WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/99 by Lennart Sacrédeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission. Reprimanding of Paul van Buitenen.
28. 12. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 374 E/1 I (Information) EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT WRITTEN QUESTIONS WITH ANSWER (2000/C 374 E/001) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2031/99 by Lennart SacrØdeus (PPE-DE) to the Commission (3 November 1999) Subject: Reprimanding of Paul van Buitenen The case of Mr van Buitenen has been the subject of debate all over Europe ever since he released the documents that revealed irregularities in the Commission. He has been honoured for his courage by organisations such as the Taxpayersí Association, yet reprimanded by the Commissionís disciplinary committee. Commissioner Kinnock has himself, like the committee that issued the reprimand, acknowl- edged that the rules were unclear and inadequate at the time. In view of the help Mr van Buitenenís actions have been in making possible changes to the rules as well as serious action to tackle the problems of fraud, is the reprimand really justified? Does the Commission consider that the changes now being made to the rules governing Commission staff go far enough, or is it thinking of exploring further the possibilities for introducing a right to disclose information such as already exists for instance in Sweden? Answer given by Mr Kinnock on behalf of the Commission (3 March 2000) The Commission wishes to inform the Honourable Member of the fact that the disciplinary board provided for in the Staff Regulation may be requested to give an opinion to the appointing authority concerning an eventual disciplinary measure to be adopted. However, the appointing authority has the right to issue a written warning or a reprimand without consulting the disciplinary board. In the case to which the Honourable Member refers, the disciplinary board was not consulted. Mr Paul van Buitenen was given a formal reprimand because, without authorisation, he broke the rules 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 communicated 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 infringe- ments 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 Co-ordination 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 Heads 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 C 374 E/2 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 28. 12. 2000 activity detrimental to the Communitiesí interests (1), they shall inform their Heads of service or Directors- general or, if they consider it useful, the Secretary-general of the Commission or OLAF directly. Officials who provided or provide such information through those means had and have the guarantee that they shall in no way suffer inequitable or discriminatory treatment as a result of providing it. In the context of its administrative reforms, the Commission is in the process of developing an improved system which will ensure that, in addition to present provisions, officials who fulfil their duty to report evidence of alleged wrongdoing have further equitable and effective means for reporting, and obtaining thorough and active response to, their concerns and evidence. (1) OJ L 149, 16. 6. 1999. (2000/C 374 E/002) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2280/99 by Bartho Pronk (PPE-DE) to the Commission (24 November 1999) Subject: Promise of financial aid to Kosovo On Tuesday, 9 November 1999 Mrs Schleyer, speaking at a meeting of the Committee on Budgets that was open to the public, said ü by way of elucidation of the Commissionís proposal to make ü 500 million available to Kosovo ü that a number of representatives of the Union had promised at various conferences to come up with approximately half of the money needed for Kosovo. 1. Which representatives have made such promises? 2. On what occasion? 3. What sums have been promised? 4. Were the representatives authorised to make such promises? 5. Were the promises made subject to Parliamentís approval having to be obtained for the sums involved? Answer given by Mr Patten on behalf of the Commission (13 March 2000) The European Council of Cologne (June 1999) confirmed áthe European Unionís commitment to take a leading role in the reconstruction efforts in Kosovoí and called on other donors to participate generously in the reconstruction effort. In this statement, the Union recognised the importance of assisting in the recovery of Kosovo and the responsibility the Union has in supporting the province in this process. for the creation of the agency (1), submitted in the context of a proposal for the In its proposal modification of the Obnova Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 851/98 of 20 April 1998 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/96 relating to aid for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2)), the Commission indicated for the first time its estimates of the needs for the reconstruction effort in Kosovo. The first phase of reconstruction efforts have been estimated between € 500 million and € 700 million per year over the three years 2000-2002. Overall financial assistance of USD 2 300 million, on highly concessional terms, has been estimated to support a four to five year reconstruction and recovery programme. Based on a comprehensive assessment report: Towards stability and prosperity: a programme for jointly prepared by the World Bank and the Commission, an reconstruction and recovery in Kosovoí external financing requirement of USD 1 100 million has been estimated for 2000, with housing, energy and private sector development as being priority areas. The Commission expressed its willingness to support this programme. During the second donorsí conference in November 1999, an indicative figure of € 500 million for Community assistance was pledged, in the light also of the first reading of the draft 2000 budget