WRITTEN QUESTION No. 3614/98 by Nelly MAES to the Commission. Confirmation of press reports of instances of nepotism in the ECHO affair
C 182/108 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 6. 1999 In 1997, 15 projects to inform European public opinion on development issues relating to fair trade were financed under budget heading B7-6000. The amounts provided by the Commission (up to 50 % of the total cost of each project) totalled some EUR 2,9 million. In 1998, 21 projects were approved or about to be committed under that budget heading, totalling some EUR 3,7 million. For some years, the Commission has been cofinancing labelling projects by NGOs or the organisations operating ‘World Shops’ or which disseminate codes of conduct. (1999/C 182/143) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3613/98 by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission (3 December 1998) Subject: Real scale of the ECHO affair The European Commission says that only BEF 20 million was actually involved in the ECHO affair and not BEF 96 million, as some people claimed. How can the Commission make this statement? If UCLAF establishes that the four contracts were bogus and that payments were made on the basis of bogus documents, we can only assume that all the expenditure, i. e. the entire BEF 96 million, was paid out in a totally irregular manner. Is that true? Is the Commission prepared to demand repayment of the entire BEF 96 million? Then can the Commission confirm that the ECHO affair does not extend beyond the four bogus contracts for humanitarian aid to the former Yugoslavia and the Great Lakes region in Africa? Can it state with any degree of certainty that bogus invoices and bogus contracts were not used on other occasions? Is the current ECHO affair an exception to the rule, or were there other similar cases? The Commission stated that, in previous years, the company involved was awarded contracts worth almost one billion (Belgian) francs. Has an inquiry now been carried out in order to ascertain whether the other contracts which the Commission concluded with the company involved were executed in a regular manner? (1999/C 182/144) WRITTEN QUESTION E-3614/98 by Nelly Maes (ARE) to the Commission (3 December 1998) Subject: Confirmation of press reports of instances of nepotism in the ECHO affair Can the Commission confirm press reports that the official suspended because of his role in the ECHO affair managed to secure jobs for his relatives and friends in ECHO’s external unit? Is there any truth in the press reports that the suspended official found a job for his spouse as a translator in the companies suspected of fraud in the ECHO affair?