European Anti-fraud Office

The European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF shortly after the French Office Européen de Lutte Anti- Fraude, is an agency of the European Commission headquarters in Brussels. Its mission is to combat fraud, corruption and any other illegal activities, by which the EU's financial interests. The Office determined within and outside the European authorities; it supports, coordinates and monitors the work of national authorities in their area and designed the Fraud of the European Union. It is assigned to the Commissioner for Taxation, Customs Union, Audit and Anti-Fraud.

• 6.1 cigarette smuggling
• 6.2 The Eurostat affair

Prehistory

The fight against corruption at European level in 1998 /99 on the important issue after it had come to a series of corruption scandals in the European Commission. A scandal involving the Commissioner Edith Cresson, who had a technically unqualified friend working as a personal adviser, led to pressure from the European Parliament on the resignation of the Santer Commission. Not least by the revelations of the whistleblower and former EU official Paul van Buitenen were the shortcomings of OLAF's predecessor UCLAF ( Unité de coordination de la lutte anti- fraude German: Department for the Coordination of Fraud ) become clear. Members of the European Parliament criticized UCLAF organizational chaos, poorly managed and documented investigations, incomplete and misleading data on cases of fraud, as well as tentative action against EU officials in cases of suspected corruption. Because UCLAF was organized as an autonomous -related department in the European Commission and this is hindering the fight against irregularities and corruption within the EU institutions, called for a number of MEPs to establish an independent investigation authority for cases of fraud and corruption. Then the newly designed European Anti-Fraud Office was established by resolution of the European Commission of 28 April 1999 ( OLAF).

Institutional position

Although some MEPs had called for the complete organizational independence of OLAF, the office was located institutionally in the rank of General in the European Commission. As the whole area was under audit and anti it first to the Commissioner of Administration. In the Barroso II Commission, which has been in office since 2010, the area was transferred to the Department of the Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union, Algirdas Šemeta the holds. However, according to the statutes establishing OLAF conducts its investigations entirely independently, the Commission has no direct input on it. The controversial institutional settlement within the Commission in 2005 was considered by the European Court of Auditors in a special report on OLAF as unproblematic: " The hybrid status of the Office, which is independent but subordinate in his investigations with respect to its other Commission functions, the independence of the investigation function has not risk ". The British House of Lords pointed out in a report of November 2006 also allegations that OLAF was at the Commission too close.

OLAF also works under the supervision of the supervisory committee of five independent external experts, whose members are appointed by common accord of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission. The Supervisory Committee is to ensure the independence of OLAF by regular monitoring carried out by OLAF investigations. The Supervisory Committee is of his own initiative or at the request of the director comments on the activities of OLAF from; but can not intervene in the conduct of investigations.

Internal organization

The office building of OLAF is located at Rue Joseph II in Brussels. December 31, 2005 at OLAF total of 390 staff were employed.

The Director General

OLAF is headed by a Director General. This was (as of March 2006), a separate six-member staff to the side. First Director General was from 1 March 2000, the German Attorney General Franz -Hermann Bruner. On 14 February 2006, the European Commission appointed him for a second five -year mandate. As Bruner died in January 2010, was Nicholas Ilett Chief Executive Officer. On 14 December 2010, the European Commission appointed the Italian politician and prosecutor Giovanni Kessler as the new OLAF Director-General.

The directorates

OLAF is divided into four main divisions, and directorates so-called. Each Directorate turn comprises several units:

• Directorate A Investigations and Operations I Internal Investigations Unit - EU institutions (A 1),
• Unit Internal / External Investigations - New offices and agencies of the EU ( A 2)
• Unit Direct Expenditure and External Aid (A 3), and
• Unit external assistance (A 4).

• Unit Agriculture ( B 1),
• Unit Customs I (B 2),
• Unit duties 2 (B3 ), and
• Unit structural actions ( B 4).

• Unit Judicial Affairs, Legal Advice (C 1),
• Unit Fraud Prevention and Intelligence (C 2),
• Unit assistance and Intelligence ( C 3),
• Unit Operational Intelligence (C 4),
• Unit protection of the euro (C 5)

• Unit Spokesman, Communication, Public Relations (D 1),
• Unit Legislation and Legal Affairs (D 2),
• Unit Interinstitutional and External Relations (D 3),
• Unit expansion, committees and reports (D 4),
• Administration Unit and Human Resources ( D 5),
• Budget Unit (D 6),
• Training Unit, implementation of programs ( D 7) and
• Unit Information Service ( D 8).

Tasks

The tasks of OLAF include:

• The detection and prosecution of fraud in customs,
• Uncovering the misuse of EU subsidies,
• The detection of tax evasion (as far as it applies to the EU budget )
• The fight against corruption and severe misconduct within the European institutions,
• The discovery of other violations of the law, the damage financially to the EU.

