WRITTEN QUESTION E-2630/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. The Eurostat affair.
Date: 2003-09-02
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, disciplinary proceedings, fraud against the EU, judicial investigation, rights of civil servants, rights of the defence, services company

20.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70 E/123

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(17 October 2003)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) launched an initial investigation into one aspect of the activities of
the Directorate-General for Eurostat in October 2000 following the presentation of an audit report and an
analysis of the other documents. It subsequently launched a number of other investigations into aspects
that still concerned Eurostat.

Also according to the information provided by OLAF, it should be pointed out that as of 2001 OLAF has
ensured coordination between the different aspects at issue in the Eurostat affair and is devoting substantial
resources to the Eurostat investigations. This coordination and the subsequent investigations have resulted
in two files being handed over in July 2002 to the Luxembourg Public Prosecutor, who ordered the
commencement of
judicial proceedings in each case. Both procedures are still pending before the
Luxembourg courts. In addition, on 19 March 2003 OLAF notified the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office of
facts that could be classified as criminal offences. Judicial proceedings have been opened and are still
ongoing.

Furthermore, the Commission has been informed by OLAF that it cannot confirm the disappearance of any
documents, particularly documents relevant to a hearing of a Eurostat official in May 2000.

(2004/C 70 E/125)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2630/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(2 September 2003)

Subject: The Eurostat affair

Knowing that:

1.

Letter No 003411 of 18 March 2003 sent by the Director-General of OLAF to the Paris Public
Prosecutor under the reference ‘CMS No 10120021510’ stated that:

(a)

(b)

fraudulent activities detrimental to the Community budget and which could be qualified as
criminal had been carried on;

the investigation has revealed that these activities were carried on by the managers of the
company Planistat Europe SA, whose head office is in Paris, with the active complicity of
European officials;

(c) all the evidence […] would suggest that OLAF is faced with a vast operation for plundering

Community funds; and that

(d) with reference to this case, Mr Yves Franchet, the director of Eurostat, and Mr Daniel Byk, head of
unit at Eurostat, both of whom are officials of the European Commission based in Luxembourg
and who are likely to have orchestrated this system in whole or in part, are French nationals.

2.

Press release IP/03/703 of 16 May 2003 stated that
preliminary information relating to the file sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor’.

the Commission was ‘only in receipt of

3.

Press release IP/03/723 of 23 May 2003 stated that the Commission had:

(a) decided to help (Franchet and Byk) defend their reputations and safeguard their rights of defence;

(b) and was ‘also keen to emphasise that everyone has the right to be presumed innocent and points
out that the information in its possession at this stage does not enable any conclusions to be
drawn as to the accountability of individual officials’.

4.

Press release IP/03/979 of 9 July 2003 stated that ‘disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against
three Commission officials’.

In the light of the above, could the Commission indicate:

(cid:1) whether the preliminary information relating to the file sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor, which the

Commission received from OLAF, included the assessments regarding Mssrs Franchet and Byk;

C 70 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

20.3.2004

(cid:1) what charges have been levelled at

the three Commission officials against whom disciplinary
proceedings have been launched, what measures have been taken in their regard and whether OLAF
had informed the Paris Public Prosecutor of their names;

(cid:1) how it actually intends to help Mssrs Franchet and Byk defend their reputations and to safeguard their
rights of defence and whether, if the assessment of them sent by OLAF to the Paris Public Prosecutor
proves to be hasty and erroneous, it intends to take action against OLAF, and if so what action?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(10 November 2003)

The information provided by the Director-General of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the
1.
French judicial authorities is an integral part of currently on-going national
investigative proceedings,
which are covered by rules of judicial secrecy. The Commission must therefore inform the Honourable
Member that it cannot legally answer his first question.

On 9 July the Commission opened disciplinary procedures against three Commission officials for
2.
alleged breaches of the Financial Regulation and of the Staff Regulations. Two of these procedures had to
be immediately suspended for the legal reason, made clear to Parliament and to the public at the time, that
pursuit of such procedures would be concurrent with an ongoing OLAF enquiry concerning the same
officials.

3.
The Commission considers that the rights of defence of the officials concerned are fully guaranteed in
all proceedings. As the Honourable Member knows, OLAF has complete independence in the conduct of
its investigations by virtue of Regulations 1073/99 (1) and 1074/99 (2).

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the Parliament and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations

conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2) Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the

European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), OJ L 136, 31.5.1999.

(2004/C 70 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2653/03

by Mario Borghezio (NI) to the Commission

(28 August 2003)

Subject: Telekom Serbia affair: explanation by President Prodi to Europe

In recent months circumstances have emerged in Italy (cid:1) both in the context of the work of the
Parliamentary Committee of Enquiry into Telekom Serbia and in the course of the judicial investigation
launched by the Turin Public Prosecutor into the alleged bribes paid in this affair (cid:1) which, if they prove
objectively to be true, would involve the liability of the Italian Prime Minister at the time, Romano Prodi.

In order to safeguard the image of the Community institutions and to dispel any doubt as to the
transparency and appropriateness of his conduct, does President Prodi not intend, as in the case of Cirio-
SME, to provide a public and detailed explanation of his role in the Telekom Serbia operation, proceeds
from which enabled the Serbian dictator Milosevic and his power group to proceed with the military
operations that brought disaster to Serbia?

Answer given by Mr Prodi on behalf of the Commission

(17 September 2003)

As the Honourable Member knows, the circumstances of the transaction and the steps taken in the case
are being investigated in Italy by a parliamentary committee of inquiry, which was set up by Act No 99 of
21 May 2002. When it has completed its work, the committee is to submit a report to the Italian
Parliament, in which it is barred from considering ‘foreign policy choices made by the Government’.