OLAF told to give MEPs details of its financial investigations

By David Cronin

Date: 16/06/05

OLAF, the European Commission's anti-fraud office, has been told that it should hand over full details of its investigations to MEPs handling financial control issues.

This finding is contained in an analysis on OLAF's work undertaken by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London, at the request of the European Parliament's budget control committee.

Its report, which was considered by MEPs earlier this week, says that because the committee has a mandate to monitor financial irregularities affecting EU expenditure, OLAF has the "obligation, not the discretion" to give it access to all documents relating to both closed and ongoing investigations.

Such provision of information is vital, it says, for the committee to monitor OLAF's efficiency and to "precipitate" problems similar to the fraud scandal that engulfed the Commission's statistics office Eurostat two years ago.

But the analysis adds that these details should not be made available to the entire 732-seat assembly. To protect the rights of witnesses and the accused, committee members would have to keep details of ongoing investigations confidential. Waiving confidentiality could only be allowed with "express permission from the relevant authority".

The analysis has caused some consternation within the Commission. Sources say they feel that the recommendations could hurt OLAF's relationship with anti-fraud bodies in member states.

There is no onus on many national offices, they say, to report directly to their parliaments or committees. Fears have been expressed within the Commission that they would be less likely to co-operate with OLAF if they knew that MEPs would have access to whatever information they give the office.

The analysis alleges, too, that the rules covering OLAF's activities do not protect the rights of the accused adequately. While these refer to having witnesses testify during OLAF investigations, they do not confer a similar right to be heard on the accused.

OLAF has defended this situation by saying it is not a judicial body. In a controversial investigation over suspected bribery of an EU official by German journalist Hans-Martin Tillack, OLAF claimed it could not interview the reporter as part of the inquiry because he was not employed by the EU.

Commission sources have admitted that the rules covering OLAF's activities need to be improved. These were drawn up, they say, in the middle of the tense political situation surrounding the resignation of Jacques Santer's Commission in 1999. Aides to Siim Kallas, the commissioner in charge of the fight against fraud, are currently discussing possible changes to the rules.

Article reports on an analysis on the work of the EU's Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), undertaken by the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London, at the request of the European Parliament's Budgetary Control Committee. It was suggested in the report that OLAF should hand over full details of its investigations to the MEPs handling financial control issues.

• Primary Source