Special Report No 2/2011 ‘Follow-up of Special Report No 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office?’
Date: 2011-04-27
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, administration of the Institutions, budgetary control, management

EUROPEAN
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0
-
1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

1
1
0
2

2
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

FOLLOW-UP OF SPECIAL REPORT No 1/2005 

CONCERNING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE 

EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD OFFICE

EN

 
 
 
 
 
Special Report No 2 

 2011

FOLLOW-UP OF  
SPECIAL REPORT No 1/2005 
CONCERNING THE 
MANAGEMENT OF THE 
EUROPEAN ANTI-FRAUD 
OFFICE

(pursuant to Article 287(4), second subparagraph, TFEU)

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS
12, rue Alcide De Gasperi
1615 Luxembourg
LUXEMBOURG

Tel. +352 4398-1
Fax +352 4398-46410
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu
Internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

Special Report No 2 

 2011

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. 

It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication 

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2011

ISBN 978-92-9237-115-9

doi:10.2865/7996

© European Union, 2011

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

CONTENTS

3

Paragraph

I–VII	

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

1–3	

3	

4–5	

6–65	

7–18	

INTRODUCTION

	STATUS	OF	RECOMMENDATIONS

AUDIT	SCOPE	AND	APPROACH

OBSERVATIONS

	REFOCUSING	ON	THE	INVESTIGATIVE	FUNCTION

8–11 

NON-INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES HAVE NOT BEEN DIVESTED

12–15 

 GREATER FOCUS ON INVESTIGATIVE ACTIVITIES

16–18 

 CONTRIBUTION OF STRATEGIC SERVICES TO THE INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION  
REMAINS LIMITED

19–44	

	IMPROVING	THE	EFFICIENCY	OF	INVESTIGATIONS

20–23 

 PLANNING DOES NOT INCLUDE MANPOWER AND DEADLINES

24–26 

MEASURES TAKEN TO FOCUS ON PRIORITIES

27–33 

 DURATION OF INVESTIGATIONS HAS NOT IMPROVED

34–37 

INCREASED SUPPORT FROM CASE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (CMS) AND PERSONNEL FUNCTION

38–39 

REVISION OF THE LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK STILL PENDING

40–44 

DIFFICULTIES IN COOPERATION WITH EUROJUST AND MEMBER STATES

45–57	

	REPORTING	ON	THE	EFFECTIVENESS	OF	INVESTIGATIONS

46–48 

 TARGETS ARE SET AND MONITORED BUT DO NOT FOCUS ON RESULTS

49–57 

 REPORTS ON PERFORMANCE DO NOT FULLY EXPLOIT THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE

58–65	

	CLARIFYING	THE	ROLE	OF	THE	SUPERVISORY	COMMITTEE

59–65 

 UPDATING PROCEDURES NOT YET COMPLETED

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

4

66–76	

CONCLUSIONS	AND	RECOMMENDATIONS

66–68	

	REFOCUSING	ON	THE	INVESTIGATIVE	FUNCTION

69–71	

	IMPROVING	THE	EFFICIENCY	OF	INVESTIGATIONS

72–74	

	REPORTING	ON	THE	EFFECTIVENESS	OF	INVESTIGATIONS

75–76	

	CLARIFYING	THE	ROLE	OF	THE	SUPERVISORY	COMMITTEE

ANNEX	I	

–	

	STATUS	OF	IMPLEMENTATION	OF	RECOMMENDATIONS		
(SPECIAL	REPORT	No 1/2005)

ANNEX	II	

–	 OLAF	ORGANISATION	CHART

ANNEX	III	 –	 POTENTIAL	INDICATORS

REPLY	OF	THE	COMMISSION

REPLY	OF	THE	OLAF	SUPERVISORY	COMMITTEE

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

	
	
	
5

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

III.
O L A F   h a s   t a k e n   a   n u m b e r   o f   s t e p s   t o 
improve th e efficienc y  of inves ti g ati on s.  I t 
h a s   m a d e   f u l l e r   u s e   o f   i t s   e l e c t r o n i c   c a s e 
m a n a g e m e n t   s y s t e m   ( C M S ) ,   c a r r i e d   o u t 
m o re   fo c u s e d   t ra i n i n g,   i nt ro d u ce d   t a rg e t s 
t o   f o c u s   o n   m o r e   s e r i o u s   a n d   c o m p l e x 
c a s e s ,   r e d u c e d   t h e   p r o p o r t i o n   o f   t e m p o -
r a r y   s t a f f   a n d   i n t ro d u c e d   a  Ti m e   M a n a g e -
m e n t   S y s t e m   ( T M S ) .   H o w e v e r,   t h e   T M S 
i s   n o t   u s e d   f o r   p l a n n i n g   p u r p o s e s   a n d 
wo r k p l a n s   d o   n o t   i n c l u d e   e s t i m ate s   o f   t h e 
t i m e   re q u i re d   a n d   d e a d l i n e s   fo r   i nve s t i g a -
t i o n s.  Th e re   i s   a   n e e d   to   i m p rove   t h e   m a n -
a g e m e n t   o f   c a s e s   i n   p r o g r e s s   i n   o r d e r   t o 
r e s o l v e   p r o b l e m s   f a s t e r   a n d   a v o i d   l o n g 
p e r i o d s   o f   i n a c t i v i t y :   t h e   a v e r a g e   c a s e 
d u r a t i o n   re m a i n s   o ve r   t wo   ye a r s.   I n   a d d i -
t i o n ,   O L A F   n ow   re ce i ve s   5 0   %   m o re   i n i t i a l 
in for mation  on possible f rauds a nd ir re gu -
lar ities than in 2004 and the average dura-
t i o n   o f   t h e   i n i t i a l   a s s e s s m e nt   o f   t h i s   i n fo r-
m a t i o n   h a s   d o u b l e d   f r o m   3 , 5   m o n t h s   t o 
7   m o n t h s .   A l t h o u g h   t h e r e   a r e   3 2   %   m o r e 
i n v e s t i g a t o r s   t h a n   i n   2 0 0 4 ,   t h e   n u m b e r 
o f   c a s e s   u n d e r   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   h a s   n o t 
i n c re a s e d.  Th i s   re f l e c t s   t h e   fo c u s   o n   m o re 
ser ious cases, the increasing propor tion of 
OLAF’s own investigations and the redirec -
t i o n   o f   i nve s t i g at i ve   re s o u rce s   to   c a r r y i n g 
o u t   i n i t i a l   a s s e s s m e nt s   ( s e e   p a ra gra p h s   1 9 
to 3 7 ).

I.
T h e   E u r o p e a n   A n t i - F r a u d   O f f i c e   ( O L A F ) 
i s   c h a r g e d   w i t h   f i g h t i n g   f r a u d   a n d   o t h e r 
i l l e g a l   a c t i v i t i e s   d e t r i m e n t a l   t o   t h e   E U 
b u d g e t .  T h e   O f f i c e ,   w h i c h   b e l o n g s   t o   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   b u t   h a s   i n v e s t i g a t i v e   a u t o n -
o m y,   e m p l o y s   i n   t h e   o r d e r   o f   5 0 0   s t a f f , 
a n d   a n n u a l   e x p e n d i t u re   a m o u n t s   t o   s o m e 
5 0   m i l l i o n   e u r o .   I n   2 0 0 5   t h e   C o u r t   o f 
A u d i t o r s ’  S p e c i a l   R e p o r t   N o   1 / 2 0 0 5   c o n -
c e r n i n g   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   O L A F   i d e n -
t i f i e d   w e a k n e s s e s   i n   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t 
o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   a n d   m a d e   1 7   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n s   t o   r e f o c u s   a c t i v i t i e s   o n   t h e 
i nve s t i g a t i ve   f u n c t i o n ,   i m p rove   e f f i c i e n c y 
a n d   d e m o n s t r a t e   e f fe c t i v e n e s s   ( s e e   p a r a -
graphs  1 to 5).

