29. In accordance with recent agreements made at the informal meeting of the Council in Evian, calls
for aid from the EU and its Member States to be allocated in a more coordinated and demand-driven wayand for the EU delegation in Jakarta to be given more manpower, so that it can manage this coordinationeffort;
30. Welcomes the Commission’s attempt to increase dialogue with Indonesia, especially the institution
of the Senior Official Meetings (SOM), and draws particular attention to cooperation in the cultural sectorand more exchanges between universities;
31. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Commission, the Council, the parliaments of
the Member States, the Government and Parliament of Indonesia, the UN and the UNHCR and the secre-tariats of ASEAN and ASEM.
14. Protection of Communities’ financial interests
A5-0376/2000
European Parliament resolution on the Commission communication ‘Protection of the Commu-
nities’ financial interests ydash The fight against fraud ydash For an overall strategic approach’
(COM(2000) 358 ydash C5-0578/2000 ydash 2000/2279(COS))
The European Parliament,
Ndash having regard to the Commission communication (COM(2000) 358 Ndash C5-0578/2000),
Ndash having regard to Article 280(5) of the EC Treaty,Ndash having regard to Rule 47(1) of its Rules of Procedure,
Ndash having regard to its resolutions of 19 January 2000 (
1) containing its recommendations to the Com-
mission on introducing protection under criminal law of the Union’s financial interests, of 13 April2000 (
2) containing its proposals for the Intergovernmental Conference (14094/1999 Ndash C5-0341/
1999 Ndash 1999/0825(CNS)), and of 16 May 2000 (3) on the 1998 annual report by the Commission
on protecting the Communities’ financial interests and the fight against fraud (COM(1999) 590 NdashC5-0058/2000 Ndash 2000/2032(COS)),
Ndash having regard to the Court of Auditors’ contribution of 18 April 2000 to the Intergovernmental Con-
ference, on improving the protection of the European Union’s financial interests,
Ndash having regard to the conclusions of the Tampere European Council of 15/16 October 1999, in parti-
cular regarding the prevention of crime at EU level,
Ndash having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0376/2000),
A. whereas fraud against the Communities’ financial interests is a serious problem recognised as such and
condemned by all Member States of the Union, the scale of which could increase with the enlargement
of Community territory and the introduction of the euro,
B. whereas, ultimately, the victim of such fraud is the European taxpayer,
C. whereas the fight against fraud against the Communities’ financial interests must bring together police,
administrative and criminal law resources,
D. noting that, in the majority of cases, it is not possible either to recover the amounts unduly received
or to punish those responsible,
(1) OJC 304, 24.10.2000, p. 126.
(2) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 7.
(3) ‘Texts Adopted’, Item 5.17.8.2001 EN C 232/191 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 13 December 2000
E. bearing in mind the progress made as a result of the entry into force of Article 280 of the EC Treaty,
since May 1999, and the establishment of the Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), but noting that the legal andinstitutional framework they provide is inadequate for effectively combating fraud against the Com-munities’ financial interests,
F. noting that the 1995 Convention on the protection of financial interests and the protocols thereto
have still not been ratified by all Member States and that this is preventing its entry into force anddepriving the Community budget (revenue and expenditure) of proper protection,
G. noting that the principle of national territoriality of the judicial system of each Member State and the
differences that exist between those systems are the main obstacles to European judicial cooperation in
criminal law matters,
H. taking note of the observations made by legal and judicial circles as to the serious difficulties impeding
such judicial cooperation (length of time required to process international letters rogatory, refusal of
cooperation owing to application of the non bis in idem principle, differences concerning burden of
proof, etc.),
I. whereas it is incumbent on the legislator to remedy this problem and whereas statements by the
Heads of State and Government in favour of judicial cooperation are not enough to establish a Eur-opean criminal law enforcement area,
1. Considers that the Commission communication on the strategy for fighting fraud essentially consti-
tutes a list of recommendable guidelines requiring the smooth functioning of cooperation between andamongst the various national and Community bodies in order to both prevent and fight fraud; endorsesthe Commission’s wish to involve the applicant countries in this strategy immediately;
2. Takes note of the Commission’s internal reforms concerning the financial management of the various
policies, as set out in the White Paper on reform of the Commission (COM(2000) 200);
3. Notes that the Commission places OLAF at the heart of its strategy for fighting fraud and agrees that
there is a need for cooperation between national bodies and OLAF, as this is the key to ensuring thatOLAF is successful and credible;
4. Points out, however, that OLAF’s remit, within the Community institutions, bodies, offices and agen-
cies, includes administrative investigations to investigate ‘serious matters relating to the discharge of pro-
