|
|
|
|
|
|
The Marta Andreasen and Fabra
Valles cases:
an exclusive JUST Response report from the Dougal Watt Dossier 'Whistleblower' Robert Dougal Watt speaks out Mr Michel HERVÉ
Mismanagement and Corruption in Europe
Further to my letter of 3 September 02:
Re: the “Marta Andreasen” case
1. The fundamental accounting control
weaknesses in the European Commission’s SINCOM accounting system, brought to
light in April 2002 by Ms Andreasen, the Commission’s Chief Accountant, have
been known to the European Court of Auditors for several years. SINCOM
is used by the Court as the basis for selecting its sample of transactions to
be examined by the annual “Declaration of Assurance” audit. From
this experience, and from audit work on SINCOM itself, staff of the Court have
a good working knowledge of SINCOM’s problems. For years, these
problems have been brought to the attention of the Members of the Court by the
staff of the institution. However, the Court has not brought the serious
nature of such weaknesses to the attention of the Budgetary Authority or
taxpayers. In fairness, this failure to report on weaknesses which
undermine the reliability of the Community’s accounts, and give unnecessary
scope for fraud, need not reflect a deliberate “cover-up” by the Court.
Only one of the fifteen current Members of the Court is a qualified
accountant.
2. A key unanswered question with regard to
SINCOM, is not “how” it is problematic – its problems are well-known to
Community insiders – but “why”. Why does a system which has been
so expensive to develop via out-sourced contracts not work properly?
3. In light of the above, the draconian
treatment of Ms Andreasen by the Commission has no proper justification.
However, the effect of removing Ms Andreasen from her post, and of suspending
her from employment, is to intimidate every honourable official of the
European Commission. Exactly the same tactic was used by the Commission
on Mr Paul Van Buitenen. So much for, “reform”.
Re: the “Fabra Valles” case
1. The European Parliament’s Budgetary
Control Committee has subjected Mr Kinnock, as the Commissioner responsible
for the treatment of Ms Andreasen, to a public humiliation, widely reported by
the media. The Commission’s actions in this affair have been examined
in detail during a series of public meetings of the Committee.
2. The above treatment stands in stark
contrast to the Committee’s handling of extremely grave allegations made
against the European Court of Auditors, which were also presented in April
2002. Allegations of nepotism by Members of the Court, financial
corruption to the benefit of Members of the Court, and systematic
mismanagement by Members of the Court, have not been given public
consideration by the Committee.
3. Mr Kinnock is a socialist. By
contrast the Budgetary Control Committee, like the European Parliament,
features a coalition Christian Democrat/Popular Party/Conservative majority.
The Committee is chaired by a Christian Democrat. And it so happens that
the current President of the Court of Auditors, Mr Fabra Valles, its leading
Member – is a former Popular Party Member of the European Parliament.
Mr Fabra Valles is also a former member of the Budgetary Control Committee.
4. Mr Fabra Valles and his fourteen
colleagues have benefitted from a corrupt regime: of nepotism – he
personally appointed a former associate to a post reserved for permanent staff
in disregard of the institution’s normal procedures, other Members appointed
friends and relatives; of financial impropriety – receiving allowances
without entitlement, and turning a blind eye to the same practice in the other
European institutions; and gross mismanagement – Court staff knew of
SINCOM’s weaknesses, just as they knew beforehand of abuses later brought to
light by Mr Van Buitenen, but the Members did not act.
R Dougal WATT
Auditor European Court of Auditors Staff number 43062 16 September 2002 (on sick leave)
Telephone: ***
The allegations endorsed by 205 of my colleagues
– regarding nepotism, financial corruption and mismanagement – are set out
in my letter of 22 April; detail is provided in my five-page letter of 18 June
2002.
Note: This letter was published as a JUST Response exclusive report on September 24 2002.
|
