WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Information on the former Director-General of Eurostat.
Date: 2003-10-28
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, European official, Eurostat, disciplinary proceedings, exchange of information, fraud against the EU, liability, reassignment

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/485

(2004/C 78 E/0507)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3193/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(28 October 2003)

Subject: Information on the former Director-General of Eurostat

The serious irregularities in the management of Eurostat contracts were only revealed to the general public
in May 2003. However, it was made clear on this occasion that the fraudulent operations had already been
taking place for several years and that the Commission and OLAF had received complaints on the subject
as early as 1999, if not earlier.

Eurostat’s Director-General at that time, Yves Franchet, and the sectoral director, Daniel Byk, have stated to
the press that they are prepared to testify before the competent institutional bodies that the political
authorities were aware of the existing contracts and the suspicions of fraud relating to these contracts.
Nonetheless, Franchet and Byk were not replaced until July 2003.

Will the Commission answer the following questions:

1. What form of control is exercised by the political heads of Directorates-General over the running of

the administrative areas for which they are responsible?

2.

Since when have their been suspicions in relation to Franchet and Byk?

3. When was their responsibility first revealed and established?

4. What measures were taken, and when?

5. Do these officials still work, directly or indirectly, for the Commission or another EU institution?

6. Can the Commission provide similar

information about

the other persons

involved, whose

responsibility in the matter has been established?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(27 January 2004)

1.
Under the Code of Conduct for Commissioners and Departments, which was adopted shortly after
this Commission took office, Directors-General are explicitly answerable to their Commissioner for the
sound implementation of the policy guidelines laid down by the Commission and the Commissioner. They
are responsible for the efficient operation of their Directorate-General in compliance with the distribution
of powers and responsibilities laid down in the Staff Regulations,
the
Commission’s Rules of Procedure and the rules laid down in SEM 2000 and MAP 2000. They are thus
required to provide the Commissioner with information, and report on any important events in
departments, or in the Member States or in international bodies, which might have an impact on the
management of his or her portfolio or his or her position within the Commission.

the Financial Regulation (1),

As announced by the Commission President, Mr Romano Prodi, on 18 November 2003, the Commission
has decided to amend this Code of Conduct in the wake of the Eurostat case in order to improve the flow
of information between heads of service and their Commissioners. The aim of this revision is to establish
better arrangements for ensuring the provision of information to Commissioners by Heads of Departments
so that Members of the Commission are more able to exercise their political responsibility, not only in
respect of their own actions but also in relation to those of their departments.

The amended Code will provide that as soon as Commissioners take up their posts, and at regular intervals
thereafter,
information so that
Commissioners can better supervise the work of those departments and issue general instructions.

their Departments will have to make available all

the relevant

C 78 E/486

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

the amended Code will

to the
Furthermore,
Commissioner, with provision for the Director-General, in person, to immediately and directly draw the
Commissioner’s attention to any fact or development
involve his or her own political
responsibility or that of the Commission as a whole.

set out a specific procedure for

referring matters

that might

The Honourable Member is referred to the explanations given by President Prodi to the
2., 3. and 4.
Conference of Presidents and to the members of the Committee on Budgetary Control
(Cocobu) on
25 September 2003, and to the Plenary Session of Parliament on 18 November 2003, relating to the
reasons why various indications related to Eurostat that could have given rise to concern had not produced
earlier responses.

On 7 July 2003, the Commission received two reports relating to Eurostat: one was from the Directorate-
General for the Budget (DG BUDG), resulting from an investigation mandated by the Commission in May
2003, the other was an interim report of an examination of contracts by the Internal Audit Service, which
was mandated by the Commission in June 2003. The investigation and examination were established
following the first note of substance from the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) to the Secretary-General
of May 2003 and, in the case of the IAS examination, also in response to Parliaments’ resolution of April
2003. The two Commission reports were sent to the President of Parliament, to the Chair of Cocobu, and
to Mr Casaca and Mr Bösch on 11 July 2003 under Annex III of the Framework Agreement between
Parliament and the Commission.

The reports provided the first substantive prima facie evidence to the Commission that a number of
serious breaches of the Financial Regulation had taken place involving staff of the Commission and that
the follow-up to several significant aspects of internal audit reports had not shown the necessary breadth
and thoroughness or led to the essential action. Accordingly, on 9 July 2003, several actions were taken by
the Commission, including the opening of disciplinary procedures against three senior officials of Eurostat
for 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. For the third one, the Commission decided to suspend it, only when it became apparent, on the
basis of the information transmitted by OLAF, that OLAF was also investigating this third official.

Individual responsibilities are now being identified and verified, both under procedures initiated by the
French judicial authorities in Paris and under the disciplinary procedures.

In order to ensure that, in future, all information concerning cases of possible fraud and irregularities can
be collected and assessed coherently and expeditiously, President Prodi
informed Parliament of his
intention to set up structures for this purpose to provide better means of alerting the College and of
providing Commissioners with improved opportunities to propose any relevant administrative measures.

5.
On 21 May 2003, the Commission accepted the requests from the officials referred to in the
Honourable Member’s question to be transferred to new posts for the duration of the investigations. Both
persons are temporarily appointed to Advisor functions in the Commission’s Directorate-General
for
Personnel and Administration and are engaged in projects relevant to the work of the Commission.

6.
As indicated above, the disciplinary procedures opened on 9 July 2003 included a third senior
Eurostat official, who has also been transferred to an advisory function. Also this official is in active duty.

On the same day, a number of Eurostat managers were moved to advisory functions within Eurostat. These
transfers were precautionary actions intended to safeguard the interests of the Institution and its staff and
are not disciplinary measures.

To date, no further disciplinary procedures have been opened. If evidence shows that any current or
former member of staff may have acted in breach of the Financial Regulations and of the Staff Regulations,
disciplinary proceedings will be opened against
them in the normal way with the presumption of
innocence respected.

(1) Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 of 23 December 2002 laying down detailed rules for the
implementation of Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities, OJ L 357, 31.12.2002.