WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Eurostat: alteration of the Commission's position on recognising and tackling fraud and consequences for independent investigation by OLAF.
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, Eurostat, audit, economic offence, fraud against the EU, parliamentary inquiry

C 84 E/214

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

Kaliningrad. In the other countries of the region, health and social sector projects normally comprise
components addressing HIV/AIDS. Because of the magnitude of the HIV/AIDS problem, the Commission
projects are closely coordinated with the activities of other donors, in particular the United Nations Global
Fund to Fight AIDS and World Bank financed AIDS programmes. In addition to these large-scale projects,
the Commission co-finances smaller projects in the health and social sectors, implemented by European
and local non-governmental organisations.

(2004/C 84 E/0258)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2374/03

by Raffaele Costa (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Contracting and subcontracting by the Commission

(16 July 2003)

In view of the recent OLAF investigation into the alleged misappropriation of about EUR 900 000 by
senior Eurostat staff, the fact that the Commission has launched a reform of the accounting system, which
is deemed to be inadequate, and that Eurostat subcontracted services to Eurogramme, Eurocost and
Planistat, can the Commission specify what services have been contracted out and subcontracted in the last
five years, how much they cost, and what the mechanisms for allocating contracts and selecting successful
contractors are?

Supplementary answer
given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(24 February 2004)

The OLAF investigations are into an allegation that Eurostat was keeping accounts outside the official

1.
accounting system.

The reform of the accounting system (cid:1) in line with the new Financial Regulation (cid:1) is proceeding
2.
according to schedule. It has the full support of the ECA and will put the Commission at the forefront of
modern public-sector accounting practices.

3.
The contracting-out of services is dealt with in the Financial Regulation. The IAS has looked into the
contracts. As regards the number of contracts, the Commission would refer to Written Questions P-3457/
02 by Mr Heaton-Harris (1), P-1705/03 by Ms Stauner (2), P-1724/03 by Mr Blak (3), P-1807/03 by
Mr Bösch (2), P-1890/03 by Mr Heaton-Harris (4), P-1978/03 by Ms Stauner (2) and P-2453/03 by
Mr Meijer (5) and information sent direct to Parliament in 2003.

(1) OJ C 137 E, 12.6.2003.
(2) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 58.
(3) OJ C 58 E, 6.3.2004, p. 89.
(4) OJ C 51 E, 26.2.2004, p. 153.
(5) OJ C 65 E, 13.3.2004, p. 156.

(2004/C 84 E/0259)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2454/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat: alteration of

the Commission’s position on recognising and tackling fraud and

consequences for independent investigation by OLAF

1. Why has the Commission hitherto adopted the position, with regard to Eurostat’s contacts with
dubious businesses and concealed accounts, that it could not do anything or make any substantive
statement until the findings of the OLAF investigation were published, which is due to happen shortly, and
why did it stress in its reply of 3 June 2003 to my question H-0343/03 (1) that in principle everyone is
deemed innocent until they have been proved guilty?

2. Why has the Commission now decided, before OLAF’s findings are published, already nonetheless to
refer the case to the Internal Audit Service with effect from 7 July 2003? Why did the Commission at that

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/215

particular time, when no one was expecting it, recognise after all that fraud had occurred on a large scale
at Eurostat? Why did it on this occasion, unlike in previous comparable fraud cases, order the seizure of
records?

3. Would the Commission be surprised if, in view of the Commission’s conduct to date and the recent
radical changes in it, the European Parliament decided to conclude the consideration of this issue by
holding a parliamentary inquiry into the way in which the information which has become available over
the years concerning possible irregularities has been dealt with, the promptness and adequacy of measures
to prevent any recurrence and the way in which information has been provided on the subject at the
various stages?

(1) Written reply of 3 June 2003.

Answer given by Mr Solbes Mira on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2003)

The Commission has repeatedly said that it is anxious to respect the full independence of the European
Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and to avoid encroaching on inquiries in progress by prejudging the outcome.
But this does not mean that any action at all on its part is ruled out.

On 11 June 2003, as part of its follow-up to the 2001 discharge and at the request of Parliament, the
Commission mandated the Internal Audit Service (IAS) to carry out an examination of Eurostat contracts.
On 7 July 2003 the Commission received a first interim report
from IAS and an analysis by the
Directorate-General for Budget of the audit reports established by the Internal Audit Capacity of Eurostat.
This latter analysis showed that at
least during the 1990s there had been a number of serious
infringements of the Financial Regulation, and that the action taken on several important aspects of the
internal audit reports may not have shown the necessary breadth and thoroughness. The work of the IAS
is still ongoing.

In addition, a special Task Force Eurostat (TFES) was set up to provide the Commission with the
information necessary for it to take, where appropriate in several stages but in the short term, the
management and organisational measures, especially of a preventive nature, that were needed in order to
ensure that
the Financial Regulation and the associated rules of good administrative practice were
observed.

The Commission’s reference to the principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is self-
explanatory in a Union founded on the rule of law. The reports and information in the Commission’s
possession do not prejudge the assessment of the individual responsibilities involved, which will be arrived
at by the procedures established for the purpose. The Commission would also refer the honourable
Member to its answer to question E-2515/03 by Mr Bösch (1).

Finally, in reply to the last part of the honourable Member’s question, it is not for the Commission to
speculate on the way in which Parliament may choose to exercise its prerogatives with regard to
temporary committees of inquiry.

(1) See page 30.

(2004/C 84 E/0260)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2573/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Council

(7 August 2003)

Subject: Breach of binding OSCE obligations on freedom of thought, conscience and religion by Armenia,

Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Knowing that:

(cid:1) The OSCE member states have undertaken to respect freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

(cid:1) Despite these binding obligations stemming from OSCE membership, some of that organisation’s
member states are continuing to fine or imprison believers for peacefully practising their faith. Places