Blog
08.March 2002 - 00:00
The investigations of malpractice continue in the European Commission
An enlarged EU needs a strong Commission, and in order to be strong the institution has to be able to recognise its weaknesses and to correct them, writes Eija-Riitta Korhola.
During the last six months there has been much talk in the corridors of the European Parliament about a new scandal, that might renew what happened three years ago. At that time, a Dutch functionary, Paul van Buitenen leaked documents detailing malpractice and corruption in the Commission. An independent so called Committee of Wise Men investigated the claims made by Buitenen, who had been serving as an inspector in the administrative department. Its report was damning and led to the resignation of the Commission in the spring 1999.
The same civil servant provided Olaf the European Anti-Fraud Office with a large report on 270 other examples of malpractice that had come to his knowledge. Last week the deadline of the preliminary investigation expired and the Commission announced a further investigation. The investigation of the case continued with altogether 39 items.
This time Buitenen has been careful not to leak anything. The case is gaining publicity and, Stern magazine among others, has obtained the material delivered to Olaf.
The present report has similarities with the events that took place three years ago, not only in relation to the initiator but also to the subject of investigations. The main focus of the previous disclosure was malpractice in the Leonardo da Vinci- education programme and in particular corruption in Edith Cresson's cabinet.
At that time Buitenen decided to reveal his information to the Parliament, because it was taking a vote on the approval of the programme with defective information. Also at this time it is said that Leonardo-programme has a prominent role in the allegations. The allegations were made when the EP was about to adopt the Leonardo- report in the Plenary session in January.
The same day the rapporteur, a German MEP, GabrielaStauner (EPP-ED) had received information revealing that Buitenen's report to Olaf also addresses irregularities in the Leonardo-programme. Stauner considered that the Commission had tried to deceive the Parliament and interpreted that, in practice, it sought kind of clearance ('Persil Schein') from the parliament: if a scandal was to erupt one could maintain that the Parliament had already approved the Commission's action. The case was referred back to the Committee.
The statutory responsibility of the European parliament is to control the Commission, which partly explains its robust criticism. The Commission should accept such criticism, but on the other hand the Parliament should be careful, that its attitude does not become inflationary.
Therefore, there is some justification for nominating the same Committee of Wise Men to evaluate the new situation; they have some experience. It would be overly optimistic to expect much interest even a payer's attentiveness from the Council, even though it pays, since it lives in cycles of presidencies changing once a half-year.
Paul van Buitenen was both the hero and villain of the 1999 scandal. The press admired his action and the Queen of the Netherlands awarded him a knighthood, but on the other hand the Commission punished its functionary, because it considered that Buitenen had broken rules binding officials by leaking confidential material.
Buitenen defended himself by saying that he had tried to act through official channels for more than a year without it leading to any measures. He referred to Article 21 of the rules binding officials that enables a civil servant to go over the heads of his superiors in a question of information on illegal acts.
Moreover the Committee of Wise Men considered in its conclusions that the Commission should have delivered relevant information in due time for the decision.
Why did the Commission not react in time? The Commission caused the scandal itself: if its self-correcting mechanism had functioned, the case would have never assumed such vast dimensions. The problem lies not really in the malpractice – hardly earth-shattering in an institution with a billion euro budget – but only in the Commission's obvious reluctance to bring out and correct them.
The Committee of Wise Men did present in its conclusions in autumn 1999, that a clear change in working culture is needed in the Commission. Therefore, for its own sake, the Commission must now resolve how it treats such allegations. Results of investigations by Olaf – sometimes criticised for not being independent – are no doubt less interesting than the Commission's attitudes to the investigations right now.
On the other hand, it is understandable that the Commission feels easily offended. The first report of the Committee of Wise Men, published 15.3.1999, ended with an immoderate generalisation: "It is more and more difficult to find anyone who would possess even the least sense of responsibility."
Now, given that the major part of the Commission's work and action can stand up to criticism, the statement sounds malicious and populist. It did go down well with the eurohostile and scandal-thirsty press and undoubtedly distanced the European Union from the common citizen even more. From a democratic point of view, not a lot of good can be seen in this kind of distancing.
In justification of Buitenen one can say, that he worked in good faith and was not motivated by hostility to Europe, the opposite. The enlarged Europe needs a strong Commission and in order to be strong, this institution needs to recognise its weaknesses and correct its errors. The EP should bear in mind that fraud investigations should not be used to transfer more power from the Commission to the Parliament. Instead the situation tests the power that it already has.
Do we want to use it in order to build or to destroy, that is a question for our conscience. It will have effects on the future of Europe for a long time.
