WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Eurostat and resignation of Commission's Internal Auditor.
Date: 2003-07-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, Eurostat, accountant, fraud against the EU, management audit, operation of the Institutions

C 33 E/234

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.2.2004

(2004/C 33 E/240)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2204/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat and resignation of Commission’s Internal Auditor

In a memorandum dated 11 June 2003, Mr Jules W. Muis, the Commission’s Internal Auditor, informed
Vice-President Kinnock of his intention to step down on 1 April 2004 after only three years in his post.

Can the Commission state whether it sees any connection between the announcement of that resignation
and its decision of the same day concerning the inspection of Eurostat contracts by the Commission’s
internal auditing department?

Can the Commission confirm that the Internal Auditor had urged a fundamentally more comprehensive
audit of contracts concluded by Eurostat and of the subsidies awarded by the office, and had wanted to
inspect not only the contract award procedures but also the implementation of the contracts and the
payments associated with them?

Can the Commission explain why it now wishes to authorise such an inspection only in exceptional cases
and after consultation with the Secretary-General of the Commission, as the answer by Mr Kinnock of
17 June 2003 to the questionnaire from the Committee on Budgetary Control appears to suggest?

Can the Commission state to what extent the restrictive conditions imposed by it are compatible with the
independence of the Internal Auditor as guaranteed by the Financial Regulation?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(5 September 2003)

The Director General of the IAS, Mr Muis, gave advance notice of his intention to leave the Commission in
over nine month’s time in a letter dated 11 June. On the same date,
the
Commission decided,
in keeping with Parliament’s resolution of 8th April and after the relevant
preparatory work, to mandate action by the Internal Audit Service (IAS), to ‘examine the legality and the
regularity of all contracts concluded by Eurostat since 1999 and to include in its investigation those
contracts concluded by other Commission services’. The Commission does not see any connection between
these separate events.

the weekly meeting of

As the Honourable Member will know, in his appearance at the Cocobu on 7 July, Mr Muis confirmed that
there is no connection. Specifically commenting on the ‘speculation … about Eurostat’ Mr Muis said
‘Eurostat is not the reason that I leave’ and ‘Eurostat was not the trigger of my resignation. I just want to
make that very, very clear’.

In the course of necessary discussions with and between Services relating to the application of the 11 June
Communication, the DG of Internal Audit quite properly raised the issue of whether the scope of the
examination of concluded contracts and grants would exclude assessment of the execution of certain
contracts and grants. In response, Vice President Kinnock confirmed that the Commission decision of 11th
June does not, by wording or implication, exclude such an assessment in any way. It is, of course, clear to
all concerned that the recognised resource constraints and the need to fulfil the IAS task inside the
essential deadline mean that (cid:1) to respect the agreed delivery times and in view of the resource constraints
(cid:1) an examination of the execution of all sampled contracts/grants would not be possible. If the IAS
preliminary analysis provided good reasons to examine the execution of contracts or grants, then Mr Muis
should decide on that in consultation with the Secretary General of the Commission in his capacity as co-
ordinator of Commission actions relating to the Eurostat examinations.

As Cocobu was informed on 17th June, the reason for needing such consultation arises from the fact that
the necessarily multiple Eurostat-related activities (which included the DG Budget analysis of all Eurostat
internal audit reports, the IAS examination of Eurostat contracts and grants, and the work of the (then)

6.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 33 E/235

acting DG of Eurostat, Mr Vanden Abeele), required the establishment of a Co-ordination Group in the
Commission with an open standing invitation to OLAF to attend and participate. The Group is chaired by
the Secretary General of the Commission.

No ‘restrictive conditions’ have been ‘imposed’ by the Commission. The mandate given by the Commission
to the IAS seeks to ensure that, taking account of the results of discussions with the Cocobu relating to the
mandate and delivery date of the examination, Parliament’s will is respected and the audit implemented
directly … A ‘conventional’ audit would leave the choice of areas to be examined entirely to the internal
auditor’s expertise and would, therefore, not necessarily guarantee that the terms of Parliament’s resolution
were fully met. The IAS 2003-2004 Work Programme (finalised in December 2002) includes explicit
provision for an in-depth audit of Eurostat which will be launched in the course of the current work year.

Objective testimony to the fact that the IAS examination is not limited to the award of Eurostat contracts
is provided by the nature and substance of the IAS preliminary analysis given to the Commission on 7 July
which facilitated the comprehensive action taken on 9th July. That analysis included references to contract/
grant awards procedures and practices and to the implementation of such contracts and grants based on
the work of Eurostat’s internal audit capability. Such a comprehensive approach and audit product would
simply have not been possible if the work of the IAS had been subject to ‘restrictive conditions’ as asserted
by the Honourable Member in her question.

(2004/C 33 E/241)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2215/03

by Cristiana Muscardini (UEN) to the Commission

(2 July 2003)

Subject: Recognition of the liberal professions

The usual procedures are under way for the adoption by Parliament of its opinion on the proposal for a
directive on the recognition of professional qualifications (1). The proposal covers professions already
regulated in the Member States and aims to encourage mutual recognition of qualifications in order to
promote freedom of establishment. However,
there are new professions, such as translators and
interpreters, which are practised at both national and European level but have yet to secure recognition.
It would be highly useful and appropriate to introduce a minimum level of regulation for these
professions, notably with a view to protecting users.

The Commission:

1. Has the Commission conducted studies into the exercise of these unregulated professions, monitoring

the situation by country and socio-professional sector?

2. Does it not believe that a minimum level of regulation is needed, in the form of, say, a framework law

laying down minimum requirements for the exercise of these liberal professions?

3. Alternatively, would it not be useful at least to formally recognise the professional associations

representing them?

4.

In view of the way the professions of translator and interpreter have developed in recent decades and
the fact that advanced level specialised training can be undertaken, should they not be able to
legitimately aspire to formal recognition, not least in the interests of protecting users?

5. Without reference to the question of freedom of establishment, would such recognition not serve as a
new model for flexible regulation for these sensitive professions, which at present can be exercised by
anyone, whether properly qualified or not, throughout the territory of the Union, with the adverse
effects this may have on users and the damage it may do to the image of serious members of the
profession?

(1) COM(2002) 119 (cid:1) OJ C 181 E, 30.7.2002, p. 183.