Has the Commission satisfied itself that such parallel investigations will not obstruct or compromise the
work of the French judicial authorities?

Was the agreement of the French judicial authorities obtained for continuing with the OLAF investigations
in this matter?

How does the Commission respond to the objection that continuing the OLAF investigations in this case,
after proceedings had been brought by the Paris Public Prosecutor, served no purpose, because the
necessary objectivity no longer applied and the impression could be created that the intention was simply
to collect additional proof for accusations that had already been referred to the judicial authorities?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Datashops file is in two parts: an external part concerning the activities of Planistat Europe SA and an
internal part concerning Community officials.

The Commission has been informed by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) that the charges filed with
the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office on 19 March 2003 concerned the external part of the file.

Since the internal part of the file was not referred to the French judicial authorities, OLAF was not required
to seek the latter’s agreement for continuing its internal investigation.

(2004/C 70 E/083)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2238/03

by Proinsias De Rossa (PSE) to the Commission

(7 July 2003)

Subject: Article 10 of the EC Treaty and Ireland

In the answer to my question E-1491/03 (1) regarding the number of letters of formal notice and reasoned
opinions sent by the Commission to the Irish Government over its failure to respond to Commission
queries on environmental complaints (i.e. non-respect of Article 10 of the EC Treaty) in the period since
1 May 1999, the Commission replied that two letters of formal notice were sent on 15 May 2003 against
Ireland under Article 226 of the EC Treaty.

In this answer, why did the Commission not refer to the letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions as
referred to in IP/00/1219 and IP/00/741 which highlighted the Commission’s concern about the lack of
cooperation from the Irish Government with regard to the application of the Waste Framework Directive
(Dir 75/442/EEC (2)) at Poolbeg in Dublin, Kilbarry and Tramore in Waterford, Lea and Ballymorris in
Laois, and Drumnaboden, Muckish and Glenall in Donegal, and the application of the Wild Birds Directive
(Dir 79/409/EEC (3)) in Dublin Bay?

Could the Commission provide a definitive list of all its queries to the Irish Government that have given
rise to the letters of formal notice and reasoned opinions to Ireland for non-respect of Article 10 of the
EC Treaty since 1 May 1999 similar to those referred to in the above two press releases and also set out
the current situation with regard to each of these queries?

(1) See page 47.
(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975, p. 39.
(3) OJ L 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1.