Choose the experimental features you want to try

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 92001E000935

    WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Responsibility of a Commission official.

    Ú. v. ES C 350E, 11.12.2001, p. 60–61 (ES, DA, DE, EL, EN, FR, IT, NL, PT, FI, SV)

    European Parliament's website

    92001E0935

    WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/01 by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Responsibility of a Commission official.

    Official Journal 350 E , 11/12/2001 P. 0060 - 0061


    WRITTEN QUESTION E-0935/01

    by Jonas Sjöstedt (GUE/NGL) to the Commission

    (28 March 2001)

    Subject: Responsibility of a Commission official

    In the fraud case involving Messrs. Perry Lux, some of the few project documents that remained showed that Mr Gomes-Reino, the Director of ECHO, had signed three or four contracts with Perry Lux and Hubert Onidi one. The latter was forced out of his post at the Commission. Mr Gomes-Reino on the other hand was absolved by the Commission.

    Does the Commission thereby consider that a Commission official holding a director's post can sign and hence approve a project but not subsequently have to take responsibility for its negative consequences?

    Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission

    (11 June 2001)

    The Commission draws the attention of the Honourable Member to the fact that the various disciplinary proceedings opened in connection with the Perry Lux-European Community's Humanitarian Office (ECHO) file included a case against Mr Gómez Reino.

    The proceedings were instituted to clarify Mr Gómez Reino's responsibility as Director of ECHO. Particular attention was given to the lawfulness of certain contracts signed by him for the intended purpose of implementing humanitarian aid measures but inter alia used instead to obtain the human resources needed for implementing those measures.

    Following due disciplinary process, none of the allegations against Mr Gómez Reino was found to be justified in fact or in law. He was cleared of the charges brought against him in the disciplinary proceedings on the grounds that he could not be held responsible for the acts of which he was accused since they were concealed from him. At no time was Mr Gómez Reino accused of deriving any personal benefit from any irregularities.

    As in all other cases, the decision taken in the disciplinary proceedings which were the subject of the Honourable Member's question is final unless new evidence comes to light. No new evidence has become available.

    Top