You are on page 1of 2

C 102/148 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 3. 4.


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
− 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.

3. 4. 98 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 102/149

(10 November 1997)

The General Secretariat of the Council took note of an article which appeared in the newspaper “De Morgen” on
20 August 1997, containing implicit allegations against some officials in the Council’s security service.

In view of the serious nature of those allegations and also if its duty of concern regarding its own officials, the
General Secretariat of the Council decided to organize an inquiry to ascertain whether or not the allegations in
question are justified.

(98/C 102/222) WRITTEN QUESTION P-2918/97

by Arlene McCarthy (PSE) to the Council
(8 September 1997)

Subject: Inquiry into anti-dumping duties on exports of unbleached cotton from India, Pakistan, Indonesia,
Turkey, China and Egypt

With regard to the new inquiry into anti-dumping duties on exports of unbleached cotton from India, Pakistan,
Indonesia, Turkey, China and Egypt, would the Council please clarify why it has approved a third such inquiry so
soon after the previous Commission inquiry expired − without being officially terminated − following the
Council’s rejection in May 1997 of the proposed duties?

The Council rejected the previous complaint as it felt duties would create more harm than good to the
Community as a whole. Does the Council not appreciate that this apparently political decision to initiate a new
inquiry does all harm and no good? Would the Council not agree that this new, but essentially identical, case not
only threatens those parties directly concerned − by creating renewed uncertainty during the period of the
complaint, with the prospect of much more drastic repercussions in the form of factory closures and heavy
redundancies across the EU’s textiles finishing industry and wholesale sector should the duties be introduced −
but that it also wastes a considerable amount of EU taxpayers’ money?

(10 November 1997)

1. The Council would remind the Honourable Member that, under Article 5 of Council Regulation No 384/96
(basic anti-dumping Regulation), it is for the Commission alone to decide whether to initiate anti-dumping

2. According to the Council’s information, Eurocoton brought a complaint on 26 May 1997 in connection
with imports of unbleached cotton from several non-Union countries. Following submission of that complaint
the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 5 of the abovementioned Regulation, decided to initiate
anti-dumping proceedings and also an investigation (the notice was published in the Official Journal of
11 July 1997).

3. It should be noted that, pursuant to Article 6(9) of the basic Regulation, anti-dumping investigations must,
whenever possible, be concluded within one year. They must in any event be concluded within fifteen months of

4. The Council is awaiting the outcome of the investigation before adopting a position on the matter.