WRITTEN QUESTION E-1071/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission. Effectiveness of OLAF in combating ESF fraud in Catalonia.
26. 1. 2001 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 26 E/151 On 11 March 2000, at the Spanish-French border that separates Basque people, Paris sent police forces to hinder the passage of Basque citizens going to a popular march in the northern town of Bayonne. The goal of this gathering was to denounce the dispersal of Basque political prisoners all over France and Spain and the violation of their rights and those of their relatives. The French Government, with full agreement from Madrid, put into force Article 2 of the Schengen Convention that exceptionally allows border close downs. Paradoxically, we witness that, while the Vienna march was encouraged, that of Bayonne was forbidden. 1. Can the EU Member States tell European citizens which human rights they are allowed to defend? Can the Schengen provisions, as used by the French Government, thoroughly revoke fundamental 2. rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights and the very principle of free movement of persons inside the EU? 3. Can the Basques live in an EU without their internal iron curtain? Reply (8 June 2000) The Council would inform the Honourable Member that in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Schengen Convention áif public policy or national security require immediate actioní a Member State may temporarily reinstate checks at its borders and áat the earliest opportunity shall informí the other Member States. The free movement of persons established by the Treaty establishing the European Community (TEC) and the exercise of the fundamental human rights guaranteed by the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) may therefore be restricted when the Member States exercise their responsibilities under such circumstances (see Article 64(1) of the TEC and Articles 10(2) and 11(2) of the ECHR). Under such circumstances and in accordance with the decision SCH/Com-ex (95) 20 rev. 2 of 20 December 1995 of the Executive Committee set up by the Schengen Convention, which has been integrated into the framework of the European Union, the French Government notified the Council of its decision to reinstate temporarily, that is on 11 March 2000, checks on persons at the Franco-Spanish land border for reasons of public policy. The Council acknowledged that notification. Neither the Council nor the Commission, as guardian of the TEC, have seen any reason to question the French Governmentís decision. In this context, the Council would remind the Honourable Member that, in any event, responsibility for maintaining law and order on the territory of the Member States of the European Union falls within the exclusive competence of the authorities of each Member State. The Council is not authorised to take a position on a matter which does not fall within the scope of the powers conferred upon it by the Treaties. (2001/C 26 E/188) WRITTEN QUESTION E-1071/00 by Joan Colom i Naval (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Effectiveness of OLAF in combating ESF fraud in Catalonia In recent years there have been repeated accusations of suspected fraud and irregularities in the manage- ment of the European Social Fund (ESF) in Catalonia, Spain. According to some sources, questionable activities undertaken in the 1990s could account for close to EUR 100 million. In the answers it provided to written questions on these matters during the last parliamentary term, the Commission stated that it was unable to report on the results of UCLAF activities, since they were sub judice. C 26 E/152 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 26. 1. 2001 Reports of the misappropriation of € 9 million of Community funds, primarily from the ESF, by the Catalan authorities have resurfaced in the Spanish media in recent days. Some of those already implicated in previous cases are said to have been involved. The Commission has failed to give details of the outcome of the investigations and activities conducted by UCLAF or by its successor, OLAF, in spite of the ample time it has had in which to do so, the action taken by the Spanish police, and the fact that the courts have ordered international letters rogatory. if any, have emerged from UCLAF or OLAF Can the Commission say what conclusions or results, activities? Does it believe that OLAFís work on these cases can be described as áeffectiveí? What shortcomings as regards legislation or funding are preventing OLAF from fulfilling its remit promptly? Answer given by Ms Schreyer on behalf of the Commission (22 June 2000) The Honourable Member is asked to refer to the Commissionís answer to his Written Question P-258/99 (1), in which it stated that the Task Force for Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) had offered to cooperate with the Spanish judicial authorities. Since then, the Commission has been in regular contact with the Spanish authorities, both at central government level (UAFSE ü the unit responsible for administering the ESF) and in Catalonia (Directorate- General for Employment), while taking on board reports appearing in the press. The information received by the Commission through these channels has proved insufficient or even incomplete. Nevertheless, the Commission is still in contact with the above-mentioned authorities. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (2) has informed the Commission that, having received no reports under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 of 11 July 1994 concerning irregularities and the recovery of sums wrongly paid in connection with the financing of the structural policies and the organisation of an information system in this field (3), it recently reminded the Spanish authorities of the Member Statesí obligation to report all fraud cases, including, where appropriate, new allegations appearing in the press. OLAF has also informed the Commission that the Spanish authorities have not requested its assistance. Under Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communitiesí interests against fraud and other irregularities (4), referred to in the new legislation on the financial establishment of OLAF, the Commission must take account of the inspections in progress or already carried out by the Member State, on the basis of its legislation, in respect of the same facts with regard to the economic operators concerned. (1) OJ C 348, 3. 12. 1999. (2) OLAF succeeded the Task Force for Coordination of Fraud Prevention on 1 June 1999. See the legislation published in OJ L 136, 31. 5. 1999. (3) OJ L 178, 12. 7. 1994. (4) OJ L 292, 15. 11. 1996. (2001/C 26 E/189) WRITTEN QUESTION P-1073/00 by Gary Titley (PSE) to the Commission (4 April 2000) Subject: Euratom loans to the applicant countries Loans by Euratom to the applicant countries are currently made solely on the basis of improving the safety of their old Soviet-era nuclear power plants, pending their eventual closure