WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/03 by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission. Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors.
Date: 2003-12-01
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: European Commission, European official, administration of the Institutions, administrative sanction, export refund, fraud against the EU, personnel administration

C 78 E/826

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

27.3.2004

(cid:1) both the Azores’ milk quota and the Portuguese national ceiling for the suckler cow premium have

recently been increased;

(cid:1) national and regional aids can also be granted provided these are consonant with the single market

rules and Community law.

(2004/C 78 E/0879)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3557/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Irregularities in DG Agriculture highlighted by the Court of Auditors

In Special Report No 9/2003 (1) covering, among other things, the issue of price of cereals, sugar, meat and
milk, the Court of Auditors drew attention to a high risk of fraud in the activities of the Commission’s
Directorate-General for Agriculture.

It would appear that there have been major delays in the procedure for setting prices and export refunds
and that over a two-and-a-half-year period two officials leaked the prices set for cereals before the markets
opened, for personal gain.

It would also appear that the two officials were discovered and removed from their posts, but only to be
transferred to another service within the same DG.

Further anomalies also appear to exist within the DG, particularly within the management set-up. In
particular, a Court of Auditors senior official has stated that, despite the fact that a five-year rotation rule is
applied in respect of all such posts elsewhere, the rule has never been implemented within the DG.

Given the above and the scandals that have only too often rocked the EU’s administration in recent times,
would the Commission state:

1. whether the above information is correct, and whether it can provide further details on the issue of

prices and the allegations of fraud?

2. why, if such anomalies do in fact exist, it has not conducted any enquiries and taken suitable action?

3. how it is that, despite the commitment made by the Commission President to ensuring transparency

in administrative structures, irregularities are still to be found within its directorates-general?

(1) OJ C 211, 5.9.2003, p. 1.

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(5 February 2004)

We cannot find in Special Report No 9/2003 by the European Court of Auditors any reference to a high
risk of fraud in connection with the Directorate-General for Agriculture’s activities.

Nor do we understand to what considerable delays
Honourable Member refers.

in setting prices and export

refunds

the

On the matter of allegations against our officials, at this stage we have only the information supplied by
the Belgian judicial authorities, namely that, following a report by the European Anti-Fraud Office to the
Brussels Royal Public Prosecutor’s Office in 2001, an investigation was launched by an examining
magistrate in Brussels. It was conducted by the Belgian authorities in appropriate confidentiality and led to
the arrest of two people in Belgium, one an official of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, who was

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 78 E/827

subsequently released. The case has been referred to the Belgian courts and investigation continues. It is
therefore too soon to give details of the charges brought.

We will take whatever action the outcome of the proceedings indicates as necessary.

Given that criminal proceedings were under way, disciplinary proceedings were started against the official
concerned. They have been suspended pending a final judgment. Under Article 88 of the Staff Regulations
the official has already been suspended from duty.

Under our internal reform programme the Directorate-General for Agriculture is in the process of making
significant improvements in market management procedures and their supervision. But no internal control
system can be entirely foolproof.

Our rules on staff rotation have been applied throughout the Directorate-General for Agriculture.

(2004/C 78 E/0880)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3558/03

by Roberta Angelilli (UEN) to the Commission

(1 December 2003)

Subject: Right to vote for immigrants in EU Member States

A debate recently opened in Italy on whether third-country nationals who have resided legally in the
country for at least six years should be given the right to vote in local elections.

There are major disparities in the current legislation in the Member States (in France and Germany, for
example, non-Community nationals do not have the right to vote; in the United Kingdom, this right is
granted only to EU and Commonwealth citizens, in Spain to immigrants from the former colonies and in
Portugal to Brazilians, Peruvians, Argentines, Uruguayans, Norwegians and Israelis; and in Ireland, Sweden,
Denmark, the Netherlands and Finland, the right to vote is granted to immigrants of all nationalities).

Given that the Tampere European Council conclusions set out a number of principles, including that of the
legal status of third-country nationals being approximated to that of Member States’ nationals and that of a
person, who has resided legally in a Member State for a period of time to be determined and who holds a
long-term residence permit, being granted a set of uniform rights which are as near as possible to those
enjoyed by EU citizens,

Can the Commission:

1.

2.

state whether studies have been conducted into the matter at European level?

clearly state its position on the right to vote in local and parliamentary elections for non-Community
nationals legally resident in the EU?

Answer given by Mr Vitorino on behalf of the Commission

(29 January 2004)

The Tampere European Council (1999) set the guidelines for a common Union asylum and immigration
policy. This policy includes the element of fair treatment of third country nationals residing legally in the
territory of the Member States. The European Council Conclusions state that the legal status of legally
resident third country nationals should be approximated to that of Member States’ nationals. Third country
nationals should be granted a set of uniform rights, which are as near as possible to those enjoyed by
Union citizens.