II.
OLAF now makes more use of its powers to 
car r y out on-the -spot checks, examine wit-
n e s s e s   a n d   q u e s t i o n   s u s p e c t s.   I n   o rd e r   t o 
refocus on the investigative func tion OLAF 
c r e a t e d   t w o   i nv e s t i g a t i o n   d i r e c t o r a t e s   t o 
re p l a c e   t h e   o n e   e x i s t i n g   p re v i o u s l y.   H o w-
e ve r,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h at   O L A F 
is most effec tive as an all-round anti-fraud 
a u t h o r i t y   r a t h e r   t h a n   a   s e r v i c e   c o n c e n -
t r a t e d   o n   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   a n d   s o   d i d   n o t 
divest OLAF of its non-investigative ac tivi-
t i e s   s u c h   a s   a n t i - f r a u d   s t r a t e g y   a n d   f u n d -
i n g   p r o g r a m m e s .   C o n s e q u e n t l y,   t h e   r a t e 
o f   i n c r e a s e   i n   s t a f f   i n   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i o n 
d i re c to rate s   ( 3 2   % )   h a s   n o t   k e p t   p a ce   w i t h 
g ro w t h   i n   t h e   re s t   o f   t h e   O f f i c e   ( 4 3   % ) .   I n 
2009 invest igat ive cas ewor k acco u nted fo r 
3 7   %   o f   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   O f f i c e   a s   a   w h o l e 
(see  pa ragraph s 7 to 1 8) .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

6

EXECUTIVE 
SUMMARY

VII.
O n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e s e   o b s e r v a t i o n s   t h e 
C o u r t ’s   m a i n   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   a r e   t h a t 
OL AF s hould  (see paragraphs  66  to 7 6 ) :

( a)  I n c r e a s e   t h e   n u m b e r   a n d   s p e e d   o f   i n -
ve s t i g a t i o n s   b y   i n c re a s i n g   t h e   p ro p o r-
tion of time spent on them and revising 
th e leg al framewor k .

( b)  I m p r o v e   e f f i c i e n c y   b y   i n c l u d i n g   e s t i -
m ate s   o f   re s o u rce s   re q u i re d   a n d   d e a d-
l i n e s   i n   p l a n s   fo r   i nv e s t i g a t i o n s .   P l a n s 
sh ould  be  monitore d  and  update d. Th e 
E x e c u t i v e   B o a r d   s h o u l d   p l a y   a   r o l e   i n 
e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e   o v e r a l l   d u r a t i o n   o f 
a s s e s s m e n t s   a n d   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   i s   r e -
duced.

( c)   Pr o v i d e   r e l i a b l e   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   e f f e c -
tiveness by publishing in a single docu-
ment per formance statistics on ac tivit y, 
pote nt ial an d real  res ults.

( d)  B e t t e r   d e f i n e   a   p r o c e d u r e   fo r   c o n s u l t-
i n g   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t t e e   b e fo re 
t r a n s m i t t i n g   i n f o r m a t i o n   t o   n a t i o n a l 
j udic ial auth or ities.

IV.
The legal framewor k 1 has not changed since 
t h e   C o u r t ’s   l a s t   r e p o r t .   T h e r e   i s   s t i l l   n o 
independent control of investigative ac ts in 
p ro gre s s,   n o r   i s   t h e re   a   co d e   g u a ra n te e i n g 
t h at   i nve s t i g at i ve   a c t s   fo l l ow   a   p re d i c t a b l e 
c o u r s e .   A   Pr a c t i c a l   A g r e e m e n t   fo r   c o o p e r -
a t i o n   w i t h   E u r o j u s t   h a s   s o   f a r   h a d   l i m i t e d 
impac t (see paragraphs 38 to 44).

V.
O L A F   s e t s   c l e a r   o b j e c t i v e s   f o r   t h e   O f f i c e 
i n   i t s   An n u a l   M a n a g e m e nt   Pl a n .   I nve s t i g a -
t i o n s   h a v e   r e s u l t e d   i n   t h e   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n 
o f   s i g n i f i c a n t   s u m s   f o r   r e c o v e r y,   j u d i c i a l 
a n d   d i s c i p l i n a r y   a c t i o n ,   a n d   c l o s u r e   o f 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   w h e r e   i n i t i a l   a l l e g a t i o n s 
w e r e   s h o w n   t o   b e   u n f o u n d e d .   I n f o r m a -
t i o n   o n   O L A F’s   p e r fo r m a n ce   i s   ava i l a b l e   i n 
C M S   co n ce r n i n g   a c t i v i t y,   p o te n t i a l   re s u l t s 
a n d   r e a l   r e s u l t s .   H o w e v e r,   O L A F   d o e s   n o t 
r e p o r t   t h i s   i n f o r m a t i o n   i n   a   s i n g l e   d o c u -
ment which would enable reliable compar-
i s o n s   t o   b e   m a d e   o f   i t s   p e r fo r m a n c e   o v e r 
time and across sec tors (see paragraphs 45 
to 57).

V I.
T h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   h a s   r e v i s e d 
i t s   r u l e s   o f   p ro ce d u re   a n d   h a s   p ro d u ce d   a 
n u m b e r   o f   r e p o r t s   a n d   o p i n i o n s   c o n c e r n -
i n g   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   O L A F.   A   p r o c e -
d u r e   h a s   b e e n   i n t r o d u c e d   t o   c o n s u l t   t h e 
S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t te e   b e fo re   fo r wa rd i n g 
i n f o r m a t i o n   t o   n a t i o n a l   j u d i c i a l   a u t h o r i -
t i e s   a l t h o u g h   t h i s   d o e s   n o t   ye t   a d e q u ate l y 
protec t the r ights of individuals concer ned 
(see  pa ragraph s 58  to  65 ).

1  Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament 
and of the Council of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations 

conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) (OJ L 136, 

31.5.1999, p. 1).

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

INTRODUCTION

7

1.	

2.	

I n   2 0 0 5   t h e   C o u r t   o f   A u d i t o r s   p u b l i s h e d   S p e c i a l   R e p o r t 
No 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-
Fraud O ffice (OLAF) 2. The audit identified weak nesses in OLAF’s 
management of investigations and made 17 recommendations 
t o   r e f o c u s   a c t i v i t i e s   o n   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i v e   f u n c t i o n ,   i m p r o v e 
eff icienc y  and  demo ns t rate  effe c ti ve n es s.  OL AF  produce d  an 
a c t i o n   p l a n   f o r   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   a c c e p t e d   r e c o m -
m e n d a t i o n s   a n d   i n   2 0 0 7   r e p o r t e d   o n   p r o g r e s s   t o   t h e   A u d i t 
Progress Committee of the Commission 3. An outline of OLAF’s 
rol e a nd ta sks is s et ou t in B ox 1.

2  OJ C 202, 18.8.2005, p. 1.

3  Audit Progress Committee 
meeting on 5 July 2007 - 

Progress report by OLAF on 

the implementation of the 

recommendations of the Court 

of Auditors’ Special Report 

No 1/2005.

 F i g u r e   1   i l l u s t r a t e s   t h e   e v o l u t i o n   o f   a c t i v i t y   i n   O L A F   s i n c e 
2 0 0 4   i n   te r m s   o f   e x p e n d i t u re,   s t a f f i n g,   i n fo r m a t i o n   re c e i ve d 
and cases handled. The number of cases under investigation at 
any one time has remained at some 400, each lasting on aver-
a g e   t wo   ye a r s,   a n d   i n   t h e   o rd e r   o f   2 0 0   c a s e s   a re   c l o s e d   e a c h 
year. The amount of initial information received has increased 
considerably and OLAF now receives approximately 1 000 dif-
fere nt  com municat ions  from  var i ous  s ources  e ach  ye ar.

