WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/03 by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission. Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor's office into an EUR 5 million fraud against the European Union.
Date: 2004-01-05
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: Sicily, aid to undertakings, economic offence, fraud against the EU, judicial inquiry, medical device

C 84 E/124

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

3.4.2004

proposal to bring forward the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 (1), which entered into
force in the EU on 21 October 2003, prohibiting the transport of heavy grades of oil by single-hull
tankers.

The Commission wants to strengthen Community legislation on maritime safety still further, both by
adopting the post-‘Prestige’ measures and by preparing a new series of measures by mid-2004 aimed at
strengthening maritime safety. The Union will also continue to act in the framework of the International
Maritime Organisation (IMO) to increase maritime safety at global level. Following a new EU proposal,
unanimously supported by the accession countries, the IMO adopted an amendment to the Marpol
level, provisions similar to those of the
Convention in December 2003 incorporating, at international
abovementioned Regulation (EC) No 1726/03.

(1) Regulation (EC) No 1726/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 July 2003 amending
Regulation (EC) No 417/2002 on the accelerated phasing-in of double-hull or equivalent design requirements for
single-hull oil tankers, OJ L 249, 1.10.2003.

(2004/C 84 E/0160)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3969/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(5 January 2004)

Subject: Judicial investigation by the Catania Public Prosecutor’s office into an EUR 5 million fraud against

the European Union

According to an article that appeared in the newspaper La Sicilia on 12 December 2003, entitled ‘Catania
(cid:1) EUR 5 million EU fraud’:

(cid:1) members of the Guardia di Finanza’s excise and revenue unit in Catania have uncovered a case of
fraud committed by a Catanese company with a view to illicitly obtaining Community funds totalling
EUR 5 million;

(cid:1) the company had received a grant under Law No 488/92 to set up and develop a new firm for the

production of medical surgical equipment in the Catania development area;

(cid:1) however, the company had altered its corporate structure several times in recent years, despite
remaining a non-operating company, and once the funding had been obtained its Italian members
vanished from the scene and ownership passed to two companies with head offices in Liechtenstein
and Luxembourg;

(cid:1) around 90 % of the investment expenditure provided for in the plan had gone towards the purchase of
a particular machine which, according to the proprietors, could only be supplied by a design office
based in Liechtenstein after construction by a Spanish firm. Both these firms turned out to have
connections to the companies that owned the share capital in the Catanese company;

(cid:1) a subsequent detailed retracing of the movements of this machine showed that these were in fact quite
different to what had been claimed, or in other words that the machine, the value of which was
declared at around EUR 9 million, was in reality worth around EUR 1,5 million and had been
purchased directly from production establishments in Modena and Varese;

(cid:1) in order to conceal the its origins, the machine had been transported to the port of Barcelona from
where, after briefly lying in store, it had been shipped to Catania. In this way, with the previous legs
of its itinerary omitted, the machine seemed on paper to have been manufactured in Spain and
imported from there;

(cid:1) invoices to the value of around EUR 9,5 million had been issued for fictitious operations in support of

the fictitious costs.

Is the Commission aware of these events, and what measures has it taken or will it take in this regard? Has
OLAF been notified of this situation, and has it launched or will it launch an investigation?

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 84 E/125

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(10 February 2004)

The Commission would inform the Honourable Member that the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is
aware that the Italian authorities are conducting a judicial investigation into a company on charges of
defrauding the Union.

As the judicial proceedings are already in progress at the Catania public prosecutor’s office in Italy, OLAF
would be prepared to provide any assistance that the judicial authorities concerned might request.

(2004/C 84 E/0161)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3983/03

by Maurizio Turco (NI) to the Commission

(6 January 2004)

Subject: Closure of the multiregional operational programme for water resources under Objective 1 for

Italy in the context of the 1994-1999 Community Support Framework

Given that:

(cid:1) In letters dated 31 March, 29 April and 25 November the questioner asked the Regional Policy DG
for access (cid:1) by virtue of Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 (1) on public access to documents (cid:1) to the
final assessment report on the multiregional operational programme on water resources in the
Objective 1 regions (cid:1) Regulation (EEC) No 2081/93 (cid:1) CSF 1994-1999.

(cid:1) Each time the Commission replied that it was waiting until the end of the programme when the
documents would be available and then that it was waiting a few more months, the next deadline
specified being January 2004.

(cid:1) On 19 November 2002,

in its press release 47/2002 on Special Report 1/2002 concerning the
multiregional operational programme for water resources (cid:1) CSF 1994-1999 (cid:1) the Court of Auditors
pointed out, pending certification of the expenditure balance, which was expected to be forwarded
during 2002, the achievement of two not insignificant results: full utilisation of the Community funds
and completion of the planned measures.

Can the Commission say:

(cid:1) when Italy sent the final assessment report, or what the timetable was for the final closure of the

programme;

(cid:1) whether and how many times it asked for explanations about and corrections to the final report;

(cid:1) whether it is normal for a programme, which was supposed to be concluded in 1999, to be concluded
four years later and why, one year after the actual conclusion, the final report is still not available?

(1) OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.

Answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission

(17 February 2004)

We can inform the Honourable Member that the final assessment report from the national authorities
reached us on 24 November 2003.