You are on page 1of 2

3. 4.

98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 102/147

Notwithstanding the fact that shipments of ‘green list’ waste are generally excluded from control procedures
under Regulation (EEC) No 259/93, in accordance with Article 1.3(b) of this Regulation, ‘green list’ waste shall
be subject to all provisions of Directive 75/442/EEC on waste (2). In particular, it shall be destined for duly
authorised facilities only. It is the responsibility of the Italian authorities to ensure that the facility concerned had
the appropriate permit to store or recover the plastic waste in conditions which do not pose a threat to human
health or the environment, including adequate safety measures against fire.

The legislative regime for intra-Community shipments of ‘green list’ waste for recovery as laid down in
Regulation (EEC) No 259/93 is less stringent than for other shipments of waste where strict notification
procedures apply, in order not to unduly hamper trade in recoverable wastes as this may have negative effects on
the market for recoverable wastes and thus may affect the viability of separate collection systems. This could
ultimately result in perfectly recoverable wastes having to be disposed of in landfill sites.

As outlined in the communication on the review of the waste strategy (3), the Commission aims to encourage
recovery (including energy recovery) and recycling rather than final disposal. Establishing a less stringent legal
and administrative regime for shipments of certain wastes destined for recovery is one of the tools to facilitate
recovery rather than to final disposal.

The Commission is of the opinion that illegal shipments are best fought by increased co-operation between
authorities. Therefore, it supports the aims and objectives of the intergovernmental co-operation in the context of
the IMPEL (Implementation and enforcement of environmental law) network, and in particular its working group
III on illegal waste shipments.

2. To the knowledge of the Commission, DKR has not received any funding from the Community for the
selective collection or subsequent disposal of waste.

(1) OJ L 30, 6.2.1993.


(2) OJ L 194, 25.7.1975.
(3) COM(96) 379.

(98/C 102/220) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2916/97


by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Commission
(5 September 1997)

Subject: Contracts for security services at Commission buildings

The Flemish press has carried reports about underhand dealing and possible corruption in connection with the
award of the contract for security services at Commission buildings to Groep 4 Securitas in 1992.

Shortly before the bids were due to be opened, full details of the competitors’ bids were allegedly passed to
Groep 4 Securitas, which was then given the opportunity to alter its own bid.

For a time, the wages of the 600 security officers at the Commission were apparently calculated using an
inaccurate mean index figure, so that while this situation persisted the Commission was paying more in wages to
Groep 4 Securitas than the firm was actually paying the officers.

It is also claimed that a Commission official arranged for 18 people to receive wages from Groep 4 Securitas
without having to do any work at all for the Commission. The beneficiaries did, however, provide some quid pro
quo to the official concerned. Meanwhile the brother of the official concerned, an inspector in the police force, is
said to have been seconded to the official’s department as a liaison officer. Senior Commission officials were
informed of these practices in 1994. Yet neither an official inquiry nor any disciplinary proceedings were
instituted, so that the culprits escaped scot-free.

1. Are the above allegations true? If not, in what ways are they inaccurate?
C 102/148 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4. 98

2. If the allegations are true, why did the Commission allow the contract with Groep 4 Securitas to remain in
force after the truth had come to light?

3. Please supply a precise chronological overview of the measures taken.

Answer given by Mrs Gradin on behalf of the Commission


(17 October 1997)

The Commission has taken note of the serious allegations which appeared in the Belgian newspapers ‘De
Morgen’ and ‘Het Algemeen Dagblad’ between 18 and 20 August 1997 concerning the contract between the
company ‘Groep 4 Securitas’ and the Commission.

The Commission’s anti-fraud unit (Uclaf) and financial control immediately set up a team to carry out an
in-depth inquiry on the allegations, inside as well as outside the Commission. The investigations which are
already under way concentrate in particular on:
− the circumstances under which the security services contract was awarded in October 1992 to Groep 4
Securitas;
− the alleged payment under the contract of the salaries of a certain number of people who appear not to have
provided any services to the Commission;
− compliance with internal Commission procedures.

Overpayment due to inaccuracies in the index figure has already been adjusted. It is premature at the present
stage to draw any conclusions from the investigations which are on-going.

(98/C 102/221) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2917/97


by Jaak Vandemeulebroucke (ARE) to the Council
(8 September 1997)

Subject: Contracts for security services at Council buildings

The Flemish press has carried reports about underhand dealing and possible corruption in connection with the
award of the contract for security services at Commission buildings to Groep 4 Securitas in 1992.

As a sideline to these reports, the connections of the then deputy head of security at the Council were also
described. He was jointly responsible for following up the award of the security contract to Groep 4 Securitas. He
is said to be a well-known figure in extreme right-wing circles and an adept of the practical shooting discipline,
which is highly controversial.

On 28 January 1997 he apparently organized a seminar and promotion day on the Council’s premises concerning
a special type of explosive which is used only by official military anti-terrorist units. He is also said to have
abused the diplomatic bag and to have trained members of the security forces from countries which do not
exactly enjoy the best reputation with regard to respect for human rights.

There are persistent rumours that a number of people have been recruited to the Council’s security service via the
Belgian Law Enforcement Agency in Hainault. The same individuals are believed to be involved in some way in
links between extreme right-wing organizations and the attacks carried out by the ‘Bende van Nijvel’ gang which
dominated the news in Belgium in the 1980s.

1. Are any or all of the above allegations true? If not, in what ways are they inaccurate or unproven?

2. If the allegations are true, what measures did the Council take in connection with them?

3. Please supply a precise chronological overview of the measures taken.