Staff back official after sex and nepotism claims at EU Court of Auditors

Date: 02/05/02

By David Cronin

STAFF at the European Court of Auditors are rallying around a disgruntled official who has raised allegations of serious misconduct at the Luxembourg-based institution.

Briton Robert Dougal Watt was elected to the institution's 12-strong staff committee in a secret ballot held last week - soon after circulating a document containing a litany of claims against fellow officials.

The most grave refer to complaints of sexual harassment against a senior official, whom European Voice cannot name for legal reasons.

Watt claims that no disciplinary proceedings were launched against the man, even though he is reported to have confessed to the second of the allegations, made in 2000.

According to Watt, the secretaries who filed the complaints were not re-hired when their contracts expired.

A middle-ranking A7-grade official, Watt has been working for the Court since 1995 but is currently on sick leave.

In his letter, circulated to all 550 members of the institution's staff, Watt said he was contesting the staff committee to gauge if his colleagues considered his allegations as 'representative and reliable'.

In it, the official also charged that some of the members of the Court, who are appointed by EU governments, had hired advisers solely because they were relatives.

He wrote: 'The key to the undermining of the sound running of the institution has been nepotism, engaged in by several members of the Court over a period of many years. Members have secured the employment by the institution, even on posts reserved for permanent staff, of family and family members of friends.

'These individuals had no previous knowledge or experience of audit, prior to arriving in the Court.'

Watt acknowledges that the number of such appointments is small but claims the effects of the alleged nepotism are far-reaching. 'Although it reduces the moral authority of members, and undermines their capacity to lead, it actually increases the day-to-day power of all members. If one member can 'get away' with nepotism, then every member can reasonably be anticipated to 'get away' with anything.'

The 15 members of the Court met last week to discuss Watt's allegations and rejected them. They have nonetheless agreed to forward a copy of his document to the EU's anti-fraud office OLAF.

In a statement issued to this newspaper, an aide to Court President Juan Manuel Fabra Vallés said some of the remarks in the Watt letter were 'defamatory'.

The aide pointed out that the Court had already examined a complaint from Watt about the conduct of a higher-level official, to whom he was answerable. It had not found in Watt's favour.

He added that the Court could not take action on his latest claims because it felt his decision to send a letter to the entire staff was 'unacceptable' and because he had 'insulted' colleagues, without supporting evidence.

However, the aide said that the Court was being 'very transparent' in transmitting the letter to OLAF.

He also said the sexual harassment claims had been investigated and found to be 'without basis'.

Rebutting the nepotism charges, he pointed out that each of the Court's members has an advisory 'cabinet' of two. Of the 30 people concerned, only two are not career civil servants, while most cabinets contain at least one person of a different nationality to the member, he added.

Watt has also addressed his dossier to EU Ombudsman Jacob Söderman and to MEPs.

A spokeswoman for Söderman, who conducts investigations into reported maladministration in the EU's institutions, said he is due to decide later this week if the letter constitutes an admissible complaint.

Watt's allegations have not yet sparked a debate in the European Parliament - primarily because most deputies did not have meetings in Brussels this week.

One MEP who has studied the document, though, is UK Conservative Nirj Deva. He said: 'I am deeply concerned about these allegations and they must be properly investigated. I will be demanding that the Ombudsman looks into the case directly and if he finds any evidence of wrongdoing, be it nepotism or other malpractice, that he takes suitable action.'

Watt insists there is a case for all 15 members of the Court to resign, even though nepotism has been the 'preserve of the minority' and five members only took up their duties this year. 'What the institution needs now is a clean break with the past,' he says.

Watt acknowledges that his decision to air his grievances so widely was unusual. 'In normal circumstances, I am a grey bean-counter. My career has been unremarkable. It is the circumstances in this institution which are extraordinary and I deeply regret the necessity of the action I have taken.'

Allegations of serious misconduct have been raised against officials at the European Court of Auditors.