Overall, politically controversial, which focus OLAF should put in its investigations. While the EU Commission wants to put the emphasis on the fight against piracy and cross-border tax fraud, others call for OLAF to concentrate on intra-EU anti-fraud, reported the Austrian economy sheet standard in May 2006. Chairman of the Supervisory Committee, the independent supervisory body of the authority, Rosalind Wright, stated in October 2006, OLAF keep the right balance between internal and external investigations.

Operation and work areas

OLAF can perform only administrative investigations, the report of the inquiry committee responsible for OLAF to the Budgetary Control of the European Parliament. The Authority can therefore not initiate criminal or disciplinary proceedings - in the former, it relies on the judiciary in the Member States in the latter to the corresponding bodies of the EU. " As soon as the OLAF has completed an investigation and handed over the case to the Member State concerned, the further procedure eludes his grasp ," said Rosalind Wright, Chair of the Committee. The effectiveness of OLAF therefore depends to a large extent by two partners from which to implement the results of investigations into formal procedures: the national judicial authorities and other authorities of the EU.

The working areas of OLAF are:

• Own investigations (internal and external investigations)
• Support and coordination of other investigations
• Monitoring of other investigations
• " Intelligence "
• Formulation of the EU's anti-fraud.

OLAF established itself both in EU authorities (internal administrative investigation ) as well as in institutions, the EU does not nationals ( external administrative investigation ). It supports the investigation of other authorities, by, for example at EU level provides collected information. It coordinates in cross-border cases, the investigations of the national authorities. In monitoring the course of the investigation of other authorities followed. In the mentioned office intern " Intelligence " area represents OLAF Member States or third countries multidisciplinary expertise, strategic analyzes and risk assessments available.

In addition, OLAF further EU institutions annually publish reports on fraud and corruption in the EU:

• Reports of the European Court of Auditors, where irregularities in the use of EU funds will be uncovered,
• The fraud report by the European Commission in which all reported cases in the past year are included in the statistics,
• By the Committee on Budgetary Control authored Fraud Report from the European Parliament, which is based on the aforementioned reports and the OLAF report and enriching politically.

Results and events

In 2004, the budget of the European Communities amounted to EUR 111 billion at 25 Member States; compared to the budget of the Federal Republic of Germany in 2003 amounted to 250 billion euros. The detected irregularities in 2002, the 2.12 billion euro, with EUR 614 million attributable to the EU structural policy. This 1.18 billion euros identified by the Member States themselves and almost a billion euros in investigations by OLAF. Among the irregularities are also about missing documents or project funds not used appropriately.

The 2005 Annual Report According went to OLAF for the period July 2004 to 31 December 2005, a total 531 indications of fraud a. Of these, more than half ( 274) were sorted out as so-called " non-cases ", not worked. In 124 cases, external investigation was initiated in 40 cases EU internal investigations. 42 times foreign studies were followed (monitoring), 34 times the national authorities coordinate investigations across borders. 17 times made ​​OLAF assistance in criminal matters. As the German news agency dpa reported in July 2006, expired at the end of 2005 examinations in 452 cases. This would include possible damage at the expense of EU taxpayers of around two billion euros. In 2005, OLAF had brought back 203 million euros in EU funds, a year before there were 198 million euros.

Cigarette smuggling

The financially most spectacular OLAF investigations are the cases against tobacco companies for smuggling cigarettes into the EU. Because of OLAF's findings, the EU 2001 sued along with ten Member States tobacco companies in U.S. courts. In the first two instances of the application was rejected because U.S. courts collect no foreign taxes. The plaintiffs then appealed in 2004 to the Supreme Court of the United States. The tobacco company Philip Morris agreed amicably in 2004 with the EU it - depending on various factors - a maximum of $ 1.25 billion to the EU and ten Member States to pay.

Between 2006 and 2008, the operation boomerang, a search and investigate operation against a Europe-wide smuggling of cigarettes, in terms of international coordination of OLAF was supported for example.

The Eurostat affair

The politically most explosive OLAF case was the Eurostat affair to slush funds based in Luxembourg at the Statistical Office of the European Union, which brought the Prodi Commission in 2003, in distress.

The daily Die Welt described in a summary article ( 19 November 2003) the core of the affair. Eurostat have forgiven under his fictional director Yves Franchet orders issued since 1989 or manipulated bills. These funds were flowed over the years in slush funds from which the employee funded expensive leisure activities. The amount of damage was to the, according to the newspaper estimated by the European Commission on 930 000 euros in 2003. Other estimates went out at this time of up to 40 million euros.