F I G U R E 	 1

O L A F 	 E X P E N D I T U R E ,	 S TA F F I N G 	 A N D 	 C A S E LO A D 	 2 00 4	TO 	 2 00 9

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Staffing
Cases closed during year

Information received
Expenditure (right hand axis)

Cases open at year-end

s
e
s
a
c
/
n
o
i
t
a
m
r
o
f
n
i
/
ff
a
t
s
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

Source: OLAF. 

o
r
u
e
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

 
 
 
8

B O X 	 1

O L A F ’S 	 R O L E 	 A N D 	TA S K S

Key	objectives	and	activities

OLAF was set-up in 19994 with the aim of increasing the effectiveness of the fight against illegal activi-
ties detrimental to the Union’s financial interests. OLAF is responsible for a range of activities including 
carrying out administrative investigations for fighting fraud, assisting Member States in fraud prevention 
and collecting and analysing information.

OLAF has investigative independence, which is reinforced by a Supervisory Committee made up of five 
independent persons from outside the EU institutions.

Types	of	case

The Office divides its cases into the following categories:

(a)  Investigations

 ο  internal investigations (investigations within the EU institutions and bodies);

 ο  external investigations (investigations into economic operators involving EU funds).

(b) Coordination and assistance operations

 ο  coordination of Member States in investigations concerning more than one country;

 ο  support for national judicial authorities in the context of criminal proceedings.

The	key	stages	of	investigations

(a)  OLAF receives denunciations from within or outside the EU institutions;

(b) OLAF assesses the initial information and the Director decides whether or not to open a case;

(c)  OLAF investigators gather evidence e.g. through interviews and on-the-spot checks;

(d) The investigators report to the Board the results of the investigative activities. The Director decides 
what follow-up action to initiate, if any. Follow-up action may include transmission of case informa-
tion to the competent national or EU authorities with a view to launching judicial or disciplinary 
proceedings or recovering funds;

(e)  OLAF verifies whether the responsible authorities have taken the recommended follow-up action.

The outcome of OLAF’s work can take the form of four types of follow-up: financial, administrative, 
judicial and disciplinary.

4  Commission Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom (OJ L 136, 31.5.1999, p. 20); Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

9

S TAT U S 	 O F 	 R E CO M M E N D AT I O N S	 	

3.	

 Table 1 lists the original 17 recommendations made in Special 
Repor t No 1/2005. The Cour t notes that 13 of its recommenda-
t i o n s   we re   fo l l owe d   u p   by   O L A F,   t h re e   o t h e r s   ( re co m m e n d a-
t i o n s   2 ,   1 4 ,   1 5 )   we re   n o t   a cce p te d   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n ,   w h i l e 
recommendation 16 on the role of the Super visor y Committee 
n e e d s   t o   b e   s e e n   i n   t h e   l i g h t   o f   a   j u d g m e n t   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o f 
Fir st  I nst ance in  J ul y 2008 5.

5  Case T-48/05 of 8 July 2008 
(OJ C 209, 15.8.2008, p. 44).

TA B L E 	 1

STATUS	OF	ECA	RECOMMENDATIONS	MADE	IN	SPECIAL	REPORT	NO	1/2005	ON	OLAF

Recommendation

1. Specify results to be achieved by investigations and introduce performance indicators to assess success

2. Consider creating a separate unit dedicated to coordination and assistance operations to improve management 
of resources

3. Establish smaller groupings on the Executive Board with the aim of setting clear plans and objectives for 
investigations

4. Supervise the investigation process to focus on priorities and on the search for evidence by making better use of 
the investigation means available

5. Introduce a time recording system linked to work plans with estimates of time to be spent on investigations to 
align workload with resources and to avoid delays

6. Establish a maximum duration for investigations

7. Remove follow-up activities (involvement in judicial proceedings and recovery of funds) that can be performed 
by authorising officers

8. Codify and publish procedures to protect the rights of individuals at all stages of the investigation and to 
provide controls on the legality of the investigative acts in progress

9. Formalise arrangements for cooperation between OLAF and the Member States through legislation or the 
conclusion of agreements with national investigation services

10. Convert CMS into a system of investigation management and increase training of investigators in investiga-
tion techniques, legislation and report-writing skills

11. Produce reliable and relevant reports on performance, based on real rather than potential results

12. Implement a masterplan for personnel management to resolve structural problems  

13. Strategic analysis services should seek improvement in the data forwarded by Member States and create 
databases which can be used to identify anomalies and launch investigations

14.Transfer responsibility for anti-fraud strategy to other Commission services  

15. Give responsibility for managing funding programmes (e.g. Pericles and Hercules) to other Commission 
services

Status
Accepted

Not accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Partially accepted

Partially accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Not accepted

 Not accepted

16. Clarify the role of the Supervisory Committee to ensure that there is no interference in ongoing investigations

Accepted

17. Refocus activities on the investigative function, accompanied by changes in governance and regulations

Partially accepted

Note: The recommendations made in Special Report No 1/2005 were not numbered. They are presented here, in summary form, in the 

order in which they appeared in the report. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

AUDIT SCOPE AND APPROACH

10

6  The audit selected cases 
which were open on 1 July 2008 

in order to review all stages 

of the procedure up to April 

2010 (initial assessment, active 

investigation, final decision and 

follow-up where applicable).

4.	

T h e   fo l l o w - u p   a u d i t   s e t   o u t   t o   e s t a b l i s h   t h e   a c t i o n   t a k e n   t o 
implement the recommendations of Special Repor t No 1/2005. 
The audit aimed to answer the following four questions which 
group together the different recommendations (see A nnex I):

(a ) Have the ac tivities of OLAF been refocused on its investiga -

t ive f un c tio n? (recommen dation s  2 ,  7 , 1 3,   14 ,  1 5,   17 )

(b) H a s   O L A F   i m p r o v e d   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   o f   i t s   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ? 

(reco m mendatio ns  3,  4, 5, 6,  8 ,  9,   10 , 1 2)

(c) C a n   O L A F   d e m o n s t r a t e   t h e   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   i t s   i nve s t i g a -

t ion s?  (reco mme ndations  1  and  1 1 )

(d ) H as  t he  ro l e  o f  the  Sup er visor y   Comm it tee   be en   c l ar i f ie d? 

(reco m mendatio n 1 6) .

5.	

 The  aud it  co mp r ised:

(a ) a n   a n a l y s i s   o f   p o l i c y,   p l a n n i n g ,   p r o c e d u r a l ,   s t a f f i n g   a n d 
financial documentation and statistics obtained from OLAF 
incl u ding   it s   ac t ion  p l an  to  add re ss  t h e  reco mme nd at ion s 
o f Sp ec ial  R e po r t No  1/ 200 5;

(b) i n t e r v i e w s   w i t h   O L A F   D i re c t o r s,   H e a d s   o f   U n i t   a n d   i nve s -
t i g a t o r s ;   m e e t i n g s   w i t h   t h e   O L A F   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t t e e 
a n d   i t s   S e c r e t a r i a t   t o   d i s c u s s   t h e i r   r e p o r t s   a n d   o p i n i o n s ; 
i n t e r v i e w s   w i t h   o t h e r   r e l e v a n t   b o d i e s   ( I nv e s t i g a t i o n   a n d 
Dis cip l inar y O ff ice of t he Co mm is s ion  ( IDO C ) ,  Euroj us t) ;

(c) a n   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   a   r a n d o m   s e l e c t i o n   o f   3 0   i nve s t i g a t i o n s 
out of the 332 internal and ex ternal investigations open on 
1   J u l y   2 0 0 8 6.  T h e   a s s e s s m e n t   w a s   b a s e d   o n   a n   a n a l y s i s   o f 
the case -related documentation held on the computer ised 
C a s e   M a n a g e m e n t   S y s t e m   (C M S )   a n d   i n t e r v i e w s   w i t h   t h e 
inve st ig ato rs co ncer ned.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

OBSERVATIONS

11

6.	

