WRITTEN QUESTION E-3058/03 by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Contradictions and inconsistencies in Commission and OLAF statements about the Datashop case.
Date: 2003-10-17
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European Commission, Eurostat, France, fraud against the EU, judicial proceedings, provision of documents, provision of services, services company

C 78 E/216

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

Subsidiaries of a group are not always the innocent victim of the group’s behaviour, on the contrary,
3.
they may also be the direct cause of problems for the group as whole. In order to get a better insight into
intra-group relations, the company law Action Plan mentioned above includes a proposal to be made by
the Commission in the short term concerning an increased disclosure of group structures and relations,
both financial and non financial. Increased transparency might contribute to a quicker assessment of the
situation so that measures can be taken before the problems materialise.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1606/2002 of the Parliament and of the Council of 19 July 2002 on the application of

international accounting standards, OJ L 243, 11.9.2002.

(2) COM(2003) 284 final.
(3) OJ C 236, 2.10.2003.
(4) Eighth Council Directive 84/253/EEC of 10 April 1984 based on Article 54 (3) (g) of the Treaty on the approval of

persons responsible for carrying out the statutory audits of accounting documents, OJ L 126, 12.5.1984.

(2004/C 78 E/0221)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3058/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(17 October 2003)

Subject: Contradictions and inconsistencies in Commission and OLAF statements about the Datashop case

In my Written Question E-2205/03 (1), I asked why the Commission had still asked OLAF to continue with
its investigations into the Planistat/Datashop case in May 2003, although the case had been referred to the
Paris judicial authorities on 19 March 2003 and they had taken over the case.
the
Commission stated that there were two aspects to the Datashop case, an external one, which involved the
activities of Planistat Europe SA, and a second one involving Community officials.

In its answer,

The documents delivered to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office on 19 March 2003 concerned solely the
external aspect of the case. According to the answer given by Mrs Schreyer on behalf of the Commission
on 22 September 2003, the internal aspect had not been referred to the French courts. However, on page 7
of
the
the note drawn up by the Director of OLAF on 24 September 2003 for the President of
Commission, I read that ‘the French judicial authorities are in possession of the internal aspects relating to
the doings of Community officials’.

How is this possible, when the note dated 24 September 2003 from the Director of OLAF also says that
‘the report on these internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very shortly’, i.e. that the
OLAF report on these internal aspects had not yet been sent to the French judicial authorities?

Who then, if not OLAF, informed the French judicial authorities in advance about the internal aspects of
the case?

From the note drawn up by the Director of OLAF, I also gather that the OLAF investigation into the
external aspects of the case was opened only on 18 March 2003 and that the relevant findings were then
forwarded to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office just one day later, on 19 March 2003. How can that be?

(1) OJ C 70 E, 20.3.2004, p. 80.

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(22 December 2003)

The Commission would point out that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is in sole charge of the
investigations it conducts and that OLAF informed the Commission that the material it sent to the Paris
Public Prosecutor’s Office on 19 March 2003 concerned a contractor of Directorate-General Eurostat and
therefore an external investigation.

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/217

On the basis of the material supplied on 19 March 2003, the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office initiated a
judicial investigation.

Subsequently the Commission, acting on the advice of OLAF, decided to file a complaint against X on
10 July 2003, in order to cover the entire potential financial loss. As the Honourable Member is informed
by the note of
the Public Prosecutor submitted an
application to the examining judge on 4 August 2003. In the above mentioned note, the Director of OLAF
also informed that the report on the internal aspects will be sent to the French judicial authorities very
shortly.

the Director of OLAF of 24 September 2003,

The documents which OLAF sent to the Paris Public Prosecutor’s Office are governed by the national
procedure and as such are covered by the judicial secrecy applicable to criminal matters; it is not for the
Commission to comment on them.

(2004/C 78 E/0222)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3070/03

by Christoph Konrad (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(20 October 2003)

Subject: Distortions of competition caused by the German Foreign Trade Act

1.
Is the Commission aware that the Federal German Government is intending to introduce in the
armaments industry a new authorisation and notification with regard to the sale to foreign buyers of more
than 25 % of shares in domestic undertakings to foreign buyers? If so, what is the Commission’s reaction
thereto, and has it delivered an opinion thereon?

This new Federal Act is to apply to undertakings which manufacture or trade in goods for export. It is
2.
claimed that the aim of the authorisation obligation is to monitor the relocation of German undertakings
and dominance by third countries, but only in respect of the sensitive armaments industry.

The definition and demarcation of what is covered by the term ‘armaments industry’ in the broadest
3.
sense of the term is vague. What does the Commission intend to do to prevent the danger that such an
authorisation of one EU Government might
introduce a politically motivated dominance in other
economic sectors as well and thus decisively restrict the competitiveness and entrepreneurial freedom of
the German undertakings concerned?

Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission

(27 November 2003)

While, according to Article 56 of the EC Treaty, all restrictions on the movement of capital between
Member States and between Member States and third countries shall be prohibited, according to Article 58
EC, the provisions of Article 56 EC shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States:

(cid:1) to take all requisite measures to prevent infringements of national law and regulations;

(cid:1) to lay down procedures for the declaration of capital movements for purposes of administrative

information; and

(cid:1) to take measures which are justified on grounds of public security (Article 58 (1) b of the EC Treaty).