<html>
Laurens Jan Brinkhorst heeft net om het aftreden van de Europese
Commissie gevraagd. <br>
Belangstellenden kunnen op
<a href="http://www.europa.eu.int/" eudora="autourl">www.europa.eu.int</a>
(daarna op news klikken) het Rapport van Wijzen lezen.<br>
De meeste belastende stukken heb ik er even uit gehaald en hieronder geplakt.<br>
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....<br>
Lousewies van der Laan<br>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
9.2.7. In the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><b><i>LEONARDO case</font></b></i><font face="Arial, Helvetica">, 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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
9.2.8. In the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><b><i>SECURITY OFFICE case</font></b></i><font face="Arial, Helvetica">, 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.<br>
<br>
9.2.10. As regards the </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><b><i>CASES OF FAVOURITISM </font></b></i><font face="Arial, Helvetica">by individual Commissioners it examined, the Committee found the following:<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">- </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">in the case of Mrs CRESSON</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><b><i>, </font></b></i><font face="Arial, Helvetica">the Committee found that the Commissioner bears<br>
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.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">- </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">In the case of Mrs WULF-MATHIES, the Committee found that she used an<br>
inappropriate procedure to recruit a person to join her personal staff and carry out work<br>
of Community interest.<br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">- </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">In the case of Mr PINHEIRO, the Committee found that the procedure by which his<br>
brother-in-law was recruited was correct and that the work that the latter carried out was<br>
of Community interest. Nevertheless, the Committee believes that a Commissioner should<br>
under no circumstances recruit a close relation to work in his or her Private Office.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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<br>
to deprive the concept of responsibility of all substance is a dangerous one. That concept is the ultimate manifestation of democracy.</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"> <br>
</font><br>
</html>