92001E1527

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1527/01

by Ilda Figueiredo (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(21 May 2001)

Subject: Adulterated wine in Western Portugal

At the end of March this year various media reported that in Western Portugal 25 million litres of wine adulterated by the addition of water and spirits made from sugar cane or sugar beet had been seized.

The firm responsible had apparently already adulterated wine exported to Angola in this way in the past and had been discovered as a result of an investigation carried out by national and Community authorities, since the product received Community support for wine exports.

Can the Commission say:

- whether it knows of any cases of wine being adulterated by a firm in Western Portugal which has received Community export aid and, if so,

- how much the aid was worth and what measures were taken?

Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission

(13 July 2001)

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) reported that it had conducted an investigation in 1999 into exports of wine to Angola by a Portuguese company based in Lageosa Do Dao. The investigation found that the company in question had systematically employed illegal wine-making practices to increase the alcoholic strength of the wine, receiving export refunds worth 11 million to which it was not entitled.

OLAF's final report on the investigation was sent to the Portuguese administrative and legal authorities in March 2000. The Portuguese administrative authorities began the recovery procedure on 28 July 2000.

The Portuguese authorities issued two communications in 2000 on the basis of Council Regulation (EEC) No 595/91 of 4 March 1991 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the common agricultural policy and the organisation of an information system in this field(1).

OLAF also announced that it had requested information from the Portuguese authorities on 10 April 2001 following further reports in the Portuguese press in March 2001. The Portuguese authorities replied that the evidence in their possession led them to conclude that no Community funds were involved in this case. They also invoked the confidentiality of the investigation. This case did not give rise to any communication under Regulation (EEC) No 595/91. This Regulation requires Member States, during the two months following the end of each quarter, to communicate to the Commission a list of irregularities which have been the subject of primary administrative or judicial findings of fact.

(1) OJ L 67, 14.3.1991.