7.	

 Fin ding s  e merging  f rom   the  exam in ati on   of   th e  sam pl e  of   3 0 
case s  are  su mmar is ed  in  Figu re  2.  Eac h   investig ation  was   as-
s e s s e d   a s   s t ro n g,   s a t i s f a c t o r y   o r   we a k   a g a i n s t   t h e   fo l l o w i n g 
c r i t e r i a :   t h e   f o c u s   o n   i n v e s t i g a t i v e   a c t i v i t y,   c o n t r i b u t i o n   o f 
o t h e r   O L A F   s e r v i c e s   t o   t h e   c a s e ,   t i m e l i n e s s   o f   d e c i s i o n s   t o 
open the case, clar it y of objec tives and planning, propor tion -
ate duration, and results achieved. The findings are examined 
fur t her in t he  re levant  s ec tion s  of  th e  repor t.

R E F O C U S I N G 	 O N 	T H E 	 I N V E S T I G AT I V E	
F U N C T I O N

 The Cour t followed up the recommendations of Special Repor t 
N o   1 / 2 0 0 5   t h a t   O L A F   s h o u l d   d i ve s t   o r   s e p a r a t e   c e r t a i n   n o n -
investigative ac tivities and improve the contribution of strate -
gic ser vices to the investigative func tion. OLAF reorganised its 
direc to rates  in  2 00 6  an d  the  ne w  org ani s ati on  s tr uc t ure  ( se e 
Annex II) was intended to put more focus on OLAF’s investiga-
tive  fu nc t ion .

F I G U R E 	 2

A S S E S S M E N T 	 O F 	 C R I T E R I A 	 I N 	 3 0	 C A S E S 	 E X A M I N E D

Focus on investigative activities

Contribution of other services

Timely decision to open

Clear objectives and planning

Proportionate duration

Results achieved

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Cases in sample

Strong

Satisfactory

weak

Source: Examination of 30 cases. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

12

8.	

9.	

N O N - I N V E S T I G AT I V E 	 AC T I V I T I E S 	 H AV E 	 N OT 	 B E E N	
D I V E S T E D

 Th e   Co u r t   m a d e   fo u r   re co m m e n d at i o n s   to   d i ve s t   o r   s e p a rate 
ac tivities. The recommendation to transfer follow-up ac tivities 
( re c o m m e n d a t i o n   7 )   w a s   p a r t i a l l y   a c c e p t e d.   As   t h e   Co m m i s -
sio n  co nt inue d  to   ins ist  on  mainta in in g   O L AF  as   an   all-roun d 
anti-fraud author it y rather than a ser vice concentrated on in-
ve s t i g at i o n s,   t h e   o t h e r   t h re e   re co m m e n d a t i o n s   we re   n o t   a c -
cepted:  the transfer of responsibility for anti-fraud strategy to 
other Commission ser vices (recommendation 14); the transfer 
o f   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r   m a n a gi n g   f u n d i n g   p ro gra m m e s   to   o t h e r 
Commission ser vices (recommendation 15); and the separation 
of coordination and assistance operations from investigations 
(re co mme ndat ion  2) . 

7  Commission Decision – 
Communication C(2007) 5709 

of 27.11.2007 clarifying the 

respective responsibilities of 

OLAF and the Commission’s 

authorising officers for 

financial follow-up of irregular 

expenditure.

 C o n c e r n i n g   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   7   t o   t r a n s f e r   f o l l o w - u p   a c t i v i -
t i e s,   a c t i o n   h a s   b e e n   t a k e n   to   g i ve   p r i m a r y   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   t o 
Co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   fo r   fo l l o w - u p   a c t i v i t i e s 7.   O L A F   re m a i n s 
involved in judicial and disciplinar y follow-up (Unit C1, see or-
ganisation char t in A nnex II) and financial follow-up (Units C2 
a n d   C 3 ) .   O L A F ’s   r o l e   i s   t o   o p t i m i s e   c o n d i t i o n s   fo r   fo l l o w - u p 
a n d   to   ve r i f y   w h e t h e r   Co m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s   a n d   n a t i o n a l   a u -
tho r itie s have  t aken the neces sar y  me asure s.

TA B L E 	 2

S TA F F 	 D I S T R I B U T I O N 	2 00 4 – 0 9 1

Investigations and operations
 (directorates A and B)

Other (directorates C and D, Director- 
General and Supervisory Committee)

Officials and  
temporary

Contract 
staff

Total

Officials and 
temporary

Contract 
staff

Total

Total OLAF

% Investi-
gations and 
operations

100

107

110

126

140

143

25

22

25

21

20

22

125

129

135

147

160

165

165

174

180

205

212

217

65

67

77

100

93

111

230

241

257

305

305

328

355

370

392

452

465

493

35,2 %

34,9 %

34,4 %

32,5 %

34,4 %

33,5 %

Date

end 2004

end 2005

end 2006

end 2007

end 2008

end 2009

1  The table shows the actual number of staff employed.

Source: OLAF.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

13

10.  

11.  

Th e   p ro p o r t i o n   o f   s t a f f   wo r k i n g   i n   i nve s t i g at i o n s   a n d   o p e ra -
t i o n s   d i re c t o r a t e s   i s   o n   ave r a g e   3 4   %   ( 2 0 0 4 – 0 9 )   a s   s h ow n   i n 
Tab le  2.

8 

In 2009 over 98 % of all hours 

available were recorded in the 

time management system.

S o m e   o f   t h e   s t a f f   i n   D i r e c t o r a t e s   C   ( O p e r a t i o n a l   a n d   Po l i c y 
Suppor t) and D (General Affairs) are also involved in the inves-
tigative process. OLAF introduced a Time Management System 
( T M S )   i n   2 0 0 7   w h i c h   re c o rd s   t i m e   s p e n t   by   a l l   O L A F   s t a f f   o n 
case wo r k and on o th er ac tivit ie s 8. Th e T MS  sh ows  that  n ot all 
o f   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   s t a f f   i n   i nve s t i g at i o n   d i re c to rate s   i s   s p e nt 
on casework . In 2009 they allocated 63 % of their time to case -
w o r k ,   2 7   %   t o   m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n   a n d   1 0   %   t o 
polic y and resources. Conversely, staff work ing in other direc-
torates spent 25 % of their time direc tly suppor ting casework . 
The resulting total amount of time spent on casewor k by staff 
in all direc torates amounts to 37 % as shown in Figure 3 9. Only 
jus t over h alf  o f t his was  al l ocated  to spe c if i c c as es 10.

9  The workload of staff in the 
investigation directorates also 

covers assessments and co-

ordination and assistance cases.

10  An investigator or Head of 
Unit working on a large number 

of cases would allocate time to 

casework without indicating 

specific cases.

F I G U R E 	 3

U S E 	 O F 	 S TA F F 	T I M E 	 R E CO R D E D 	 I N 	T M S 	 I N 	 2 00 9

Resources (Personnel , 
training, finance, IT)
27 %

Casework
37 %

Policy (Strategy, legal 
affairs, communication)
15 %

Source: OLAF Time Management System.

Management and 
administration
21 %

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

 
14

12.  

13.  

14.  

G R E AT E R 	 F O C U S 	 O N 	 I N V E S T I G AT I V E 	 AC T I V I T I E S

Th e  Co u r t   recomm ended  th at  OL AF  s h ou ld  refoc us   o n  th e  in -
ve s t i g a t i ve   f u n c t i o n   a cc o m p a n i e d   by   c h a n g e s   i n   t h e   re g u l a -
t i o n s   w h i l e   l e av i n g   o t h e r   s e r v i ce s   w i t h   t h e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r 
pre ventive  or l egis l at ive ac ts ( recomme n dat ion  1 7 ) . 

