WRITTEN QUESTION E-2343/03 by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission. Eurostat cases: financial interests and image of the European institutions.
Date: 2003-07-16
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU institution, European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, charge, fraud against the EU, image, judicial proceedings, rights of the defence

C 51 E/240

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

26.2.2004

is the obligation to
Will the Commission confirm that foremost among these ‘normal requirements’
indicate clearly that the new bus and trolley fleet is co-funded by the EU? Why has the Commission not
yet asked the Greek authorities to put up the relevant signs? Have any signs been put up in the Olympic
Stadium and press centre?

(1) OJ C 33 E, 6.2.2004, p. 156.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(22 August 2003)

In addition to its reply to Written Question E-1712/03 by the Honourable Member, the Commission
confirms that the obligation to indicate the European co-funding is among the ‘normal requirements’
relating to information and publicity concerning co-funded projects.

However, as concerns the renewal of the Athens bus and trolley fleet, the Commission already stated in its
previous answer that this project was approved ‘in May of this year and its implementation has only just
got underway’. So far, no busses or trolleys co-funded under the current Community Structural Funds
(CSF) have been delivered for circulation. On the busses running on liquid natural gas that were co-funded
under the previous CSF, the European co-funding is correctly mentioned.

Concerning the Olympic Stadium and press centre, the Commission stated in its previous answer that the
Community contributes to this project by way of an European Investment Bank (EIB)-loan and that it is
not co-funded by the Structural Funds. Therefore, the information and publicity requirements of the
Structural Funds do not apply.

(2004/C 51 E/262)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2343/03

by Jean-Maurice Dehousse (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject:

‘Eurostat cases’: financial interests and image of the European institutions

For a number of weeks there has been a lot of talk of a ‘case’ involving Eurostat. In a breach of standard
legal practice, a number of senior officials, including the director-general, have been publicly accused, in
particular in the press, of ‘embezzlement involving sums of up to EUR 900 000’
(Agence Europe of
19 June 2003).

The two officials in question have thus already been tried and convicted by some sections of the press, and
by those who believe what those sections of the press report and pass that ‘information’ on, whether
maliciously or otherwise, without having been officially charged and, as far as I am aware, without being
able to make any formal statement of their own.

Accordingly, with a view to making the debate as objective as possible, i.e. with a view to establishing the
facts and, if there is evidence of wrongdoing, to bringing to trial and, if possible, convicting those guilty of
the offences concerned, wherever and whoever they are, I should like to put the following questions to the
Commission:

1. when and how did the Commission learn about the allegations;

2. what is the exact nature of those allegations;

3.

4.

are the allegations serious enough to warrant legal proceedings or disciplinary proceedings before the
competent Community or Union bodies;

if the allegations do indeed concern fraud or similar acts, did the evidence which prompted the
allegations come to light in the course of internal audits requested as from 1999 by the director-
general of Eurostat;

26.2.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51 E/241

5.

if so, what action was taken at that time in response to these breaches of the Financial Regulation;

6. when and how was the matter referred to OLAF;

7. what action did OLAF take following that referral;

8. has OLAF yet drawn up official conclusions;

9. have the officials been duly heard by OLAF or by another Community or Union institution, and, if so,

by which ones;

10. what measures has the Commission so far taken to safeguard the Union’s financial interests, on the
one hand, and the presumption of innocence, on the other, so as to prevent unwarranted damage to
the image of the European institutions?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(8 September 2003)

It is the Commission’s understanding that the events involving Eurostat to which the Honourable Member
refers in his question are those relating to the company Planistat. This reply therefore focuses on the facts
pertaining to that company.

Regarding the issue of when and how the Commission learned about the facts in question, let me state the
following. In October 2000 OLAF communicated very brief information regarding the opening of an
investigation into allegations of irregularities, stating that the Secretary-General would be informed at a
later date should the allegations be confirmed. In April 2003, OLAF sent a further information note to the
Secretary-General of the Commission informing him of the possible implication of some officials, but
information relating to them be deferred and without specifying the
requesting that provision of
allegations against them. The Commission wishes to point out that it has already explained in detail (cid:1)
primarily at the hearings held by Cocobu on 17 and 30 June last (cid:1) when and how it was informed of the
various investigations into Eurostat. On that occasion written replies were sent to the Chair of the Cocobu
for the information of its members. The Commission will send a copy of these replies directly to the
Honourable Member. Press reports dated 28 April 2003 made very serious accusations and provided
details on the scope of the investigations and the accusations.

Regarding the exact nature of the accusations, since the investigations are still ongoing the Commission
does not wish to prejudice these or the rights of the persons concerned. It is therefore not in a position to
confirm or deny at this stage the extent to which all or some of the facts in question were raised in the
context of the internal audits requested as from 1999 by the Director-General of Eurostat. With regard to
the charges against the company Planistat, made on 19 March 2003, a judicial inquiry has been opened
against X at the Court of First Instance in Paris. To date there has been no indictment or formal charge.

Regarding when and how the matter was referred to OLAF, let me point out the following. On 17 March
2000, the Financial Control DG forwarded an audit report to OLAF reporting the existence of a ‘financial
envelope’ within the Datashop network. Subsequently, OLAF came into possession of other elements that
permitted a presumption of fraud and were sufficiently relevant to allow OLAF to open an anti-fraud
inquiry on 6 October 2000. An inquiry into Eurostat DG was launched, during which OLAF carried out a
variety of investigations. On 19 March last, OLAF sent a report (cid:1) which is covered by the judicial secrecy
applicable to criminal matters (cid:1) to the Public Prosecutor of the French Republic in Paris. As part of their
inquiries into the external aspects, the OLAF investigators heard many officials as witnesses. In addition,
some officials were heard as part of the internal investigation, which is still under way.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that the Commission has lodged a complaint against X under proceedings
initiated by the Public Prosecutor of Paris on the basis of the elements transmitted to it by OLAF. In
addition, the Commission invites the Honourable Member to refer to the series of measures adopted by the
Commission at its meetings on 9 and 23 July 2003, of which Parliament was notified. The Commission
has taken a number of measures to protect its interests, while safeguarding the presumption of innocence
of its staff.