Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-03-12-Speech-3-296"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20030312.10.3-296"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, rapporteur, (whom I wish immediately to congratulate on the report you have presented us with), I wish to begin by recalling that it was two years ago that I had occasion to condemn, here in this Parliament, with regard to the 1999 OLAF report, the Commission’s silence and indifference towards the adulteration of tens of thousands of tonnes of butter perpetrated in the latter half of the 1990s, involving countless major European companies. Then, as now, the underlying philosophy was that OLAF’s investigations and conclusions should always be secret and are intended ultimately for the national judicial authorities, and remain secret even when these authorities do nothing with them and do not even ask for them to be treated with any degree of secrecy. Secrecy is so great that the Commission, Parliament, and the Council are all unaware of irregularities and their perpetrators and consequently of the measures that are needed immediately for confronting those involved in illegal activity at the political and administrative levels. Secrecy is normally only broken in the press, where it frequently appears as a form of accusation, without giving individuals – who are not presumed innocent – any advance warning or the right to defend themselves.
This is how we have reached a situation in which OLAF’s investigations into contracts between the Commission and the company Eurogramme, which began as long ago as 1999, are completely ignored by the Luxembourg judicial authorities, and also by the Commission, whose Secretary-General decided to close the case with one blow of the gavel, without even informing the Commissioner responsible of the existence of this trial and allowing dozens of contracts to be signed in the meantime between this company and the Commission. In practical terms, this means that an investigation by OLAF can be a curse for anyone who, as we have seen in real cases that have already come to light, is completely innocent and has his or her name dragged through the mud by the press. This can also be a blessing for the lawbreakers, who see it as a guarantee of almost total secrecy and of impunity. This is a total perversion of justice.
I wish to make it clear that Parliament cannot put up with this situation and that we must instigate change immediately. This change involves, first of all, the issue of secrecy. Secrecy must only be invoked when it is crucial to protecting the good name and the reputation of the person accused or to the successful outcome of the investigation. Unless one of these reasons is invoked objectively and within a set time-limit by the parties involved, either the defendant or the judicial authorities, OLAF must, without delay, notify and forward the relevant information to those entitled to see it, particularly the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control.
Secrecy should be the exception and not the rule. Similarly, I think that the time has come to ask ourselves where is this situation going to end and what do the Luxembourg authorities intend to do about the various complaints that have been forwarded by OLAF. In order to be able to act effectively and not to have to work only on rumours or on vague, incomplete or even contradictory information, the authorities must be informed. The public must also receive its information in a different way and not only through leaks. This is all we are calling for."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples