WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/03 by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Eurostat: slow processing of material supplied two years ago relating, inter alia, to irregularities since acknowledged.
Date: 2003-07-23
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, Eurostat, administrative procedure, exchange of information, fraud against the EU, information processing

C 58 E/170

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

6.3.2004

Answer given by Mrs de Palacio on behalf of the Commission

(9 September 2003)

There are currently no Community rules regulating driving bans or restrictions within the Union.
The Commission had made a proposal in 1998 (1) on measures to inform Union citizens of driving bans,
to harmonise exempted vehicles and loads, and to align the national rules on the length of bans. Following
strong opposition from those Member States implementing driving restrictions, the Commission adopted
an amended proposal (2) to highlight that the scope of the proposal only concerned Trans European Road
Networks, to list explicitly those national holidays on which driving restrictions apply and to recognise
within a revised timeframe the vast majority of current driving restrictions. Following Parliament’s first
reading of the amended proposal on 2 July 2002, the Commission has decided to adopt a revised
proposal (3) on 1 August 2003 which takes on board the majority of clarifying and amplifying
amendments proposed by the Parliament.

(1) OJ C 198, 24.6.1998.
(2) OJ C 120, 24.4.2001.
(3) COM(2003) 473 final.

(2004/C 58 E/183)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2456/03

by Erik Meijer (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(23 July 2003)

Subject: Eurostat: slow processing of material supplied two years ago relating, inter alia, to irregularities

since acknowledged

Does the Commission recall

1.
that on 13 August 2001 Paul van Buitenen, who was then a
Commission official, submitted to the Commission a 5000-page fraud file and that Commissioner Kinnock
has confirmed that he received a copy of the accompanying 234-page memorandum at the beginning of
September 2001? Why has the investigation into this file still not been completed within the various EU
departments? When will a final result be available? Who will then be permitted to know about it?

2.
Does the file referred to at 1 above include a chapter concerning the various irregularities which
occurred at Eurostat over a period of years, and do these include numerous matters which go beyond what
has so far come to public attention? Had many Commission officials already known about these matters
for some time, in the light of the internal correspondence on the subject?

Does the Van Buitenen file mention any other matters on which it appears in retrospect that the

3.
Commission may not have taken the right action?

4. Why did Commissioner Kinnock make OLAF responsible for the chapter on Eurostat in the second
report by Van Buitenen of 31 August 2001? Was this on the assumption that DG Admin would then no
longer be involved in the case?

5. What are the Commission’s present intentions as regards how this question should be dealt with and
any recurrence permanently prevented?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(7 October 2003)

1., 3. and 4.
On 31 August 2001, Mr Van Buitenen submitted the file to which the Honourable Member
refers both to the Director-General of the Antifraud Office (OLAF) and to the Director-General of the
Commission’s Directorate General (DG) Administration and Personnel (ADMIN). As has been reported to
Parliament, on the basis of preliminary drafts submitted by Mr Van Buitenen OLAF and DG ADMIN had
already held discussions at services level and identified those aspects of the dossier which appeared to be
within OLAF’s remit, as set out in Article 1(3) of Council Regulation 1073/1999, and were therefore for
the dossier were to be investigated by DG ADMIN. These
OLAF to investigate. Other aspects of

6.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58 E/171

investigations were handled by the Commission’s Investigation and Disciplinary Office (IDOC, part of DG
ADMIN) which was being set up at the time.

A preliminary verification of their respective parts of material provided by Mr van Buitenen was completed
by OLAF and IDOC in February 2002. As was reported to Parliament at the time, and in the Commission’s
press statements of 26 and 28 February 2002, as a result, 4 new investigations were launched by OLAF,
further verification was required in 4 cases before a decision on appropriate action could be taken, and
there was information of potential relevance to 31 on-going investigations which had commenced before
31 August 2001. This information was transferred to the appropriate files. Under the terms of the 1999
decision establishing OLAF, the Commission was neither informed about the nature of OLAF’s work on
Eurostat, nor was it briefed on which allegations this concerned.

Full investigation of all the matters raised by Mr van Buitenen and considered to give rise to concerns has
inevitably been very time consuming due to the volume of the material supplied. Reports on all IDOC
enquiries relating to that material have however been submitted to the appointing authority. On this basis,
the AIPN (1) has opened a number of disciplinary proceedings and has reviewed the conduct of a former
Commissioner to whom it has sent a draft statement of objections. In a limited number of cases, the AIPN
is still reviewing the IDOC reports.

The Commission is informed that OLAF has not completed all the investigations to which the material
provided by Mr Van Buitenen was considered to be potentially relevant. Until all
investigations are
complete, it is obviously impossible to determine whether correct action was taken in all cases.

Parliament will be informed of the outcome of any disciplinary procedures initiated on the basis of the
enquiry reports.

2.
The file submitted by Mr Van Buitenen contained a chapter on Eurostat. This chapter was considered
to fall wholly within OLAF’s remit, in particular since OLAF was already conducting investigations into
some of the issues raised: thus it was for OLAF to investigate, and not to DG ADMIN. Further, since the
whole report contained sensitive matters relating to possible disciplinary and criminal action, the only
officials concerned with the disciplinary process who had access to it were those, on a need to know basis.

5.
the
The Commission has recently taken a formal decision to request Directors General of
Commission to provide reports to their respective Commissioners which refers to cases of possible
financial irregularity detected or suspected in their Directorates General. In addition, in order to reinforce
co-operation and information flow between the Commission and OLAF, the parties have agreed the draft
Memorandum of Understanding. This document, which was put forward to the Commission on 23 July
2003, is already applied provisionally, pending consultation with the Parliament and OLAF’s Supervisory
Committee.

(1) Authorité Investie du Pouvoir de Nomination (Appointing Authority).

(2004/C 58 E/184)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2462/03

by Rosa Miguélez Ramos (PSE) to the Commission

(16 July 2003)

Subject: European Investment Bank loans in Galicia

The European Investment Bank, whose task is to contribute to integration, balanced development and
economic and social cohesion in the Member States, grants loans on extremely favourable terms for this
purpose to Member State governments, regional governments and local councils, as well as to private
individuals.