Europees bureau voor fraudebestrijding nog niet klaar voor volledige onafhankelijkheid (en) - Hoofdinhoud
EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - Leading politicians and civil servants on Monday expressed serious reservations at making EU's anti-fraud body fully independent from the European Commission, an idea floated by its newly reappointed chief Jose Manuel Barroso. i
Ten years since its creation, the European Anti-Fraud Office (Olaf, to use its French acronym) is still fighting some "childhood diseases", its head, Franz Hermann Bruner, told an anniversary conference on Monday (12 October) in Brussels. He admitted that there were still gaps, that the statute of its staff was somewhat unclear, but rejected the idea of cutting the institution completely off from the European Commission.
"The question of independence is exaggerated," he said, stressing that in member states, judicial or financial control bodies are also under the umbrella of a minister.
Set up during the corruption scandal that lead to the fall of the European Commission led by Jacques Santer i in 1999, Olaf is still under the umbrella of the EU executive, although it is granted full operational independence in carrying out on-the-spot checks and opening investigations where the financial interests of the bloc are at stake.
In his policy outlook for the next five-year mandate, Mr Barroso said he wanted to see "further steps" and that "Olaf should be given full independence outside the Commission."
One of Mr Barroso's deputies, Alexander Italianer, defended the idea of separating Olaf completely and said it was not a singular case, as other internal services of the commission could also be externalised.
Mr Italianer, a Dutch economist, is in the frame to be the next director general of the commission's powerful anti-trust department, with some circles in the EU commission pondering whether to give this unit more independence in dealing with national giants in competition cases.
The status of Olaf is also likely to change once EU's new legal framework, the Lisbon Treaty, comes into force. The document provides the possibility of setting up a new EU public prosecutor's office, and Olaf could be part of that.
Mr Bruner said although he supported the creation of this entity, it had to be done "gradually", after carefully assessing the needs.
"Can the public prosecutor's office do anything to ensure that trials and procedures don't last for ten years?" he asked, naming Belgium as a country where appeals can be filed at every single stage of the process.
"It's not just a question of constructive mergers - to put Olaf, Europol (EU's police co-operation body) and Eurojust (EU's judicial co-operation body) in one building in the Hague and think it's done. That would be a waste of public money," he argued.
His remarks were echoed by one of the 'fathers' of the institution, former Socialist MEP from Austria Herbert Bosch, the author of the report that led to the creation of the institution.
"Mr Barroso picked up an old idea, which was actually floated even by commission President Santer - to make Olaf fully independent. But I argue now just as I did then that it is a false idea," he said.
As long as there was no EU public prosecutor and judicial follow-up was still up to member states, de-coupling the institution from the commission would just weaken its powers, he said.
Currently, Olaf has instant access to the commission's databases when a suspicion of fraud is raised. But if it was a completely separate body, for instance as with the Court of Auditors, it would rely on inter-institutional co-operation which is lengthy and cumbersome, Mr Bosch argued.
However, Mr Bosch, as well as other former and current MEPs, admitted that the institution needed reforms and more clarity in regards to its internal structure and staff statute, since it also had responsiblity for checking the commission's employees' wrong-doings.
Low follow-up rate
German conservative MEP Ingeborg Grassle, responsible for drafting the parliament's report on the reform of Olaf, said she was confident changes would occur only gradually.
"But it is possible to have a weakened Olaf after the Lisbon Treaty comes into force," she warned.
Ms Grassle also bashed the national authorities for their weak co-operation and follow-up of Olaf cases. In 93 percent of cases sent to national judiciaries by Olaf between 2000-2007, there was no follow-up, she said. And only 15 percent of EU money was recovered in that period.
Meanwhile, out of the cases which were actually followed up, the majority ended with convictions.
"So Olaf does provide good evidence, it's just scandalous that the national judiciaries don't wake up to this," she said.
Meer over ...