Procedure : 2015/2699(RSP)
Document stages in plenary
Document selected : B8-0540/2015

Texts tabled :

B8-0540/2015

Debates :

PV 09/06/2015 - 13
CRE 09/06/2015 - 13

Votes :

PV 10/06/2015 - 8.7
Explanations of votes

Texts adopted :


MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION
PDF 255kWORD 67k
3.6.2015
PE558.914v01-00
 
B8-0540/2015

further to Questions for Oral Answer B8‑0553/2015, B8-0554/2015 and B8‑0555/2015

pursuant to Rule 128(5) of the Rules of Procedure


on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014 (2015/2699(RSP))


Marco Valli, Rolandas Paksas on behalf of the EFDD Group

European Parliament resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report for 2014 (2015/2699(RSP))  
B8‑0540/2015

The European Parliament,

–       having regard to Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999(1),

–       having regard to its decision of 29 April 2015 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, Section III – Commission and executive agencies(2),

–       having regard to its decision of 3 April 2014 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2012, Section III – Commission and executive agencies(3),

–       having regard to the 2014 Annual Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee (hereinafter ‘the SC’),

–       having regard to Report No 1/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘Safeguarding OLAF’s investigative independence’,

–       having regard to Report No 2/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘Implementation by OLAF of the Supervisory Committee’s recommendations’,

–       having regard to Opinion No 1/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘OLAF Investigation Policy Priorities’,

–       having regard to Opinion No 2/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘Case selection in OLAF’,

–       having regard to Report No 3/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘Opening of cases in OLAF in 2012’,

–       having regard to Opinion No 4/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘Control of the duration of investigations conducted by the European Anti-fraud Office’,

–       having regard to Opinion No 5/2014 of the SC, entitled ‘OLAF external reporting on the duration of investigations’,

–       having regard to OLAF’s response to SC Report No 3/2014,

–       having regard to OLAF’s response to SC Opinion No 4/2014,

–       having regard to OLAF’s response to SC Opinion No 5/2014,

–       having regard to the SC’s Note on the Supervisory Committee’s Analysis of the OLAF Draft IPPs for 2015,

–       having regard to SC’s Working Arrangements with OLAF,

–       having regard to the questions to the Commission on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014 (O-000060/2015 – B8‑0553/2015, O-000061/2015 – B8-0554/2015 and O-000066/2015 – B8‑0555/2015),

–       having regard to Rules 128(5) and 123(2) of its Rules of Procedure,

A.     whereas OLAF was not invited to the meeting of 4 May 2015 at which the OLAF Supervisory Committee (SC) presented its Annual Activity Report 2014 to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control;

B.     whereas OLAF’s replies to the opinions and other documents included in the SC’s 2014 activity report were not included in the official documentation for the Committee on Budgetary Control’s agenda;

C.     whereas over the first half of its mandate the SC issued 50 recommendations to OLAF, of which the SC considers that only 8 have been fully implemented, with 6 having been partially implemented, 1 pending and 20 not implemented, and whereas in 15 cases the SC claims not to be able to verify the implementation owing to insufficient information;

D.     whereas the role of the SC is to supervise OLAF’s independence, its investigative function, the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations;

E.     whereas OLAF has several times proposed a new revision of the Working Arrangements, in order to reach a satisfactory practical agreement between the two bodies;

F.     whereas the SC has on several occasions called on the EU institutions to reinforce its right of full access to OLAF case files;

G.     whereas in its Opinion No 5/2014 entitled ‘OLAF external reporting on the duration of investigations’, the SC concluded that the improvement in the results of OLAF investigations was due to the introduction of new calculation methods;

1.      Strongly deplores the fact that OLAF was not officially invited to the presentation to Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control of the SC Annual Activity Report 2014;

2.      Stresses the importance of a public confrontation between OLAF and the SC on OLAF’s replies to the opinions and other documents included in the SC Annual Activity Report 2014;

3.      Regrets the fact that it was not possible to schedule a meeting of the Committee on Budgetary Control bringing together OLAF and the SC before the tabling of an oral question to the Commission on the SC Annual Activity Report 2014;

4.      Notes that for the majority of the actions for which OLAF’s follow-up was marked by the SC as ‘could not be verified’, OLAF is complaining that the SC did not even attempt to conduct a verification by asking OLAF about the state of implementation before the publication of the SC report; regrets the fact that in many cases the SC made recommendations that concern specific investigative acts of the past, or suggest actions relating to the past that cannot be retroactively implemented by OLAF;

5.      Urges the Commission to facilitate the negotiations between OLAF and the SC with a view to amending the Working Arrangements to clarify the SC’s role and its range of action;

6.      Highlights the fact that investigations lasting more than 12 months are considered to be ‘ongoing investigations’ and are subject to strict confidentiality rules and data protection requirements; recalls that OLAF cannot automatically provide the SC with information which is not expressly provided for by the regulation, as a means of safeguarding investigations and data protection principles; welcomes the fact that OLAF and the SC are seeking an agreement in order to improve the information that OLAF can provide to the SC on investigations lasting more than 12 months;

7.      Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council and the Commission.

(1)

OJ L 248, 18.8.2013, p. 1.

(2)

Texts adopted, P8_TA(2015)0118.

(3)

Texts adopted, P7_TA(2014)0287.

Legal notice - Privacy policy