I n   S e p t e m b e r   2 0 0 6   t wo   i nve s t i g a t i o n s   a n d   o p e r a t i o n s   d i re c -
torates (Direc torates A and B) were created to replace the one 
existing previously (Direc torate B). The new organisation (see 
Annex II) was intended to put more focus on OLAF’s investiga-
tive  fu nc t ion . The Co u r t ’s  recom me n dat ion  to accom pa ny  th e 
refocusing on the investigative func tion with modifications to 
t h e   g ove r n a n ce   o f   t h e   O f f i ce   t h ro u g h   c h a n g e s   i n   t h e   re g u l a -
tio ns h as not  been  im pl em ented ( se e  paragraph  3 8 ) .

The examination of a sample of 30 cases indicated an increased 
focus on investigative ac tivities such as inter views or on-the -
spot checks. I t also showed the contribution of OLAF ser vices, 
other than Directorates A and B, which are integrated in the in-
vestigative process and provide suppor t when necessar y such 
a s   t h e   p rov i s i o n   o f   j u d i c i a l   a d v i ce   a n d   fo re n s i c   d at a   a n a l ys i s 
Fig u r e  2).

15.   Ano th er indicato r of refo cus in g is th e  i nc re as e in  th e propor-
t i o n   o f   O L A F ’s   o w n   i nv e s t i g a t i o n s   c o m p a r e d   w i t h   c o o r d i n a -
tio n and a ssistan ce c ases. Th e propor t ion  of  O L AF’s  cas ewor k 
represented by investigations has increased from 50 % in 2004 
to  67 % in 2009 (Figu r e  4).

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

15

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

r
a
e
y
f
o
d
n
e
t
a
n
e
p
o
s
e
s
a
C

F I G U R E 	 4

A N A LYS I S 	 O F 	 C A S E S 	 O P E N E D

r
a
e
y
g
n
i
r
u
d
d
e
n
e
p
o
s
e
s
a
C

250

200

150

100

50

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Coordination and assistance

Investigations

All cases open at year end (right hand scale)

Source: OLAF. 

F I G U R E 	 5

S O U R C E 	 O F 	 I N I T I A L 	 I N F O R M AT I O N 	 R E C E I V E D 	 2 00 4 – 0 9

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

Source: OLAF. 

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Other (freephone, media, trade, whistleblowers)
Other instititutions
Member States

Strategic intelligence
Commission
Informants

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
16

CO N T R I B U T I O N 	 O F 	 S T R AT E G I C 	 S E R V I C E S 	TO 	T H E	
I N V E S T I G AT I V E 	 F U N C T I O N 	 R E M A I N S 	 L I M I T E D

16.  

The Cour t recommended that strategic analysis ser vices should 
aim  to  identify  anom al ies  w h ich  c an be us ed  to la un ch inve s -
tig at io ns (recommendat io n  1 3) .

11  OLAF Manual of Operational 
Procedures, 1 December 2009 

section 3.1.9.

17.   O LA F’s   strate gi c  i ntel l i ge nce   (U n it s  C 2   a nd   C 3 )   ha s  i m prove d 
systems to manage the reliabilit y of data obtained from M em-
b e r   St ate s,   co n ce r n i n g,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   i r re g u l a r i t i e s   i n   t h e   a g-
r icultural and struc tural funds areas. I t now delivers produc ts 
w h i c h   a re   u s e d   by   t h e   i nve s t i g at i o n   d i re c to rate s   a n d   a l s o   by 
the relevant ser vices in the Commission and in Member States.

18.  

S t r ate gi c   i n te l l i g e n ce   p rov i d e s   g e n e ra l   g u i d a n ce   re l e va nt   to 
p o l i c y   d e ve l o p m e n t   a n d   o p e r a t i o n a l   s t r a t e g y   b y   i d e n t i f y i n g 
r is k areas and patter ns o f fraud. I t may  als o le ad to t he  ope n-
ing of specific cases 11, either direc tly or indirec tly. O f the 332 
inves tig at io ns  op en  o n  1  J ul y  2 008 ,  s ix   (i.e.  2  % )  were  t h e  di -
rec t result of strategic intelligence. Figure 5 shows the source 
of all initial infor mation received from 2004 to 2009, of which 
0,7  % c ame fro m strategic  intelli g en ce.

I M P R O V I N G 	T H E 	 E F F I C I E N C Y 	 O F	
I N V E S T I G AT I O N S

19.  

The Cour t followed-up the recommendations of Special Repor t 
No 1/2005 which aimed to improve the planning and super vi -
s i o n   o f   i nve s t i g at i o n s   a n d   to   e n s u re   t h e y   we re   i m p l e m e n te d 
i n   a   t i m e l y   m a n n e r   i n   co m p l i a n ce   w i t h   a   c l e a r   l e g a l   a n d   p ro-
ce du ral  framewor k .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

12  OLAF Manual 1 December 
2009 section 3.2.1. However, 

in two cases from the Court’s 

sample, investigative activities 

started following a board 

recommendation but before 

a formal decision to open a 

case had been taken by the 

Director. In one of these cases 

all investigative steps had been 

completed before the decision 

to open an investigation was 

taken. 

17

P L A N N I N G 	 D O E S 	 N OT 	 I N C LU D E 	 M A N P O W E R 	 A N D	
D E A D L I N E S

20.   C o n c e r n i n g   p l a n n i n g,   t h e   C o u r t   r e c o m m e n d e d   t h a t   s m a l l e r 
groupings should be established on the Executive Board, con -
s i s t i n g   o f   d i r e c t o r s   a n d   h e a d s   o f   u n i t ,   i n   o r d e r   t o   s e t   c l e a r 
plans and objec tives for individual investigations (recommen-
d a t i o n   3 )   a n d   t h a t   a   t i m e   re c o rd i n g   s y s t e m   s h o u l d   b e   i n t ro -
duced linked to work plans with estimates of time to be spent 
on  inves tigat io ns  (reco mmendati on  5 ).

21.  

 C o n c e r n i n g   t h e   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   f o r   s m a l l e r   b o a r d   g r o u p -
ing s, the B oard now  meets on alter n ate weeks as B oard A and 
B oard B, composed according to the respec tive competencies 
o f   t h e   t w o   n e w   D i r e c t o r a t e s   A   a n d   B.  T h i s   s p l i t   s h o u l d   h a v e 
allowed a more thorough analysis of case proposals. However, 
the Cour t ’s examination of a sample of investigations showed 
that  for one  th ird of cas es  p lans an d obj ec t ive s we re  st ill  n ot 
cle ar (Fig ur e  2). 

22.   C o n c e r n i n g   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   5 ,   a   t i m e   m a n a g e m e n t   s y s t e m 
( TMS) was introduced from O c tober 2007. All OLAF staff, with 
t h e   e xc e p t i o n   o f   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   s t a f f,   a r e   r e q u i r e d 
to  reco rd  the  us e  of  their   time  by   tas k s.  I n  2 0 0 9   over   9 8   %   of 
a l l   h o u r s   a v a i l a b l e   w e r e   r e c o r d e d   i n   t h e   t i m e   m a n a g e m e n t 
s y s t e m .   I t   i s   c u r re n t l y   a   s y s t e m   fo r   r e c o r d i n g   t i m e.  T h e   d a t a 
in  th e system is not  u sed  to man a ge  cas ewor k . 

23.  

