91998E3616

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3616/98

by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission

(3 December 1998)

Subject: Degree of responsibility for the ECHO affair borne by the current Director of ECHO

In its answer dated 11 September 1998 to the question raised in Mr Fabra Vallés initial working document (PE 226.913) on the measures taken by the Commission in response to Special Report No 2/97 of the Court of Auditors and the ECHO affair, the Commission indicated that just one official, who had now been suspended, was suspected of involvement. Mr Fabra Vallés working document also posed questions about the degree of responsibility borne by the current Director of ECHO, given that, on 3 June 1998, he had written a letter of thanks to the firm that had perpetrated the fraud in the ECHO affair.

Will the Commission please tell me how it can continue to maintain that the current Director of ECHO could have been unaware of the suspicions against the company accused of fraud, since no "decisive" elements had been found to incriminate the now suspended official at the time when he wrote the letter?

Can the Commission continue to maintain that the current Director of ECHO was not aware of the UCLAF investigation, all the more so since, in February 1998, UCLAF investigators interviewed at length the official who has since been suspended?

Can the Commission continue to maintain that the current Director of ECHO was unaware of the fact that UCLAF was interviewing his predecessor and his predecessor's assistant?

Can the Commission agree with the statement that: either the current Director of ECHO manifestly had no clue about what was going on in his department or that the current Director of ECHO was particularly imprudent in writing a letter of thanks on 3 June 1998 to the company accused of fraud, all the more so since the relevant UCLAF report on the current inquiry had been completed as early as mid-May 1998?