John Dalli yesterday supplied all members of the European Parliament with 32 questions he drew up about the circumstances surrounding his resignation as Health Commissioner following the report by the EU’s anti-fraud office OLAF.
How can it be said circumstantial evidence is unambiguous?
Continuing his campaign to assert his innocence, Mr Dalli thanked MEPs for their “solidarity” and armed them with a list of questions he drew up with his lawyers, presumably for the MEPs to use in grilling the Commission about the incident.
He asked why he had not been given “enough time” to think about his resignation and why he was immediately banned from the European Commission’s building without being given an opportunity to defend himself.
Mr Dalli also questioned the decision by OLAF and the Commission to hold a press conference on the investigation’s report, even before the national authorities had received it.
“Does this mean that effectively upon the production of an OLAF report based on circumstantial evidence (excluding any direct wrongdoing) before any notification to the national authorities, the person investigated is to be deemed or presumed guilty such that he is to resign?”
Mr Dalli asked why his version of events was discarded together with the fact that he had protested legally against the behaviour of businessman Silvio Zammit, who is at the centre of “trading in influence” allegations.
Mr Dalli also attacked OLAF’s claim that it had “unambiguous circumstantial evidence” showing he knew that Mr Zammit was asking for money from tobacco lobbyists to overturn a ban on snus.
“How can it be said that circumstantial evidence is unambiguous? Evidence is either direct or circumstantial. It can never be ambiguous. Was this not an attempt to try to describe the evidence as unassailable?”
Mr Dalli asked whether OLAF and the Commission “were played purposefully to block the Tobacco Directive”.
“Why is OLAF discarding the possibility that this case was essentially a stitch-up or a frame-up solely intended to halt the coming into force of the Tobacco Directive?”
Mr Dalli also raised various questions about OLAF’s operations in the past, implying that it had often been accused of wrongdoing.
“Can OLAF confirm that in the past, by holding a press conference, it, together with the Commission, have been found guilty of violating the presumption of innocence of the person investigated?
“Can OLAF confirm that in the past it has been found guilty of making baseless and unfounded conclusions in its report?”
Mr Dalli yesterday also met with the President of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz. The off-the-record meeting was organised at Mr Dalli’s request.
Meanwhile, several questions are being raised about Mr Dalli’s resignation in Brussels, namely by Irish MEP Nessa Childers, from the Socialist group, who called the Maltese Commissioner a “champion” for stronger tobacco control.
The Greens/EFA group also called on the Commission to provide transparency on the circumstances surrounding Mr Dalli’s resignation and for a review of EU tobacco rules not to be delayed any further.