91997E3888

WRITTEN QUESTION P-3888/97 by Martin Schulz (PSE) to the Commission (27 November 1997)

Subject: Sexual abuse of children at the Clovis crèche

1. Is the Commission aware that the Belgian public prosecution service is investigating the suspected sexual abuse of children at the Clovis interinstitutional crèche?

2. Is it true that the Clovis crèche is operated by the private Belgian firm Esedra on Commission premises and on the basis of a contract between the firm and the Commission?

3. Is it true that some of the firm's staff employed at the crèche are being held on remand on suspicion of sexual abuse?

4. Since when has the Commission been aware of this suspicion?

5. Did the Commission learn of these circumstances from the Belgian public prosecution service or was there previous information? If so, from whom?

6. Who is responsible within the Commission for events at the crèche?

(a) Which Commissioner?

(b) Which directorate-general? Which official within that directorate-general?

7. When were the persons referred to in paragraph 6 informed of these developments?

8. What steps have the above-mentioned persons and services taken in this matter, and when were those steps taken?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (7 January 1998)

Since June 1995, the Clovis crèche has been managed by Esedra, a subsidiary of the Italian firms Artistea and CIR established under Belgian law, with which the Commission concluded a contract in June 1995 following an invitation to tender published in the Official Journal in December 1994.

The person who was remanded in custody on 29 October 1997 is a member of Reggio, an Italian firm which acts as educational consultant for Esedra. This person was released provisionally by the Court of First Instance on 1 December 1997.

On 2 June 1997, the Commission was informed unofficially by the Director of the crèche that on 29 and 30 May 1997 a parent had expressed his fears that his child had been sexually abused. Although the parent did not approach the Commission, the Commission contacted the parent, who requested it not to intervene. Nevertheless, the Commission's Security Office was notified and it helped parents in the steps they took outside the Commission. It also cooperated actively with the Belgian judicial authorities, who are exclusively responsible for investigating events of this nature, and in particular for taking the precautionary measures required for the efficient conduct of the inquiry.

From the outset, the Commission sought to act in the interests of the children and parents concerned while following the instructions on confidentiality imposed by the Brussels public prosecutor's office. Initially, it operated informally with staff representatives, the management of the crèche and the parents' association. Subsequently, it set up a crisis unit as the best means of meeting the information needs of parents and staff. Several communications and information meetings have been organised for the parents since then, and they will continue to be organised as long as necessary, although it must be stressed that the Commission received little information throughout the inquiry.

The first official communication the Commission received relating to suspected acts of paedophilia in the Clovis crèche dates from 21 October 1997, when the Belgian judicial authorities requested permission to enter the building. In a second communication from the public prosecutor's office dated 14 November, the Commission was informed of certain details relating to the judicial inquiry of which it previously had no knowledge, the most important of which are: 'that a file was submitted for examination to the Brussels' public prosecutor's office on 28 June 1997 ..., an examining magistrate wishes investigators to visit the building ... and a photo file to be established ..., the Commission had agreed to the performance of all relevant judicial tasks ..., the inquiry is based on statements by the parents ..., the case is being investigated ..., some parents have expressly requested the examining judge to exercise discretion in this inquiry for their children's sake'.

The Security Office reports to the President of the Commission. The unit responsible for monitoring management by the sub-contractor is the Welfare Policy Unit in DG IX, which comes under the Member of the Commission responsible for personnel and administration.