EU rapport van wijzen

[Lousewies van der Laan]

Laurens Jan Brinkhorst heeft net om het aftreden van de Europese Commissie
gevraagd.
Belangstellenden kunnen op www.europa.eu.int (daarna op news klikken) het
Rapport van Wijzen lezen.
De meeste belastende stukken heb ik er even uit gehaald en hieronder geplakt.
Enerzijds is het geen wonder dat PvdA en CDA nu ook "om" zijn en de Commissie
naar huis willen sturen. Anderzijds was al deze informatie allang bekend en kun
je je afvragen of het van hen niet puur politiek opportunisme is om nu wel met
ons (en de VVD) mee te stemmen. Lijkt mij een leuke vraag voor tijdens de
campagne....
Lousewies van der Laan

9.2.1. Throughout its series of hearings, and during its examination of the
files, the Committee has observed that Commissioners sometimes argued that they
were not aware of what was happening in their services. Undoubted instances of
fraud and corruption in the Commission have thus passed ’unnoticed’ at the
level of the Commissioners themselves.

9.2.2. While such affirmations, if sincere, would clearly absolve Commissioners
of personal, direct responsibility for the individual instances of fraud and
corruption, they represent a serious admission of failure in another respect.
Protestations of ignorance on the part of Commissioners concerning problems
that were often common knowledge in their services, even up to the highest
official levels, are tantamount to an admission of a loss of control by the
political authorities over the Administration that they are supposedly running.
This loss of control implies at the outset a heavy responsibility for both the
Commissioners individually and the Commission as a whole.

9.2.7. In the LEONARDO case, Commissioner CRESSON failed to act in response to
known serious and continuing irregularities over several years, starting with
the audit of the predecessor programme by DG XXII in 1994 and followed by
further reports by DG XXII and DG XX. In the case of the DG XX audit of 1998,
she shares responsibility with the Financial Controller for failure to finalise
audit reports prepared by DG XX upon which action could have been taken. More
generally, the Commissioner responsible must assume wider responsibility for
the lax control exercised by DG XXII over the Technical Assistance Office and
for the poor communication and internal control mechanisms within the
Commission services concerned.

Mrs CRESSON further bears serious responsibility for having failed, though in
full possession of the facts, to inform the President of the Commission, and
through him, the European Parliament, of the problems in implementing Leonardo
I when the latter had to take a decision whether or not to approve Leonardo II.
Finally, the Commission as a whole is again open to criticism for the
underresourcing phenomenon which is at the root of the need to delegate
public-sector responsibilities to outside consultants.

9.2.8. In the SECURITY OFFICE case, the Commissioner responsible, Mr SANTER,
acted swiftly after the allegations of fraud appeared in the press. This said,
audit results as early as 1993, if followed up by the then President, might
have enabled the nature of the problems in the Security Office to be identified
much earlier. The prime responsibility of Mr SANTER in this  case is that
neither he, who is nominally responsible for the Security Office, nor his
private office, took any meaningful interest in the way it operated. As a
result, no supervision was exercised, and a ’state within a state’ was allowed
to develop, with the consequences set out in this report.

9.2.10. As regards the CASES OF FAVOURITISM by individual Commissioners it
examined, the Committee found the following:

-  in the case of Mrs CRESSON, the Committee found that the Commissioner bears
responsibility for one instance of favouritism. She should have taken suitable
steps to ensure that the recruitment of a member of her staff who would be
working closely with her was carried out in compliance with all the relevant
legal criteria. Subsequently, she should have employed that person to perform
work solely in the Community interest.

-  In the case of Mrs WULF-MATHIES, the Committee found that she used an
inappropriate procedure to recruit a person to join her personal staff and
carry out work
of Community interest.

-  In the case of Mr PINHEIRO, the Committee found that the procedure by which
his
brother-in-law was recruited was correct and that the work that the latter
carried out was
of Community interest. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that a Commissioner
should
under no circumstances recruit a close relation to work in his or her Private
Office.

9.4.21. Disciplinary proceedings are rare, although the Committee has noted
that they have recently been increasing in number. It encountered cases were
they should have been initiated, but were not. This concerns, in particular,
very senior officials to whom Article 50 of the Staff Regulations (retirement
in the interests of the service) has been applied, generously and without
hesitation, enabling them to depart with their reputation intact and a
comfortable pension.

9.4.25. The responsibility of individual Commissioners, or of the Commission as
a body, cannot be a vague idea, a concept which in practice proves unrealistic.
It must go hand in hand with an ongoing process designed to increase awareness
of that responsibility. Each individual must feel accountable for the measures
he or she manages. The studies carried out by the Committee have too often
revealed a growing reluctance among the members of the hierarchy to acknowledge
their responsibility. It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the
slightest sense of responsibility. However, that sense of responsibility is
essential. It must be demonstrated, first and foremost, by the Commissioners
individually and the Commission as a body. The temptation
to deprive the concept of responsibility of all substance is a dangerous one.
That concept is the ultimate manifestation of democracy.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.tuxtown.net/pipermail/d66/attachments/19990316/058b3749/attachment.html>