fessional duties such as to constitute a dereliction of the obligations of officials and other servants of theCommunities liable to result in disciplinary or, as the case may be, criminal proceedings, or an equivalentfailure to discharge obligations on the part of members of institutions and bodies, heads of offices andagencies or members of the staff of institutions, bodies, offices or agencies not subject to the staff regula-tions of officials or the conditions of employment of other servants of the Communities and on-the-spotchecks and inspections in the Member States, though the information gathered by OLAF must be for-warded to the national judicial authorities when they relate to matters liable to result in criminal proceed-
ings’;
5. Notes that the current impasse affecting the setting-up of OLAF has come about because due account
has not yet been taken of paragraphs 20 and 21 of its abovementioned resolution of 16 May 2000 on
protecting the Communities’ financial interests; reaffirms the demands made in those paragraphs, namely:
(a) that all staff currently working for OLAF must be asked to reapply for their posts in order to enable
the new Director to make a fresh assessment of their suitability;
(b) that the Commission accept, without prejudice to the provisions of the Staff Regulations, the Direc-
tor’s personnel decisions, even when this entails officials previously working for OLAF having to beotherwise employed in the Commission;
6. Reaffirms the call it has already made on several occasions for priority to be given, when filling posts
in OLAF, to experienced inspectors, investigators and prosecuting officers from the relevant departments ofthe Member States; stresses that this must apply in particular to managerial posts;C 232/192 EN 17.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 13 December 2000
7. Insists that the independence from the Institutions, governments and other bodies and, above all,
from the Commission, which the legislator intended OLAF to have in terms of its staffing and operationalactivity (information gathering, investigative activity, follow-up), should become a reality as soon as possi-ble;
8. Reaffirms paragraph 4 of its abovementioned resolution of 16 May 2000 and calls once again on the
Commission to submit proposals to strengthen the role of the OLAF Supervisory Committee, for instanceby assigning to it a hearing officer modelled on the hearing officers for competition procedures before theCommission (
1); this hearing officer would have the task, inter alia , of ensuring that the rights of the
defence of the parties concerned are guaranteed in investigations and should carry out this role completely
independently of the Director of OLAF;
9. Considers that OLAF, which is essentially an investigative body set up before a genuine judicial area
has been created, has limits placed on its effectiveness and legitimacy, for substantive law and procedurestill vary from one Member State to another and the safeguarding of individual rights is inadequate;
10. Calls, therefore, for the legislator to seek solutions of a more global nature, necessitating the setting-
up of procedures that are more binding;
11. Welcomes, therefore, the Commission’s approach in submitting to the Intergovernmental Confer-
ence, like Parliament and the Court of Auditors (cf. contribution to the IGC) before it, a proposal for
amending the EC Treaty by adding an Article 280a, so that a European Public Prosecutor’s Office with
responsibility for the protection of the Communities’ financial interests can be established, which wouldensure consistency between investigations conducted throughout the territory of the European Commu-nity;
12. Reaffirms paragraph 2 of its abovementioned resolution of 16 May 2000 on protecting the Com-
munities’ financial interests and calls on the Commission, as a preliminary step, to present, on the basis ofthe current Article 280 of the EC Treaty, a proposal to extend Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 concerninginvestigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (
2), which would allow the early
appointment of such a public prosecutor, whose jurisdiction would be limited, pending the entry intoforce of the envisaged changes to the Treaty, to criminal offences against the financial interests of theEuropean Communities committed by members and employees of the EU institutions and who would
have the task of heading the related OLAF investigations and facilitating the prosecution of such criminal
offences in the appropriate national courts;
13. Considers that the Commission strategy for fighting fraud against the Communities’ financial inter-
ests should incorporate or address the following additional points:
In the short term:
(a) the need for the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank to accede to the interin-
stitutional agreement relating to OLAF (
3);
(b) the improvement of the existing system of administrative penalties within the general legislative fra-
mework already established by Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 (4);
(c) a set of measures for implementing the strategy set out and an operational timetable, which will need
to be forwarded to Parliament as soon as possible;
(d) an assessment of the applicant countries’ laws in terms of the repression of potential fraud against the
Community budget, in particular by organised criminal groups;
With regard to OLAF:
(e) a strengthening of its operational structure by:
Ndash establishing a ‘liaison centre’ comprising in particular a magistrates unit, the magistrates being
responsible for monitoring investigations and for relations with national judicial authorities;
Ndash setting up a unit responsible for recovering the amounts defrauded, as envisaged by the White
Paper on reforming the Commission (Action 96);
(1) Commission Decision of 12 December 1994 on the terms of reference of hearing officers in competition proce-
dures before the Commission (OJL 330, 21.12.1994, p. 67).
