WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/99 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Abandoned building project for a further training centre in Agios Dimitrios, Pelion, Greece.
21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/1 I (Information) EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (2000/C 330 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-0466/99 by Georg Jarzembowski (PPE-DE) to the Commission (5 March 1999) Subject: Abandoned building project for a further training centre in Agios Dimitrios, Pelion, Greece Work began on the construction of a further training centre, the EKTA (WZLS) building, for the local authority in Agios Dimitrios/Pelion, province of Magnesia in 1994. According to the signboards at the site, the Community budgetí is funding the project, to the value of some DM 40 million (GRD 600 000 000). However, once the foundations had been laid, the project was halted in 1995, since when the condition of the site has deteriorated and building materials have been unlawfully removed. Can the Commission answer the following: 1. Why was construction of this further training centre halted? Is the Commission contemplating a resumption of the work? 2. How much of the estimate of GRD 600 million has been paid out, and under which budget heading? 3. What form of control is being exercised over the company responsible for planning supervision, ERGODYNAMIKI GmbH? 4. Does the Commission intend to initiate action for recovery against those responsible? Supplementary answer given by Mr Barnier on behalf of the Commission (18 February 2000) 1. According to information received from the Greek authorities, the project of the Centre for the Continuing Training of Local Authoritiesí at Agios Dimitrios/Pelion was planned to be implemented in two phases. The first phase was planned, implemented and co-funded through the Community support framework (CSF) for Greece during the 1989-1993 programming period. The second phase is to be concluded within the CSF for the 1994-1999 period. The first phase was co-funded by the European regional development fund for a total amount of 2. 200 million drachmas, under the budget line B2-1200. 3. The management of projects is decentralised to the Member States and it therefore lies within the responsability of the Greek authorities to exercise the appropriate controls whenever contractual problems arise with companies that have undertaken to execute CSF projects. In this case, the Ministry of the National Economy is the responsible authority. C 330 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 The Ministry of the National Economy has already sent a letter to KEDKE, the projectís implementing 4. agency, requesting the immediate completion of the project if it is to be funded through the 1994-1999 CSF or to ensure its completion through the agencyís own resources. Should the project not be completed, the Commission will recuperate the Community funds which had been allocated. (2000/C 330 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1482/99 by Lucio Manisco (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (1 September 1999) Subject: The case of the Commission official Paul van Buitenen Mr Paul van Buitenen supplied the budgetary control authority with information concerning dysfunctions and fraudulent activities within the Commission. The Santer Commission punished him severely by suspending him from his duties, banning him from entering Commission premises and reducing his salary by half. He was subsequently reinstated at the Commission but was assigned to a less important post. Does the new Commission agree that, pursuant to the Treaties, the European Parliament is a budget 1. and budgetary control authority? Does it not therefore think that the official in question acted in accordance with the Treaties by 2. turning to the budgetary authority? Does the Commission not think that Mr van Buitenen should be rewarded for demonstrating such a 3. high sense of civic responsibility and bringing democracy to an institution such as the Commission? 4. What steps does the Commission intend to take so as to enable Mr van Buitenen to return to his former post? 5. What action does the Commission intend to take so as to ensure that those who were Mr van Buitenenís hierarchical superiors at the time he made his disclosure are at least transferred from their current posts in which they have responsibility for financial control? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 March 2000) Parliament is one of the budgetary authorities of the European Communities and may grant or refuse 1. the Commission a discharge for the budget. 2. and 3. Mr Paul van Buitenen was formally reprimanded because, without authorisation, he broke the rules in force for officials of the European Communities by divulging documents outside the Commission which related to cases that were under examination by the judicial authorities and also the subject of disciplinary proceedings, thus compromising the principle of the presumption of innocence. In coming to its decision, the employing authority took account of the fact that the information had been commu- nicated to a Member of the European Parliament and recognised that a strict application of the relevant rules might not be in accordance with the appropriate standard of openness. It was in the light of these circumstances that the Commission imposed a formal reprimand which is the second most moderate penalty for infringements of the Staff Regulations. The Commission would draw the Honourable Memberís attention to the fact that, in accordance with the Commission Decision concerning investigations carried out by the Task Force on Coordination of the fight against fraud of 14 July 1998, officials having knowledge of the existence of presumed irregularities were obliged to inform their Directors-general or Head of service or, if they considered it useful, the Task Force directly. Since the entry into force of Commission Decision 1999/396 concerning the terms and conditions for internal investigations in relation to the prevention of fraud, corruption and any illegal