According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung ( 6 July 2003) practiced by the European Commission in the Eurostat affair indirect criticism of the investigation by OLAF. As the newspaper reported, the Office since 1999, Time determined already in the matter, but only in the spring of 2003, OLAF, the judicial authorities in France and Luxembourg turned on to pursue the investigation. The FAZ came to the conclusion that " Olaf seems overwhelmed, complete the investigation quickly ."

The weekly magazine Stern (July 5, 2003) argued that the fraudulent EU statisticians have had helpers in the EU anti-fraud office, OLAF. There instructions were received again and again since 1998. Despite serious allegations of fraud against Eurostat relevant information had not even been properly filed with OLAF. An incriminating testimony is even entirely disappeared. The leaf invoked in this report to an internal paper of OLAF lawyers.

In a resolution adopted on 22 April 2004 Resolution, the European Parliament stated the Eurostat case had " demonstrated serious problems with regard to the working methods of both the Commission and OLAF ".

OLAF itself stated in its 2005 annual report, it deals since 2000 with Eurostat. Four Eurostat cases it was completed in September 2003 and five additional cases in the years 2004 and 2005.

Assessment of OLAF

The European Parliament moved to a public hearing in July 2005, a positive balance of the first six years of OLAF and summarized: "If it were not for the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF ), it would have to be invented. " Austrian MEP and standing rapporteur for OLAF Affairs, Herbert Boesch, stated, " to the staff of OLAF We will send the clear message that we recognize and appreciate their work. " the British House of Lords stated in November 2006 that it was satisfied with the level of OLAF investigations. It suggested that OLAF should prepare a report stating the how the individual Member States make use of the transmitted data from OLAF investigation results.

The European Court of Auditors showed in his special report on OLAF in July 2005, however, a number of criticisms of the work of OLAF on:

• The Court criticized the force exerted by the management of the Office supervision as inadequate, this would lead to significant delays in the processing of files for submission of inconclusive reports and to subtle results.
• The preparation and follow-up investigations are often inadequate.
• With the exception of the customs sector cooperation with the Member States is an area that needs to be considerably improved.
• Defects were also showing at the information on the investigations carried out by OLAF and the measurement of results. As points, in which imperfectly informed, the Court called the recovery of misappropriated amounts or the disciplinary or criminal sanctions imposed in cases of fraud.
• There is no independent control of the legality of an ongoing OLAF investigations and in compliance with the basic rights of persons subject to an investigation. It lacked a committed scheme for examinations, this would lead to regular litigation.

The Court spoke indirectly from this, the resources of the Office to focus on relevant investigations and to review the OLAF assigned tasks in this sense: "A realignment of the Office's activities on its investigative function would be a better use of resources, in particular with a view to launching targeted studies allow in as areas of particularly fraud prone applicable. "

On the relationship of the European Commission and the EU Member States to OLAF Jeanne Rubner writes in her book "Brussels syringes ": " The anti- fraud authority Olaf, which should be really watchdog the Commission is kept on a short leash. " And elsewhere: " In the medium term, however, the problems lie less in Olaf than in the EU countries you have to slow down the Olaf and make the investigators work hard.. "

OLAF and the public

The media and public relations of the Office featured Florian Neuhann in his OLAF study (see literature) as " more of a deficit ." It is OLAF " not succeeded sufficiently to explain his policy convincingly against an interested public and to Parliament and to explain the reasons for its current priorities ." In addition, the public media would rather perceived to be opponents as partners in the fight against fraud by the Office. The spokesman of OLAF campaigned for his part for understanding: "Of course the journalists want on a particular topic as much information as possible have. However, the Office has the obligation to ensure the protection of fundamental rights, the legal standards and the integrity and efficiency of its investigations. "

The relationship between OLAF and the media was heavily loaded in March 2004, when the Belgian police, the home and the office of the Brussels correspondents star Hans- Martin Tillack raided and seized documents. The correspondent had repeatedly quoted in critical reports on OLAF internal documents of the Office. The Belgian investigating judge - opened an investigation against unknown because of a possible corruption offense - at the request of OLAF. A case against Tillack was not opened until today. Lawsuits by Tillack were - initially turned away, he lodged following the Belgian search action - including the European Court of First Instance. Finally, in November 2007 ended Tillack's action before the European Court of Human Rights with the condemnation of Belgium to pay 10,000 euros in damages for breach of press freedom.

The search operation sparked a debate on press freedom in the EU; many journalists considered this approach as a restriction of freedom of reporting. Through the Tillack case, so Neuhann in his OLAF study " settled in the public mind a change of mood determine since then are first and foremost some journalists opposed to the Office ." The European Ombudsman criticized OLAF concerning the matter in a special report to the European Parliament. Tillack itself was honored for his reports on corruption and maladministration within the EU bureaucracy with the " Leipzig Media Award " 2005.