92001E1139

WRITTEN QUESTION E-1139/01

by Edward McMillan-Scott (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(10 April 2001)

Subject: Fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit

Has the Commission received the money owed to it by Mr Tzoanos and Mr Chatillon in accordance with the judgements of the French courts in the case last autumn about fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit?

If not, what steps is the Commission taking to ensure that this money is paid?

What disciplinary steps has the Commission taken to deal with the Commission officials who, knowingly or unknowingly, allowed the frauds in the Commission's Tourism Unit for which Mr Tzoanos and Mr Chatillon were found guilty in the French courts last year? How many of them have been promoted or demoted?

What information does the Commission possess about why the case to be brought before the Belgian courts concerning the allegations of fraud involving Mr Tzoanos and Mr Chatillon in the Commission's Tourism Unit is taking so long to come to court?

Why did the case recently concluded in the French courts about fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit not cover the European Year of Tourism and the actions of persons inside and outside the Commission who have been alleged to have been involved?

What action if any has the Commission taken to deprive Mr Tzoanos of his pension following his conviction in the French courts for fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit?

What disciplinary action does the Commission intend to take with regard to past and present staff who were involved in the events concerning Mr Tzoanos which were the subject of the judgement against the Commission in the recent IPK case in the European Court of Justice?

Now that the existence of fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit in the early 1990s has been proved in a French court, will the Commission accept that the statements made to the European Parliament by various Commissioners denying that fraud had taken place were completely incorrect; will it express its gratitude in some appropriate manner to those persons who, in some cases at some risk to their careers, brought the fraudulent activities of Mr Tzoanos and Mr Chatillon, and the attempts by senior Commission staff to deny what happened, to public notice?

Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

(12 September 2001)

An appeal case relating to fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit is still pending, awaiting the decision of the Tribunal de première instance de Paris. According to French law, the outcome of this case may affect the judgement against both officials concerned, even though one of them has not appealed. The judgement cannot, therefore, yet be considered as final and definitive. The Honourable Member's statement in his last question, that the existence of fraud in the Commission's Tourism Unit in the early 1990s has been proved in a French court, is consequently still subject to confirmation by the Appeal Court.

On measures to be taken to ensure that the money owed will be reimbursed when the sentence is final and definitive: as partie civile in this case, the Commission has been able to request the Belgian judicial authorities' permission to freeze the pension payments of the official considered to be primarily responsible with a view to later recovery, depending on the judgement of the Tribunal de première instance de Paris. This will contribute to partial recovery of the money owed. On 28 June 2001, the Brussels Court of First Instance granted the freezing, as requested, of 1 150 000. The preliminary hearings for the appeal case in Paris took place in January 2001 and a judgement is not expected until the end of this year. Additional follow-up with a view to recovering the full amount can only be considered by the Commission once the judgement is final and definitive. At that stage the Commission will consider several relevant matters and will give specific attention to the question of whether to invoke Article 22 of the Staff Regulations in this case.

Regarding the judgement of the Tribunal de première instance de Paris, the Commission can confirm that in this criminal proceeding, the European Year of Tourism (EYT) projects were not included and it was based on the subsequent programme Tourism Action Plan projects. However, details relating to the EYT funded projects, and the documents and the observations made by the European Court of Auditors were passed on to the French administrative authorities and to France's Court of Auditors in 1996. To date, these projects have not been the subject of any formal complaint to the French judicial authorities. As soon as the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) became aware that these authorities had the facts about the EYT projects, it asked the judicial authorities in charge of the criminal proceedings to take these into consideration. The judicial authorities did not do so, however, on the grounds that those facts were covered by the Statute of Limitations and did not relate to the case being tried (based on the Tourism Action Plan).

In keeping with the undertaking which the Commission gave in its report to Parliament and the Court of Auditors in July 1998, the Commission services are continuing to finalise the exact amounts that are due to the Commission from the European Year of Tourism beneficiaries and will inform the Paris Prosecutor of all the salient information in due course.

In its handling of this case, the Commission has launched several disciplinary procedures. Allegations against the main official responsible are the subject of criminal proceedings initiated in France (see above) and, in accordance with the Staff Regulations, the Commission's proceedings have been suspended until a final and definitive judgement has been taken by the competent courts. Where allegations have arisen which are not covered by these criminal cases, the Commission has completed the disciplinary procedures, and has dismissed both officials. The appeal lodged against this decision by the official primarily responsible was rejected by the Court of First Instance and subsequently by the Court of Justice of the European Communities.

In response to the Honourable Member's question about the duration of the Belgian court case and the subject of the judgement given earlier in France, the Commission draws attention to the fact that the Institution is obliged to respect the sovereignty of the Member States and the focus and the scope of their criminal proceedings are entirely a matter for decision by their national judicial authorities.

The recent IPK-case to which the Honourable Member refers to is still pending before the Court of Justice.

The Commission believes that the obligation to report irregularities is part of the duty of loyalty that its members of staff owe the Institution as an employer and the Commission agrees with the Honourable Member that officials who bring such irregularities to light through the channels established in the Regulation should suffer no adverse consequences as a result of their responsible action. In 1999, the Commission consequently improved its regime for providing safe and effective channels for reporting serious wrongdoings and offering protection for the reporting official. As part of the Commission Reform proposals currently being considered by the relevant bodies the Commission has proposed further strengthening and extension of this regime.