WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Eurostat: date of first discovery of fraud and ease with which contracts with businesses and amounts per business could be examined.
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European Parliament, Eurostat, access to information, administration of the Institutions, fraud against the EU, interinstitutional relations (EU), management audit

C 65 E/156

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

13.3.2004

Since the elimination of the cormorant from Annex I to the Birds Directive in 1997, the Commission has
continued to check the situation and to consider the question with the competent authorities of the
Member States responsible for the implementation of the Birds Directive. From the latest discussions at the
meeting of the Ornis Committee for the Birds Directive of 26 June 2003, it seems that present populations
appear to be relatively stable in Europe and there is no agreement on the need to develop international
co-operation for managing the populations of this species.

Finally, research is ongoing in various Member States and at European level (e.g.
‘Reducing the conflict
between Cormorants and fisheries on a Pan-European scale: Redcafe’, funded under the 5th Framework
Research and Technological Development Programme) on the development of improved methods to deal
with the problem of the damage caused by cormorants to fishing.

(1) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.

(2004/C 65 E/171)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2453/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat: date of first discovery of fraud and ease with which contracts with businesses and

amounts per business could be examined

Since when has the Commission been aware of contacts between Eurostat and dubious businesses,
1.
the fact that large sums of money were being received via concealed accounts (at least EUR 900 000 to
date) for the purchase of statistics via datashops and the scope for a small number of officials to get hold
of this money? Has the Commission known about this since 1997, 1999 or only 2001? Does the
Commission agree that internal correspondence within the Commission, namely letters ESTAT/G-0/CD/sb/
000347 and PRODI(2000)A/291246.--/1, gives the impression that Mr Prodi already knew about the
matter at an earlier date than the Commission has so far confirmed?

2.
Is the Commission aware that irregularities relating to contracts at Eurostat may also have arisen in
connection with other businesses, such as Worldsystems, Eurocost, Eurogramme, TES, GIM, DEBA,
Planistat and CESD, and that far larger sums are involved in these cases? Is the Commission aware that, at
the mere touch of a button using the internal book-keeping system Sincom, it can state precisely over
what period these businesses had contracts with Eurostat and what the value of the contracts with each
such business was? Will the Commission forward this information to me and the other Members of the
European Parliament?

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(22 September 2003)

The Commission answered these questions in hearings of the Cocobu and in particular in the hearings of
17 and 30 June 2003. As soon as information became available to it, the Commission immediately took
the appropriate measures. In this respect, the Commission requests the Honourable Member to refer to the
decisions of the Commission of 9 and 23 July 2003.

The general tone of the e-mail sent to the President on 13 November 2000, to which the Honourable
Member refers, was polemical but the specific operational purpose of the message was vague. The author’s
thoughts on a number of issues, such as the comparative courage of certain Members of the Commission
and prominent figures (Monnet, Schuman), were included alongside other, sometimes rather cryptic,
remarks. In short,
it was difficult for the uninformed reader to understand the true purpose of this
correspondence. In accordance with normal practice in such cases, this e-mail was passed on directly to
the service concerned (in this instance, Eurostat) to deal with as appropriate. Eurostat acted on what
appeared to be the ‘operational’ section of the document,
in the
publication of an internal audit report on Eurocost. The answer given described the factual situation with
the dossier at that point, i.e. that the report in question had been sent to the competent services which
were dealing with it in accordance with the confidentiality rules applicable in such cases.

the author’s declared interest

i.e.

13.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65 E/157

On 11 June 2003 the Commission mandated the Internal Audit Service to carry out an audit of Eurostat
contracts. On 9 July 2003 the Commission received a first interim report from Internal Audit Service (IAS)
and an analysis by DG BUDG of the audit reports established by the Internal Audit Capabilities on Eurostat
and decisions were taken accordingly and communicated to the Parliament. In particular, a special Task
Force under the authority of the Director of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has been set up.
Following the decision of the Commission of 23 July 2003, the duty of the Task Force Eurostat (TFES) is
to prepare a report for the Commission regarding the different administrative aspects of Eurostat files. Both
the TFES and the IAS work continue. It is the declared intention of the Commission to keep the Parliament
regularly informed on these matters.

In the context of the 2001 Discharge, the Commission has already stated that it currently establishing a
central contract database. The information required by the Honourable Member has to be obtained via the
data warehouse application which provides data on budgetary appropriations committed in favour of third
parties. In its replies to other recent Parliamentary Questions, the Commission has already given detailed
information on commitments with and payments to most of the entities mentioned by the Honourable
Member.

(2004/C 65 E/172)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2458/03

by Concepció Ferrer (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: High-speed rail network in southern Europe

links Genoa-Marseille-Barcelona-Valencia and Lisbon-Madrid-Barcelona-Lyon-Paris are of major
The rail
importance for the southern European economy. However,
repeated delays are holding back the
completion of the line between Madrid and Lleida/Lérida, which should have been inaugurated at the end
of 2002. This stretch is an essential part of the high-speed link that will connect both Madrid and
Barcelona to the French frontier. Meanwhile, the French government appears unwilling to upgrade the
stretch between Nîmes and the Spanish frontier to high-speed status. What action does the Commission
intend to take to ensure the development of this trans-European network in accordance with the Treaties?

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2003)

The Community is using the trans-European transport network (TEN-T) budget to help finance studies and
works with a view to increasing the capacity of the existing Perpignan-Nîmes line to cope with the extra
traffic which will result from the entry into service of the new Figueras-Perpignan line (scheduled for
2008-2009).

It is also contributing, again from the TEN-T budget, to the preliminary studies for the construction of an
entirely new line between the Spanish border and Nîmes, which would enter into service in stages between
2010 and 2015 depending on the degree of saturation of each section of the existing line.

Accordingly, if this project has fallen behind its initial schedule whereby the entire line was to have entered
into service in 2010 (and the Commission can only regret such a delay),
it must be stressed that
implementation of these projects remains entirely the responsibility of the Member States. In the context of
the High-Level Group chaired by Mr Karel Van Miert,
the Commission sought and obtained firm
commitments from the French authorities that they would keep to the dates indicated above.