92003E0567

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0567/03

by Armando Cossutta (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

(27 February 2003)

Subject: Conflict of interests at the Commission

Mr Detlef Eckert, head of the INFSO.01 unit (Analysis, policy planning, eEurope strategy formulation unit reporting to the Director-General) has been granted unpaid leave (CCP) for three years.

According to the Financial Times, Mr Eckert is currently working for Microsoft. It would appear that he dealt with the Microsoft case and the firm's dominant position as part of his responsibilities in formulating a strategy for the sector, as confirmed by Mr Ed Black, President of the Computer & Communications Industry Association.

1. What administrative measures does the Commission intend to take vis-à-vis this manifest instance of a conflict of interests?

2. On what information did the Commission's spokesman base his statement that Mr Eckert had not dealt with the Microsoft case, given that the people he was in contact with firmly maintain that the opposite was true?

3. What investigations has the Commission conducted into the damage which any proven convergence of interests between Mr Eckert and Microsoft would cause to EU industries and the Commission's supplies?

4. Can the Commission guarantee that the competition services, placed under the authority of Commissioner Monti, did not receive information, however incomplete, on the Microsoft case?

5. Does the Commission not consider, in any case, that all the strategies relating to the IT sector should immediately be reviewed?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(12 May 2003)

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that an official on unpaid leave (CCP) is subject to the same obligations as an official in active employment, namely the obligations of independence, dignity and confidentiality.

In the event of the Commission learning that an official is engaging in an activity that has not been authorised or that an authorised activity is being exercised in a way that is not consistent with his or her obligations, the Commission will take appropriate measures.

The Honourable Member may be aware that the Commission is currently considering whether it would be appropriate to establish more detailed rules governing the granting of CCP and the conduct of officials on such leave.

With regard to the case raised by the Honourable Member, it must be pointed out that the Directorates-General of the Commission have to be in contact with the various players of the sectors for which they have responsibility. Hence it is possible for any enterprise to be in contact with the Directorate-General for the Information Society.

As far as questions regarding competition are concerned, the Information Society DG, like the other Directorates-General, is associated with the inter-service consultations of the Competition DG, which is the lead department for such questions.

It should be noted that, in this case, the official in question was asked to sign declarations, especially to the effect that he would respect the obligations imposed on him by the Staff Regulations in order to ensure that he was aware of all potential consequences.