92003E1300

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1300/03

by Gabriele Stauner (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(7 April 2003)

Subject: Administrative investigations against Mrs Cresson

In the answer to my Written Question E-0296/03(1) Vice-President Kinnock, on behalf of the Commission, refused to give information concerning the investigations which the Commission has opened against Mrs Cresson following Parliament's resolution of 29 November 2001(2).

In paragraph 21 of the resolution on the protection of the Communities' financial interests, Parliament had recalled that, in addition to the affair involving the employment of a dentist as a scientific adviser, the ex-Commissioner had been accused:

(a) of irregular conduct as regards the award of several contracts to a firm with which she had connections, shortly before taking up office as a Commissioner;

(b) of having an expensive apartment in Brussels made available free of charge to one of her advisers;

(c) of having contracts for inconsequential studies and research awarded to a German lawyer as cover so that he could visit her office and possibly gain access to and influence sensitive cases (Leuna affair) with which the Commission was dealing at the time.

The Commission justified its refusal to answer by stating that the defendant's rights must be protected.

1. Can the Commission state how Mrs Cresson's rights as a defendant would be endangered if the Commission were to provide information revealing whether it has followed up Parliament's calls and recommendations in this matter and investigated the allegations referred to above. Would such clarifications not perhaps even be in Mrs Cresson's interest?

2. Can the Commission state how its refusal can be reconciled with Article 197 of the EC Treaty, which requires the Commission to answer questions put by Members of the European Parliament? The Commission surely cannot seriously take the view that this requirement has been met when it answers a question by stating that it has no intention of answering?

Will the Commission now give a proper answer to my Written Question E-0296/03?

(1) OJ C 192 E, 14.8.2003, p. 168.

(2) OJ C 153 E, 27.6.2002, p. 325.

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(28 May 2003)

Article 197 of the EC Treaty provides that the Commission shall reply orally or in writing to questions put to it by the European Parliament or by its Members.

The Commission has replied to Written Question E-0296/03 of the Honourable Member, explaining that the Commission decided to address a statement to Mrs Cresson and that it would not be appropriate, for reasons of confidentiality and rights of defence, to provide details of this statement.

The Commission would point out that it is a general and fundamental legal principle that nothing should be said in relation to contentious matters which are the subject of legal proceedings which might prejudice the outcome of those proceedings. The Commission regards this principle as also applying at the pre-litigation stage.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that the EC Treaty must be interpreted consistently with fundamental principles, as established by the European Court of Justice. Thus, it considers that Article 197 EC must be applied in a manner which does not imply that risks should be taken with the possible abridgement of rights of natural justice.

The Commission further notes that under the discharge for 2001, it has agreed to inform Parliament on the outcome of the procedure. That undertaking will be fulfilled.

Meanwhile, a refusal to provide information in a Parliamentary answer because of reasoned consideration of fundamental legal principles cannot fairly be construed to be a failure to answer questions in a way that deliberately or accidentally contravenes the Treaty.