Greater cooperation and stronger safeguards against fraud involving European funds
Among the recommendations set out in the report approved yesterday by the Budgetary Control Committee is the establishment of a single digital channel for complaints
Key points
Greater cooperation between European anti-fraud bodies, strengthened safeguards for whistleblowers, the establishment of a single channel for reporting possible irregularities relating to EU funds and swifter recovery of public funds that have been misused. These are the key points of the report approved yesterday, in which members of the European Parliament’s Committee on Budgetary Control set out the priorities to be emphasised in the proposed overhaul of the European regulatory framework for combating fraud, ahead of the next long-term budget.
In the document, which was passed with 25 votes in favour, none against and four abstentions, MEPs emphasise the need for the timely sharing of information and responsibilities, without, however, compromising the independence of investigators and prosecutors.
“Taxpayers’ money must be better protected. And the gaps between anti-fraud bodies must be bridged, facilitating faster information-sharing and joint management of cases,” commented co-rapporteur Dick Erixon. “OLAF’s restrictions must be lifted to allow for swift action to safeguard funds, and the recovery of money fraudulently misappropriated must be the priority. Results need to be measured more accurately, by estimating the fraud gap and establishing common indicators and annual reporting.”
Collaboration between Eppo and Olaf
The first request concerns the implementation of synergy between the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which is responsible for managing investigations into crimes affecting the European budget and prosecuting the perpetrators, and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), which, on the other hand, is responsible for investigating the administrative implications of ambiguous (and often improper) use of EU funds.
The proposal is simple: to avoid any overlap between activities and operations, administrative investigations should be suspended ‘gradually and for a limited period’ where they risk compromising those conducted by the EPPO. The suspension measure must be reviewed (and updated) at regular intervals, allowing investigations by the Anti-Fraud Office once they can no longer prejudice criminal investigations or infringe the rights of the persons involved.
