International

It’s still not absolutely certain, but this week in Strasbourg we will probably be voting on a motion which is extremely critical of the European Anti-Fraud Service OLAF. This follows on a damaging report from the Supervisory Committee to the effect that OLAF is not transparent when it comes to the quality of its investigations and gives absolutely no clear information regarding the criteria which form the basis of any decision to start a fraud enquiry. And to think that the Commission wants to push through the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor on the grounds that member states do too little to prosecute alleged fraudsters. Let the European Commission put its own anti-fraud service’s house in order before they start pointing an accusatory finger at the member states.

OLAF and its Supervisory Committee have been at each other’s throats for years. Bizarrely enough, this committee is dependent on OLAF for funding. This means that if they are too critical they simply don’t get much in the way of personnel or resources. Yet the committee has soldiered on. In its annual report for 2014 they reveal the extent of OLAF’s dysfunctional nature. Figures were fiddled when it came to the number of investigations OLAF has conducted, which was, according to the committee, far fewer than claimed. But what may be even worse is that OLAF is not absolutely transparent with regard to the criteria for launching an investigation. It has emerged that as many as 423 dossiers were opened on a single day and out of all of them only 10% led to recommendations to establish national follow-up investigations. In nine out of ten cases, therefore, people have been unjustly suspected of fraud, with all the unpleasant consequences that can have.

The European Commission is attempting to create a European criminal law system. Their ideal would be the establishment of a European investigation bureau, similar to the FBI, and European courts, but, as is always the case, the Commission is starting in the middle. There has for some time been an official proposal for a European Public Prosecutor. We in the SP are unimpressed by this: we are wholly opposed to a federal system of criminal justice. The Commission’s major argument in favour of a European Public Prosecutor is that the member states do too little to combat the fraudulent use of EU funds. They do little to follow up OLAF’s investigations, so that a public prosecutor could ensure that this sort of criminality would be given more priority. It didn’t apparently occur to the Commission that the problem might not lie with the member states but with the quality of their own OLAF’s work. It is not possible for a national legal official to do anything with an investigation the conclusions of which are supported by insufficient evidence or in which suspects’ rights have been violated. The courts would never agree to a prosecution based on that sort of investigation.

The Commission must first of all put OLAF’s house in order before they start daydreaming about a European Public Prosecutor. As things stand, the Commission is throwing money down the drain with OLAF. Moreover, there are people being unjustly accused of fraud. Those kinds of abuses must be tackled as a priority. That’s why I have proposed a motion in the European Parliament to the effect that before the end of the year they must come up with an action plan that will put an immediate end to the row between OLAF and the Supervisory Committee. That would be good for OLAF, but most importantly it would be good for justice.