Anti-fraud unit barred from MEPs’ offices

Date: 18/05/2000

By Gareth Harding

A POWERFUL cross-party group of MEPs has won the right to prevent EU anti-fraud investigators from snooping around their offices in a landmark case brought before the Court of First Instance.

The interim ruling has been welcomed by the 71 members who lodged a complaint against the European Parliament in January following the assembly's decision last year to let staff from the Union's fraud-busting office OLAF onto its premises to pursue their investigations.

German Socialist MEP Willi Rothley, author of a controversial draft statute to govern members' pay and conditions, said that "for the first time, the Court is touching upon the legal status of MEPs" and has "rendered a fundamental service to the defence of parliamentary democracy".

Rothley argues that allowing OLAF investigators into members' offices would be a violation of the rules on MEPs' privileges and immunities, and would muddy the waters ahead of the adoption of the common statute.

However, supporters of greater openness have reacted to the ruling with dismay. "As long as we have immunity, MEPs have nothing to fear from OLAF investigators," said Austrian Socialist Herbert Bösch.

The European Commission and Council of Ministers have already agreed to allow OLAF to carry out investigations in their institutions, and the Strasbourg-based assembly followed suit last year after a fierce debate in the chamber. The Court's ruling effectively puts the Parliament's decision on ice for 18 months until a final verdict is delivered. During this time, OLAF will be unable to pursue investigations into any of the 71 MEPs who brought the case, but the regulation will apply to other members.

The assembly's ruling body has asked its legal service to draw up a code of conduct to govern how requests for information should be dealt with while MEPs await the Court's final judgement.

A powerful cross-party group of MEPs has won the right to prevent EU anti-fraud investigators from snooping around their offices in a landmark case brought before the Court of First Instance.