T h e   i n i t i a l   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   r e c e i v e d   ( s e e   p a r a -
graph  3 2)   inc ludes  a  wo r k p l an  whic h  indic ates  th e  fi r st   s teps 
of the investigation and is reviewed in the nine month repor t 
t o   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t t e e.   A l t h o u g h   t h e   wo r k p l a n   i n d i -
cates t he  nu mbe r o f investigator s an d s pe ci fi c  s k i lls  re quired 
t h e r e   i s   n o   e s t i m a t i o n   o f   t h e   t i m e   r e q u i r e d   a n d   d e a d l i n e s . 
TMS   is  no t   us ed   for  p lan nin g  pur pose s.  O uts id e T MS ,  Un i t  B 2 
(which deals with customs cases) does produce time char ts in 
orde r to  pla n t he wor k of  investi g ator s.  Plan s  may n ee d to be 
reassessed once investigative ac tivities are under way because 
re c o m m e n d a t i o n s   t o   o p e n   a   c a s e   a r e   b a s e d   o n   t h e   i n fo r m a -
t i o n   ava i l a b l e   at   t h e   t i m e   a n d   n o   i nve s t i g at i ve   a c t i v i t i e s   c a n 
be  car r ied o ut  dur ing th e initial a ss es sm ent  pha se 12.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

18

M E A S U R E S 	TA K E N 	TO 	 F O C U S 	 O N 	 P R I O R I T I E S

24.  

Th e   Co u r t   re co m m e n d e d   t h at   i nve s t i g at i o n s   s h o u l d   fo c u s   o n 
p r i o r i t i e s   i n   o r d e r   t o   m a k e   t h e   m o s t   o f   t h e   m e a n s   a v a i l a b l e 
(re co mme ndat ion  4) .

25.   A   d e   m i n i m i s 1 3  a p p r o a c h   h a s   b e e n   i n t r o d u c e d   f o r   e x t e r n a l 
i nve s t i g at i o n s   b a s e d   o n   i n d i c at i ve   f i n a n c i a l   t h re s h o l d s 1 4  a n d 
other cr iter ia such as reputational r isk , indications of system-
at i c   f ra u d   a n d   w h e t h e r   t h e re   a re   o t h e r   co m p e te nt   i nve s t i g a -
tive  b odie s.

26.  

S i n c e   2 0 0 4   O L A F   h a s   g r o w n   b y   3 9   %   f r o m   3 5 5   t o   4 9 3   s t a f f, 
whilst the number of staff in the investigations and operations 
direc to rates  ha s  in creas ed   by   3 2   %   from  1 2 5   to  1 6 5   st af f  ( se e 
Ta b l e   2 ) .  T h e   i n c r e a s e   i n   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   s t a f f   i n   t h e   i nv e s t i -
g a t i o n s   a n d   o p e r a t i o n s   d i re c t o r a t e s   h a s   n o t   b e e n   a c c o m p a-
n i e d   b y   a n   e q u i v a l e n t   i n c r e a s e   i n   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   c a s e s   ( s e e 
 Fi g u r e s   1   a n d   4 ) .   I n   2 0 0 9   O L A F   c a r r i e d   o u t   f e w e r   c a s e s   p e r 
person in investigations and operations than in 2004 (2,8 open 
case s ins tead o f 3 ,7).  This  d evelopme nt ref le c ts :

 ο  the focus on more serious complex cases resulting from the 

de  minimis p ol ic y ;

 ο  the increasing propor tion of OLAF's own investigations (see 

Fig ur e  4);

 ο  t h e   d e p l oy m e n t   o f   m o re   i nve s t i g a t i ve   re s o u rce s   to   a s s e s -
s i n g   t h e   i n c r e a s i n g   a m o u n t   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   r e c e i v e d   ( s e e 
 F i g u r e   5 ) .   T h e   q u a n t i t y   o f   i n i t i a l   i n f o r m a t i o n   a n a l y s e d 
w hich  d id   no t   l ead  to  the  open ing   of   a   ca se   double d  f ro m 
3 6 4   s u c h  ‘n o n - c a s e s ’  i n   2 0 0 4   ( i n c l u d i n g   1 0 8   p r i m a   f a c i e 
non- cases 15) to 755 in 2009 (including 267 prima facie non-
ca ses ).

13  An abbreviated form of the 
Latin maxim de minimis non 

curat lex, ‘the law cares not for 

small things.’ The Convention on 

the protection of the European 

Communities’ financial interests 

(OJ C 316, 27.11.1995, p. 49) 

stipulates that, for the purpose 

of criminal prosecution, fraud 

involving an amount exceeding 

50 000 euro shall be considered 

in any event as serious fraud.

14  1 million euro in the 
customs, cigarettes and trade 

sectors; 100 000 euro in the 

agriculture and structural funds 

sectors; 50 000 euro in direct 

expenditure and external aid 

cases. (See page 5 of the Annual 

Activity Report of OLAF for 2009 

— http://ec.europa.eu/atwork/

synthesis/aar/doc/olaf_aar.pdf)

15  Prima facie non-cases relate 
to information received which 

clearly does not fall within the 

competence of OLAF or clearly 

does not justify the use of OLAF 

resources.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

19

16  See COM(2004) 103 final, 
proposed new Article 6(7) p. 10.

17  OLAF Manual of Operational 
Procedures 1 December 2009 

Section 1.4.7 states: ‘If the case 

is still ongoing nine months 

after being opened, the 

investigator prepares a report 

for the Supervisory Committee 

summarising the allegations, 

the status of the case and the 

reasons for the delay and the 

estimated time for completion. 

Another report following a 

similar internal procedure 

must be prepared for the 

management 18 months after 

the opening of the investigation.’ 

D U R AT I O N 	 O F 	 I N V E S T I G AT I O N S 	 H A S 	 N OT	
I M P R O V E D

27.  

Th e  Co ur t   reco mmen ded  that   a  maxi mum  du rati on   fo r   inve s -
t i g a t i o n s   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d   ( r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   6 ) .   T h e   C o m m i s -
s i o n   a cce p te d   t h e   i d e a   o f   i m p o s i n g   m a x i m u m   t i m e   l i m i t s   fo r 
conduc ting investigations and made a legislative proposal 16 to 
introduce a standard duration of 12 months which was extend-
a b l e   by   u p   to   s i x   m o nt h s   at   a   t i m e   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   a   d e c i s i o n 
taken by the Direc tor of the O ffice af ter consulting the Super-
visor y Committee. However, no changes to the legal framework 
have ye t be en ado p ted.

28.   OLAF’s Annual M anagement Plan for 2010 has a minimum tar-
ge t  o f  c lo sing  7 5  %  of   cases   with in   2 4   month s,  1 0   %   of   wh ich 
in less than nine months. Regulation (EC ) No 1073/1999 states 
that where an investigation has been in progress for more than 
n i n e   m o nt h s,   t h e   D i re c to r   s h a l l   i n fo r m   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m -
m i t t e e   o f   t h e   re a s o n s   fo r   w h i c h   i t   h a s   n o t   ye t   b e e n   p o s s i b l e 
to com p lete it.  The d uration  of i nves ti gati ons  is  an  impor tant 
i s s u e   n o t   o n l y   b e c a u s e   o f   t h e   r i s k   o f   t i m e - b a r r i n g,   b u t   a l s o 
for th e ef ficienc y of  OL AF and for  per s on s con cer n ed  by  s uc h 
inves tig at io ns. 

