WRITTEN QUESTION P-0196/00 by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Irregularities and fraud at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra.
C 303 E/158 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 24. 10. 2000 Joint answer to Written Questions E-0189/00 and E-0190/00 given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (23 February 2000) After having noticed that Moroccan exports of tomatoes to the Community exceeded the agreed limits, and after unsuccessful consultations with the Moroccan authorities, the Commission introduced Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999 of 23 December 1999 introducing a system of licences for imports of tomatoes from Morocco (1). Following new consultations and the firm engagement from the Moroccan side to respect the agreed quantities during the current marketing year, the Commission repealed the import licences by Regulation (EC) No 188/2000 of 26 January 2000 (2), while committing itself to enhance the existing import control mechanisms. If necessary, the import licences system could be re-introduced. The regulation establishing import licences was adopted by management committee procedure on the legal basis of Article 3 of Decision 95/35/EC of 19 December 1994 on the conclusion of an Agreement in the form of exchange of letters between the Community and the Morocco on the regime for imports into the Community of tomatoes and courgettes originating in and imported from Morocco (3). Following the same procedure and the same legal basis, Regulation (EC) No 2767/1999 was repealed. The Commission repealed the regulation on import licences following the renewed commitment from Morocco to respect, for the current marketing year, the terms of the above-mentioned exchange of letters, foreseeing a limitation of total exports of tomatoes to 145 676 tonnes for the period November 1999 to March 2000. The Commission has committed itself tomatoes in the Community with the co-operation of Member Statesí customs and will re-introduce import certificates if Morocco does not respect the agreed quantities. to enhance existing controls of imports of (1) OJ L 333, 24. 12. 1999. (2) OJ L 22, 27. 1. 2000. (3) OJ L 48, 3. 3. 1995. (2000/C 303 E/175) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0196/00 by Mario Mantovani (PPE-DE) to the Commission (27 January 2000) Subject: Irregularities and fraud at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra A number of alarming reports of irregularities and fraud at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra have recently appeared in the Italian press, in particular in the province of Varese. The reports claim that the Centre has misused Community funds. The JRC is said to have shown a lack of professionalism by awarding contracts on the basis of árecommendationsí and to tenderers who fail to meet the tender requirements. The same newspapers also report that the 1998 Report on combating fraudí mentions the JRC and that the Centre is still under investigation. What reports have been produced on the aspects of the investigation which are considered closed? Above all, what steps have been taken to deal with those responsible for fraud affecting the EU budget? What has emerged from the on-going aspects of the investigation and what action has been or will be taken? 24. 10. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 303 E/159 Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (24 February 2000) The Commission would point out that the 1998 annual report Protecting the Communityís financial interests and the fight against fraud, which contains only a selection of the cases investigated, does not refer to the case mentioned by the Honourable Member (1). The case in question relates to presumed irregularities or fraud in the management of public contracts at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra, notably with regard to the provision of services. The events took place between 1994 and 1996. Administrative inquiries carried out by the Commission concluded that irregularities had been committed in the award of contracts. A decision was taken to take disciplinary action in respect of four members of staff. The files have been sent to the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) for examination. (1) COM(1999) 590 final. (2000/C 303 E/176) WRITTEN QUESTION P-0197/00 by Elly Plooij-van Gorsel (ELDR) to the Commission Subject: Reduction of the VAT rate for labour-intensive services (27 January 2000) As part of the European experiment to reduce VAT on a number of labour-intensive services, the VAT rate, inter alia for hairdressers, was reduced from 17,5 % to 6 % in the Netherlands on 1 January 2000. Reports in the press, number of hairdressers are not passing this VAT reduction on to consumers. including from the Dutch hairdressers association, ANKO, indicate that a large Does the Commission share the view that as a result the aim of the directive, which is to reduce 1. moonlighting and create more jobs, is being thwarted? Does the Commission consider that the criteria of Article 1 of the directive are not satisfied if prices 2. are not being reduced as a consequence of the reduction in the tax rate? 3. What does the Commission intend to do in this case? Answer given by Mr Bolkestein on behalf of the Commission (21 February 2000) The Commission has not to date been informed of the situation described by the Honourable Member. Job creation is indeed the aim of Council Directive 1999/85/EC of 22 October 1999 amending Directive 77/388/EEC as regards the possibility of applying on an experiment basis a reduced VAT rate on labour- the measure is an experiment, which must demonstrate that a VAT intensive services (1). However, reduction actually helps achieve that objective. It is for the national authorities to take the necessary steps to put the experiment into effect. The results must then be assessed by the Member States and reported to the Commission, which will analyse them with a view to deciding on follow-up action. (1) OJ L 277, 28. 10. 1999