WRITTEN QUESTION E-0116/04 by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Leader II projects — Blue Dragon case.
Date: 2004-01-26
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: EU financing, European Anti-fraud Office, France, Spain, complaint to the Commission, fraud against the EU

8.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 88 E/681

Answer given by Mr Nielson on behalf of the Commission

(4 March 2004)

The Commission is aware of the general problem with regard to ownership of commercial farm land in
Namibia as well as of some individual cases of labour disputes in this context which are widely reported in
the local media.

With regard to future developments on this issue, the Commission trusts that the Government will
continue to respect the law and prevent unlawful actions. The prudent but firm statements made by the
Government on individual cases show that it fully supports the application of the agreed ‘willing buyer,
willing seller’ principle (which excludes any unlawful actions).

The Commission, through its Delegation in Namibia, has well established contacts with the responsible
Government authorities, in particular with the Minister of Land Reform and the Minister of Agriculture, as
well as with the Commercial Farmers Union (NAU) and the Namibian National Farmers Union (NNFU).
From the ongoing dialogue with these institutions, the Commission concludes that the Government
continues to ensure that any dispute is settled peacefully and in accordance with existing laws, and that it
will do its utmost to avoid any confrontation. Any negative impact on neighbouring countries (or any risk
that Namibia might follow the ‘Zimbabwean way’) appears thus excluded.

Namibia has signed with a number of Member States ‘Investment Protection Agreements’ during the recent
past. These will provide additional legal security for property and investments.

Within the framework of the Cotonou Partnership Agreement and the related Namibia-Commission
Country Strategy Paper it has been agreed that ‘Rural Development’ will be the main focal area for future
development co-operation in this country, including the issue of land reform. The Commission has indeed
acknowledged the great importance of this issue in the development of Namibia, and recognised that a
successful
land reform programme can be an effective way to consolidate the reconciliation and
democratic process in this country. Preparations for providing such assistance are under way. Ignoring
the need for land reform (cid:1) including the promotion of a more equitable distribution of land (cid:1) would be a
mistake and would weaken the fight against poverty. This is true not only for the Commissions role as a
partner in Namibia but indeed throughout the region.

(2004/C 88 E/0700)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0116/04

by Dana Scallon (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(26 January 2004)

Subject: Leader II projects (cid:1) Blue Dragon case

1.
Regarding Leader II projects, can the Commission confirm that the Kingdom of Spain is receiving
30 % of the European subsidies?. Is the Commission aware that in the Blue Dragon 2000 case, the
accounts of the GAL Salines-Bassegoda were certified by the Spanish Government? Is the Commission
aware that a sum of EUR 43 000 was transferred in France? Is the Commission aware that the Regional
Minister Josep Grau, in charge of the local control, recognised the Blue Dragon 2000 people as victims,
but that no complaint was ever lodged to any penal court?

2.
Knowing that the people of Blue Dragon supported OLAF with material evidence leading to a penal
treatment of the case from September 2000 to November 2001, is the Commission aware that, although
acknowledging irregularities, OLAF adhered to the Spanish conclusions? Can the Commission explain why
no investigation on both Spanish and French territories was opened?

3.
Knowing that an official complaint was placed against the Kingdom of Spain on 9 March 2002 by
the people of Blue Dragon, how would the Commission interpret that the validity of this complaint seems
still under scrutiny?

C 88 E/682

Official Journal of the European Union

EN

8.4.2004

The owners of Blue Dragon 2000 have experienced extreme difficulties and damages in the last five
4.
years, which they described as extreme prejudice due to important deficiencies of the shared management
process. How would the Commission advise these owners, European citizens that were willing to trust the
European system, to act in order to try to repair the moral and financial damage caused?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(2 April 2004)

The Leader II Programme that ran from 1994 to 1999 is at present in the closure stage and thus it is not
yet possible to state the exact amounts paid to each Member State.

The initial allocation to Spain was however EUR 1,162 billion, i.e. 30 % of the total budget.

OLAF has stated that its investigation was opened on 1 February 2001 and closed on 12 December 2002.

From opening onwards the Commission and OLAF shared their information on the case despite
suspension of the investigation given that national-level checks were already being made.

Following these the Spanish authorities issued an order for recovery of EUR 46 874,42 from the LAG on
account of irregularities found in management of the Blue Dragon project.

Our information is that in neither France nor Spain has judicial scrutiny led to criminal investigation. The
French authorities considered that on geographical grounds they were not competent to investigate. The
Spanish authorities did not act on the complaint owing to lack of support from the civil parties.

The Committee on Budgetary Control will very soon be receiving detailed information from OLAF on this
dossier.

The other points raised in the Honourable Member’s question, particularly in paragraphs 3 and 4, reflect
grievances raised by Blue Dragon in a complaint addressed to the Commission that we are at present
investigating. We have sent a detailed request for information to the Spanish authorities. A reply is
expected in the near future and we think it more appropriate to examine it before passing on further
information.

(2004/C 88 E/0701)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0118/04

by Monica Frassoni (Verts/ALE) and Daniel Cohn-Bendit (Verts/ALE)
to the Commission

Subject: Elimination of voters from Maltese electoral lists

(26 January 2004)

Until last year, the two major political parties in Malta used to go on a voter elimination exercise twice a
year, when thousands of rival party voters would be eliminated from the electoral register on the basis of
interpretation of residence, mental sanity, etc.

On 21 March 2003, the Constitutional Court of Malta, at the request of an injured party, gave a definition
of ‘residence’ (the Cassola Case, Judge Tonio Mallia, Case: Harry Vassallo vs the Electoral Commission and
John Mary Magro, No. 6/2003/1). The definition given by the Malta Constitutional court says:
‘the
word’residence‘does not mean physical presence in the country’.