29.   D u r a t i o n   i s   m o n i t o r e d   t h r o u g h   d a y - t o - d a y   s u p e r v i s i o n   b y 
H e a d s   o f   U n i t s,   m o nt h l y   o p e rat i o n a l   re p o r t s   a n d,   i n   D i re c to -
rate   B,   c a s e   re p o r t s   d raw n   u p   e ve r y   t h re e   m o nt h s.  Th e   B o a rd 
i s   o n l y   i nvo l v e d   a t   t h e   o p e n i n g   a n d   c l o s i n g   s t a g e s   o f   c a s e s. 
For cases which last longer than nine months the investigator 
p re p a re s   a   re p o r t   fo r   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t t e e   s u m m a r i s -
i n g   t h e   s t a t u s   o f   t h e   c a s e,   t h e   re a s o n s   fo r   t h e   d e l ay   a n d   t h e 
est imated t ime fo r comp l etion.  Th e  ne w m an ua l als o re qui re s 
18 month repor ts to be prepared for inter nal pur poses only 17. 
No fu r th er rep or t ing  o f t his nature  is  requ ire d alt hough  mo st 
inves tig at io ns  l as t  l o nger   th an  1 8   month s. Th e re   i s  a  n ee d  to 
im p rove  t he  man agement  o f  c as es   i n  progre ss   i n   ord er   to  re -
so lve p rob le ms  faster  and avoid lon g  per iod s  of i n ac ti vi t y.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

20

30.  

31.  

 Ta b l e   3   s h o w s   t h e   a c t u a l   n u m b e r   o f   c a s e s   c l o s e d   i n   n i n e 
mo nt hs  from   2 004  to   2009  is  ge ne rally   j us t  ove r   1 0   %,   in   lin e 
wit h t he t arg e t in t he Annual M a na ge me nt Plan .

 A l t h o u g h   b e t w e e n   2 0 0 4   a n d   2 0 0 9   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   c a s e s   p e r 
p e r s o n   i n   i nv e s t i g a t i o n s   a n d   o p e r a t i o n s   h a s   d e c r e a s e d   ( s e e 
paragrap h  26),  this   has   n ot   h ad   an   i mpac t  on   t h e  durati on   of 
c a s e s.  T h e   a ve r a g e   d u r a t i o n   o f   a l l   c a s e s   ( e x t e r n a l   a n d   i n t e r -
nal investigations, criminal assistance and coordination cases) 
f r o m   2 0 0 4   t o   2 0 0 9   h a s   v a r i e d   l i t t l e   a n d   r e m a i n s   a t   o v e r   t w o 
ye a r s   ( 2 5   m o nt h s )   a s   s h ow n   i n   Fi g u r e   6 .   M a ny   i nve s t i g at i o n s 
take considerably longer to complete than the average of t wo 
ye ars. At the  e nd of 2009,  12 5 of 4 5 7  cas e s i n  progress  ( 2 7  % ) 
had been open for more than two years. O f these, 33 had been 
open for more than three years and a fur ther 21 for more than 
four years.  The examination  of th e 3 0  c ase s  s howe d th at lon g 
durat io n is so met imes  du e to outs id e f ac tor s, but  more  of te n 
d u e   to   i n te r n a l   f a c to r s   s u c h   a s   l a c k   o f   re s o u rc e s   a s s i gn e d   to 
case s o r shif ts  in  p r ior it ies. 

TA B L E 	 3

C A S E S 	 C LO S E D 	 I N 	 N I N E 	 M O N T H S

Year of closure

Total cases closed

Total closed in 9 months

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Source: OLAF.

339

233

217

232

187

188

60

27

24

21

21

20

%

18 %

12 %

11 %

9 %

11 %

11 %

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

21

32.  

Th e   i s s u e   o f   l o n g   d u rat i o n   a p p l i e s   n o t   o n l y   to   i nve s t i g at i o n s 
b u t   a l s o   t o   i n i t i a l   a s s e s s m e n t s .   W h e n   O L A F   f i r s t   r e c e i v e s   o r 
ge nerate s  infor matio n  co ncer ni ng   a  pos si ble   fraud,  i t  c ar r i es 
out an evaluation of this initial information to decide whether 
or not to open a case. The volume of this incoming information 
h a s   i n c re a s e d   co n s i d e ra b l y   f ro m   6 6 2   i te m s   i n   2 0 0 4   to   9 6 5   i n 
2009 (see Figure 5). The duration of assessments is affec ted by 
the need to gather information from outside organisations, the 
work load of investigators and also the polic y to focus on more 
ser io us  and co mp lex c ases  ( see paragraph  2 5 ) . Con s eque nt ly, 
many  eval uatio ns   t ake  co ns idera bly   l ong e r   to  com plete  t ha n 
the  t wo  month s envisaged in th e  OL AF m an ual 18. The  averag e 
durat io n o f e valuat ions  has double d f rom 3 , 5  month s in  2 0 0 4 
to 7,1 mo nt hs in 2009.  At  t he en d  of 2 0 0 9 , 7 2  c ase s  had  bee n 
in  as ses sme nt  fo r  more than  12  m ont h s,  repre s enti n g 1 6  %  of 
the  to tal  o f 45 9. 

33.  

 The results of the Cour t ’s examination of 30 cases (summarised 
i n   Fi g u r e   2 )   s h o w e d   t h a t   t h e   d e c i s i o n   t o   o p e n   a n   i nve s t i g a -
tion was not made in a timely manner in 11 cases. The average 
duration of the evaluations for the 30 cases examined was six 
mo nt hs.

18  Section 3.2.2 of the OLAF 
manual states that the initial 

assessment of a case should be 

completed within two months of 

receiving the initial information. 

If this is not possible, the 

investigator must request an 

extension to the deadline from 

the responsible Head of Unit. 

The initial assessment must then 

be completed within a period 

authorised by the responsible 

Head of Unit, which shall not 

be more than six months after 

receipt of the initial information. 

If the information required for 

completing the assessment 

is still not available after six 

months a prolongation has to be 

authorised by the line Director.

F I G U R E 	 6

AV E R AG E 	 D U R AT I O N 	 O F 	 C A S E S 	 2 00 4	TO 	 2 00 9 1

s
h
t
n
o
M

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

26

25

26

23

25

25

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

1  Based on the ratio of cases open at the end of the year to cases opened during the year.

Source: OLAF. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

19  Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 
of the European Parliament and 

of the Council of 18 December 

2000 on the protection of 

individuals with regard to the 

processing of personal data 

by the Community institutions 

and bodies and on the free 

movement of such data (OJ L 8, 

12.1.2001, p. 1).

20  Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) 
No 45/2001.

22

I N C R E A S E D 	 S U P P O R T 	 F R O M 	 C A S E 	 M A N AG E M E N T	
S YS T E M 	 ( C M S ) 	 A N D 	 P E R S O N N E L 	 F U N C T I O N

34.  

Th e   Co u r t   m a d e   re co m m e n d at i o n s   to   d e ve l o p   t h e   c a s e   m a n -
a g e m e n t   s y s t e m   ( C M S )   a s   a   m a n a g e m e n t   t o o l ,   t o   i n c r e a s e 
t r a i n i n g   o f   i n v e s t i g a t o r s   i n   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   t e c h n i q u e s ,   l e g i s -
l a t i o n   a n d   re p o r t - w r i t i n g   s k i l l s   ( re c o m m e n d a t i o n   1 0 )   a n d   t o 
i m p l e m e nt   a   m a s te r p l a n   fo r   p e r s o n n e l   m a n a g e m e nt   i n   o rd e r 
to  reso l ve st ruc t ural  p rob l ems  ( recomme n dat ion  1 2 ) .

