Committee of Independent Experts

First Report on Allegations regarding Fraud,
Mismanagement and Nepotism in the European Commission
15 March 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.1. The mandate
1.2. Independence and status of the Committee
1.3. Scope of inquiries
1.4. Nature of reprehensible acts
1.5. Standards of proper behaviour
1.6. The issue of responsibility

2.1. Legal framework and budget allocations
2.2. Organisational structure
2.3. Chronology of events and detection of irregularities
2.4. Disciplinary measures
2.5. Euroconseil
2.6. IPK-ECODATA
2.7. The problems encountered by the Commission
2.8. The management of the crisis
2.9. Conclusions

3.1. Introduction
3.2. Chronology
3.3. Legal considerations: the delegation of powers and the failure to issue calls for tender
3.4. Lack of staff at the Commission: an inadequate argument
3.5. The issue of the conflict of interests
3.6. Bad management, irregularities or fraud?
3.7. The Commissioners' role and responsibility
3.8. The responsibility of the Commission as a body

4.1. The 'ECHO Affair': case history
4.2. Issues arising
4.3. Conclusion: responsibility of Commissioners

5.1. Introduction
5.2. The Programme, the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) and the contract
5.3. Audit findings of DG XXII's own audit unit concerning the Leonardo/Agenor TAO
5.4. Audit findings by DG XX, Directorate-General for Financial Control
5.5. Further proceedings in the Commission
5.6. Parliament in ignorance
5.7. Professor Reiffers' mission
5.8. Conclusions

6.1. Introduction
6.2. The sequence of events
6.3. Observations on the environment within the Security Office
6.4. Allegations regarding the tender procedure for the new Security Services contract (1997)
6.5. Conclusions

7.1. Regulatory and budgetary framework
7.2. Organisational structure
7.3. The report of the Court of Auditors
7.4. Delegations of responsibilities
7.5. The contracts
7.6. Project implementation and follow-up
7.7. Conclusions
7.8. Commissioners' responsibilities

8.1. Mrs Cresson
8.2. Mr Liikanen
8.3. Mr Marín
8.4. Mr Pinheiro
8.5. Mr Santer
8.6. Mrs Wulf-Mathies

9.1. The Committee's mandate and the scope of its inquiries
9.2. Responsibility of the Commission and of individual Commissioners
9.3. Assessment in the light of standards of proper behaviour
9.4. Reforms to be considered

ANNEX 1
Specific cases examined (other than favouritism): Commissioners and Services responsible
ANNEX 2
Directorates-General and services of the Commission