(2) OJL 136, 31.5.1999, p. 1.
(3) OJL 136, 31.5.1999, p. 15.
(4) OJL 312, 23.12.1995, p. 1.17.8.2001 EN C 232/193 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 13 December 2000
With a view to the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office:
(f) proposals, pursuant to the procedure laid down in Article 251 of the EC Treaty, concerning the con-
ditions governing the performance of the European Public Prosecutor’s duties, the definition of
offences and penalties, procedural rules, rules of evidence and judicial review of the Prosecutor’sactions;
(g) the appointment of an independent European Public Prosecutor assisted by Deputy European Public
Prosecutors in each Member State, which would provide the structure of a European Public Prosecu-
tor’s Office as advocated in the ‘Corpus Juris’ expert report, to which should be added a European
body responsible for overseeing the work of the Prosecutor’s Office and taking committal decisions,in accordance with the judicial safeguard principle;
(h) a special mechanism needed to govern relations between OLAF and the European Public Prosecutor;
14. Calls for Member States which have not yet ratified the 1995 Convention on the Protection of
Financial Interests (Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) to do so as soon as possible;
15. Regrets very deeply that the Nice European Council did not decide on any practical measures with
regard to the protection of the European Union’s financial interests and, in particular, that the Commissionproposal that an Article 280a providing for the establishment of a European Public Prosecutor be incor-porated into the Treaty was not accepted, especially as the 1995 Convention on the protection of theCommunities’ financial interests has not yet been ratified by all Member States and therefore still cannotbe applied and is now inadequate;
16. Expects that every effort will now be made to ensure that effective and full protection of the
Union’s financial interests with the help of a European Public Prosecutor becomes a reality when the
next occasion arises;
17. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission and the Heads of
Government or State meeting within the framework of the Intergovernmental Conference.
15. Reform of budgetary control procedures
A5-0383/2000
European Parliament resolution on reform of budgetary control procedures and institutions (2000/
2008(INI))
The European Parliament,
Ndash having regard to Rule 163 of its Rules of Procedure,Ndash having regard to Rule 93 and Annex V of its Rules of Procedure,
Ndash having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control (A5-0383/2000),
A. whereas, pursuant to Article 274 of the EC Treaty, the Commission bears responsibility for imple-
menting the budget in accordance with the principles of sound financial management, notwithstand-
ing the fact that around 85 % of the budget is implemented by national authorities,
B. whereas, pursuant to Article 276 of the EC Treaty, Parliament is required to give a discharge to the
Commission in respect of implementation of the budget and thereby assumes responsibility for ensur-
ing that the Commission meets its Treaty obligations in full,
C. whereas Parliament is thus accountable to the citizens of the Union for ensuring that their money is
spent as economically and efficiently as possible and that the institutions of the Union do everythingin their power to reduce the number of errors in the implementation of the budget and to securemaximum protection against fraud, corruption and organised crime,C 232/194 EN 17.8.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities
Wednesday 13 December 2000