(THIS ARTICLE IS MACHINE TRANSLATED by Google from Norwegian)
When Romano Prodi took over as President of the Commission in 1999, he announced zero tolerance for fraud and dishonest financial management. At that time, the previous Commission had thrown the cards after merciless criticism over the handling of some internal fraud cases.
From charter to Eurostat
On 2 June this year, the Commission presented one “Corruption charter”, a two-point plan on how the EU should get rid of corruption.
Five weeks later, the European Commission took a major action against Eurostat, the EU's statistical agency. Leading people in Eurostat were suspected of having transferred millions of euros to themselves through a system of fictitious companies.
The scam had been going on for three years. Investigations had shown double sets of accounts, inflated contracts and wrongful transfers to private companies.
Acting power or the opposite?
The action against Eurostat was not perceived as the Commission's action in the fight against corruption. On the contrary, the spotlight was directed at possible co-responsibility or tire operations of people high up in the EU system.
It did not help that Pedro Solbes, responsible for Eurostat in the Commission, tried to turn away from responsibility in the European Parliament on 16 July: "I take responsibility for everything I have done and for what I should have done, but not for something I did not know anything about."
What did Kinnock know?
That didn't help because the German news magazine Stern claimed to be sitting with a copy of a letter from the Commission's Vice President, Neil Kinnock, stating that he knew about the suspicion against Eurostat in January 2002.
If Kinnock didn't tell Solbes, Kinnock is stuck in the stick. If he said, Solbes is sitting there.
The Committee on Budgetary Control in the European Parliament has deployed the most effective press tool to clarify what Kinnock and Solbes have done or not done: The Committee recommends that the European Parliament withhold part of the budget to Eurostat for 2004 – until the European Commission has cleaned up in the obscurity.
Courage for fall
On September 23, the European Commission took the opportunity to proclaim that Eurostat was the only blemish after it took over in 1999: "There is no evidence of illegal activity in any part of the EU administration."
It was senselessly daring, as big and unclear as the EU system is. The day after, the headlines against the readers of the British newspaper Daily Telegraph narrowed as well. A division of the EU's Directorate-General for Technology was suspected of channeling millions of euros to Greek companies where senior executives in the Directorate-General had ownership interests.
Scams around grain exports
Last week, the spotlight was directed at fraud involving grain exports from the EU. Police raids were carried out in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and many were arrested.
The possibility of fraud is related to the export subsidies provided by the EU when grain is exported. The support is so significant that it has a strong impact on the world grain price.
Every Thursday, the Grain Management Committee meets the EU, a committee under the Directorate-General for Agriculture. At the meeting, decisions are made that determine the level of support the following week.
Prior to the meeting, uncertainty is high and the grain market is very speculative. Prices can fluctuate up and down over hours. It can be big money to make for buyers and sellers who have advance information on how big the support is going to be.
Suspect for two years
It has long been suspected that there are unfaithful servants within the powerful grain management committee. A Dutch top official was arrested last Wednesday along with five people from the management of large European grain companies.
OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, suspected everything in 2001 and alerted both the European Commission and Belgian police. The Commission now explains that they kept a lid on the case so as not to interfere with the police investigation.
Commissioners in the spotlight
The suspicion of fraud against two new DGs is extremely bad news for the Commission in the midst of the Eurostat mission. Three members of the Commission are particularly in the spotlight, Pedro Solbes who is responsible for Eurostat, Neil Kinnock who is Vice President of the Commission with main responsibility for EU administration and Michaele Schreyer who is responsible for budget and financial control.
It does not make the case better for the European Commission that public opinion is frightened in advance of serious corruption cases in several EU countries, including in Germany, France, Italy and Portugal.
Nor is it, as the most unpopular feature of European politics, particularly vulnerable to suspicion of fraud and corruption.
