WRITTEN QUESTION P-1555/99 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission. UCLAF investigation.
1. 8. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 219 E/9 (2000/C 219 E/012) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1555/99 by Roberto Bigliardo (TDI) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: UCLAF investigation Is the Commission aware of reports in the quality press that Bernhard Friedman, Member of the Court of Auditors, has asked Commissioner Liikanen (reconfirmed in the new Commission) to explain why the disciplinary proceedings against the former director of the European humanitarian aid office (ECHO) have been suspended? Friedman contends that the disciplinary boardís decision runs counter to the inquiry conducted by UCLAF, the Commissionís anti-fraud unit. According to UCLAF, the former director signed three of the four contracts involved in the ECHO scandal (disappearance of BEF 100 million intended for Bosnia). Could the Commission clarify the following points as a matter of urgency: 1. Did the disciplinary board that cleared the former director take full account of the UCLAF report? 2. If not, why is the board not reopening the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of Article 11 of Annex IX of the Staff Regulations? 3. What steps have been taken by Commissioner Liikanen, who is responsible for staff policy, to find out where responsibility lies for the ECHO scandal involving the disappearance or misappropriation of substantial amounts from the Community budget? 4. Does the Commission not agree that the public could see this situation as an attempt to cover up the scandals that forced it to resign? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (11 October 1999) 1. The Disciplinary Board was fully aware of the content of UCLAFís report of 18 May 1998. 2. In order to reopen disciplinary proceedings, there must be new facts based on relevant evidence. At this juncture the Commission is not aware of any new facts which were not taken into account by the Disciplinary Board. 3. The Member of the Commission responsible for staff matters is the Appointing Authority with delegated power to open disciplinary proceedings against officials in grades A1 and grades A2 where that is appropriate on the basis of evidence. In the exercise of this delegated power, the Commissioner then responsible accordingly decided in the case referred to in the Honourable Memberís question to open disciplinary proceedings against an A1 official. Another set of proceedings resulted in the dismissal of an official and a third set of proceedings is underway. In addition ü and apart from the staff from ECHO, the examination of responsibility has given rise to two other disciplinary proceedings ü one currently in progress and the other having been concluded by a decision to demote the individual concerned. 4. The Commission emphasises that, in disciplinary matters, an official is presumed innocent until a possible final disciplinary measure is taken against him. A period of time will also elapse between the time when facts giving rise to the suspicion of fraud are discovered and the time when the possible decision disciplining the official is taken. The overall time taken may be lengthy, but it is essential to recognise that disciplinary proceedings must always respect the rights of the defence in the interests of natural justice. No ácover-upí is intended, and no ácover upí exists. The procedure must be followed properly in all cases, and that is well understood by the public that values thoroughness in the execution of law and rules