Eija-Riitta Korhola, MEP (EPP-ED)
Helsingin Sanomat, 08.03.2002
An enlarged EU needs a strong Commission, and in order to be strong the institution has to be able to recognise its weaknesses and to correct them, writes Eija-Riitta Korhola.
During the last six months there has been much talk in the corridors of the European Parliament about a new scandal, that might renew what happened three years ago. At that time, a Dutch functionary, Paul van Buitenen leaked documents detailing malpractice and corruption in the Commission. An independent so called Committee of Wise Men investigated the claims made by Buitenen, who had been serving as an inspector in the administrative department. Its report was damning and led to the resignation of the Commission in the spring 1999.
The same civil servant provided Olaf the European Anti-Fraud Office with a large report on 270 other examples of malpractice that had come to his knowledge. Last week the deadline of the preliminary investigation expired and the Commission announced a further investigation. The investigation of the case continued with altogether 39 items.
This time Buitenen has been careful not to leak anything. The case is gaining publicity and, Stern magazine among others, has obtained the material delivered to Olaf.
The present report has similarities with the events that took place three years ago, not only in relation to the initiator but also to the subject of investigations. The main focus of the previous disclosure was malpractice in the Leonardo da Vinci- education programme and in particular corruption in Edith Cresson's cabinet.
At that time Buitenen decided to reveal his information to the Parliament, because it was taking a vote on the approval of the programme with defective information. Also at this time it is said that Leonardo-programme has a prominent role in the allegations. The allegations were made when the EP was about to adopt the Leonardo- report in the Plenary session in January.
The same day the rapporteur, a German MEP, GabrielaStauner (EPP-ED) had received information revealing that Buitenen's report to Olaf also addresses irregularities in the Leonardo-programme. Stauner considered that the Commission had tried to deceive the Parliament and interpreted that, in practice, it sought kind of clearance ('Persil Schein') from the parliament: if a scandal was to erupt one could maintain that the Parliament had already approved the Commission's action. The case was referred back to the Committee.
The statutory responsibility of the European parliament is to control the Commission, which partly explains its robust criticism. The Commission should accept such criticism, but on the other hand the Parliament should be careful, that its attitude does not become inflationary.
Therefore, there is some justification for nominating the same Committee of Wise Men to evaluate the new situation; they have some experience. It would be overly optimistic to expect much interest even a payer's attentiveness from the Council, even though it pays, since it lives in cycles of presidencies changing once a half-year.
Paul van Buitenen was both the hero and villain of the 1999 scandal. The press admired his action and the Queen of the Netherlands awarded him a knighthood, but on the other hand the Commission punished its functionary, because it considered that Buitenen had broken rules binding officials by leaking confidential material.
Buitenen defended himself by saying that he had tried to act through official channels for more than a year without it leading to any measures. He referred to Article 21 of the rules binding officials that enables a civil servant to go over the heads of his superiors in a question of information on illegal acts.
Moreover the Committee of Wise Men considered in its conclusions that the Commission should have delivered relevant information in due time for the decision.
Why did the Commission not react in time? The Commission caused the scandal itself: if its self-correcting mechanism had functioned, the case would have never assumed such vast dimensions. The problem lies not really in the malpractice – hardly earth-shattering in an institution with a billion euro budget – but only in the Commission's obvious reluctance to bring out and correct them.
The Committee of Wise Men did present in its conclusions in autumn 1999, that a clear change in working culture is needed in the Commission. Therefore, for its own sake, the Commission must now resolve how it treats such allegations. Results of investigations by Olaf – sometimes criticised for not being independent – are no doubt less interesting than the Commission's attitudes to the investigations right now.
On the other hand, it is understandable that the Commission feels easily offended. The first report of the Committee of Wise Men, published 15.3.1999, ended with an immoderate generalisation: "It is more and more difficult to find anyone who would possess even the least sense of responsibility."
Now, given that the major part of the Commission's work and action can stand up to criticism, the statement sounds malicious and populist. It did go down well with the eurohostile and scandal-thirsty press and undoubtedly distanced the European Union from the common citizen even more. From a democratic point of view, not a lot of good can be seen in this kind of distancing.
In justification of Buitenen one can say, that he worked in good faith and was not motivated by hostility to Europe, the opposite. The enlarged Europe needs a strong Commission and in order to be strong, this institution needs to recognise its weaknesses and correct its errors. The EP should bear in mind that fraud investigations should not be used to transfer more power from the Commission to the Parliament. Instead the situation tests the power that it already has.
Do we want to use it in order to build or to destroy, that is a question for our conscience. It will have effects on the future of Europe for a long time.
Eija-Riitta Korhola, MEP (EPP-ED)
Helsingin Sanomat, 08.03.2002