35.   C M S   i s   n o w   b e t t e r   u s e d   a n d   a l l   k e y   d o c u m e n t s   a re   re c o rd e d 
i n   t h e   s y s t e m .   H o w e v e r,   d a t a   p r o t e c t i o n   i n f o r m a t i o n   i s   n o t 
systematically completed. I n accordance with R egulation (EC ) 
No 45/2001 19, a decision should be taken either to inform natu -
ral  pers ons that  their p ers on al dat a are  s tore d and treate d by 
OLA F (reco rded as  ‘p rovided ’ on  C MS ) or  e ls e to de fer  i n for m -
in g  t hem  (re corded   as ‘d efer red ’  on   CM S) ,  be c ause,  for   exa m-
p l e,   to   d o   s o   co u l d   j e o p a rd i s e   t h e   i nve s t i g at i o n .   H owe ve r,   i n 
five of  t he  30 invest igations exam in ed,  a  d eci si on  wh e th er  or 
n o t   t o   i n fo r m   t h e   s u s p e c t   h a d   n o t   b e e n   t a k e n .   Fu r t h e r m o re, 
the  Co u r t rec al ls  t hat the data protec ti on re gulation  req ui re s 
personal data to be accurate and, where necessar y, kept up to 
d ate 2 0.   I n   t h i s   re s p e c t ,   t h e   Co u r t   n o te s   t h at   w h e n   a n   i nve s t i -
gatio n  is   cl os ed   w ith out  fol l ow-up  a nd   t h e  in i ti al  alle g ati ons 
co u l d   n o t   b e   s u b s t a n t i a t e d,   t h e   C M S   d o e s   n o t   re f l e c t   s u c h   a 
d e ve l o p m e nt   i n   t h e   c ate g o r i s at i o n   o f   t h e   p e r s o n   co n ce r n e d. 
The advice of the European Data Protec tion Super visor (EDPS) 
is nee ded  o n the  matter. 

36.   Con cer n ing   t rain ing,   Fig ur e   7  illus trates  the   n umber  of   OL AF 
s t a f f   a t t e n d i n g   t r a i n i n g   e ve n t s   o n   i nve s t i g a t i o n   t e c h n i q u e s, 
legisl ation  an d  rep o r t-wr it ing  sk i lls   s in ce   2 0 0 4   an d  sh ows   a n 
i n c r e a s e   i n   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   p a r t i c i p a n t s   a t   t r a i n i n g   e v e n t s   i n 
20 09.  The  J anu ar y  2009  repor t  on   trai ni n g  by   O L AF’s   I nter n al 
A u d i t   C a p a b i l i t y   r e i n f o r c e d   t h e   m e s s a g e s   o f   S p e c i a l   R e p o r t 
N o   1 / 2 0 0 5   a n d   s t re s s e d   t h e   n e e d   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   a n a l y s i s   o f 
tra ining  need s. 

37.  

Structural problems in staffing have been addressed by obtain-
ing additional permanent posts and thus reducing the number 
an d p ro po r tio n o f temp orar y  sta ff  ( se e  Tab le  4) .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

23

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

s
y
a
d
g
n
n
i
a
r
T

i

F I G U R E 	 7

T R A I N I N G 	 E V E N T S 	 AT T E N D E D 	 BY 	 O L A F 	 S TA F F

s
t
n
a
p
i
c
i
t
r
a
p
t
n
e
v
e
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Source: OLAF. 

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Report writing

Legislation

Investigation techniques

Average training days by OLAF staff (right hand axis)

TA B L E 	 4

R E D U C T I O N 	 I N 	 P R O P O R T I O N 	 O F 	T E M P O R A R Y 	 P O S T S 1

Year

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Permanent posts

Temporary posts

Total posts

% temporary posts

183

201

238

252

261

270

282

146

146

119

116

116

114

102

329

347

357

368

377

384

384

44 %

42 %

33 %

32 %

31 %

30 %

27 %

1 

In addition to the establishment of 384 posts there were also 131 contract staff in March 2010, including 65 

working in Information Services in Directorate D.

Source: OLAF.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

 
 
 
 
24

R E V I S I O N 	 O F 	T H E 	 L E G A L 	 A N D 	 P R O C E D U R A L	
F R A M E W O R K 	 S T I L L 	 P E N D I N G

38.   Regarding the legal and procedural framework, the Cour t made 
a   re co m m e n d a t i o n   t o   co d i f y   a n d   p u b l i s h   p ro c e d u re s   t o   p ro -
tec t the r ights of individuals at all stages of the investigation 
and to provide controls on the legalit y of investigative ac ts in 
pro gre ss (recomm endat ion  8 ) . 

39.  

In December 2009, the Director of OLAF adopted a new Manual 
of   Op erat iona l  Pro cedu res   wh ich  was   publis h ed   i n  M ay   2 0 1 0 . 
T h e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k ,   h o w e v e r,   h a s   n o t   c h a n g e d   s i n c e   t h e 
Cour t ’s last repor t, as the instructions contained in the Manual 
a re   n o t   i n te n d e d   to   h ave   a ny   l e g a l   fo rce 2 1  a n d   a s   R e g u l a t i o n 
( E C )   N o   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   c o n c e r n i n g   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   c o n d u c t e d   b y 
O L A F   h a s   n o t   b e e n   a m e n d e d 2 2.  Th e re   i s   s t i l l   n o   i n d e p e n d e n t 
co n t ro l   o f   t h e   l e g a l i t y   o f   i nve s t i g a t i ve   a c t s   i n   p ro gre s s 2 3  n o r 
i s   t h e re   a   co d e   g u a ra n te e i n g   t h at   i nve s t i g a t i ve   a c t s   fo l l ow   a 
p r e d i c t a b l e   c o u r s e,   t h a t   t h e r e   i s   c e r t a i n t y   a b o u t   t h e   t i m i n g 
o f   h e a r i n g s   a n d   t h a t ,   a t   e a c h   k e y   s t a g e   o f   t h e   e n q u i r y,   t h e 
r ig ht s  to   a  fa ir   hear in g  o f  th e  per s on   und er   i nves t ig ati on  are 
pro te c ted al on g w it h th e r ight of  acce ss  to t he  f il e 24. 

21  See the foreword to the 
Manual which is available on 

OLAF’s website.

22  The Commission proposal 
(COM(2006) 244 final of 

24.5.2006) for amending 

Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 

has not yet been adopted. On 

this proposal, the Court issued 

Opinion No 7/2006 (OJ C 8, 

12.1.2007, p. 1).

23  See paragraph 83 of SR 
No 1/2005.

24  Opinion No 5/2010 of the 
OLAF Supervisory Committee 

on the respect for fundamental 

rights and procedural 

guarantees in investigations.

D I F F I C U LT I E S 	 I N 	 CO O P E R AT I O N 	W I T H 	 E U R O J U S T	
A N D 	 M E M B E R 	 S TAT E S

40.  

T h e   C o u r t   m a d e   a   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   t o   c l a r i f y   a r r a n g e m e n t s 
for  co o pe ratio n  w ith   M e mber   States’  auth or ities  by  a dopt in g 
a specific regulation or through agreements with national in -
ve stig atio n se r vices ( recomm en dat ion  9 ) .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

25

25  COM(2006) 473 final of 
14.9.2006.

26  Arrangements are in place 
with authorities in the following 

Member States: Belgium, 

Bulgaria, Czech Republic, 

Estonia, Spain, Italy, Lithuania, 

Malta, Romania, Slovak Republic. 

Negotiations are ongoing 

with authorities in Denmark, 

Latvia, Germany and the United 

Kingdom.

27  Council Regulation (Euratom, 
EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 

1996 concerning on-the-spot 

checks and inspections carried 

out by the Commission in 

order to protect the European 

Communities’ financial 

interests against fraud and 

other irregularities (OJ L 292, 

15.11.1996, p. 2).

28  See paragraphs 34–36 of 
Opinion No 8/2005 (OJ C 313, 

9.12.2005, p. 1)

29  See paragraph 15 of SR 
No 1/2005.

30  OJ C 314, 9.12.2008, p. 3.

41.  

42.  

43.  

In 2006, the Commission made a revised proposal for a regula-
t i o n   o n   m u t u a l   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   a s s i s t a n ce 2 5  w h i c h   h a s   n o t   ye t 
b e e n   a d o p t e d   b y   Pa r l i a m e n t   a n d   C o u n c i l .   O L A F   h a s   s i g n e d 
a d m i n i s t rat i ve   co o p e rat i o n   a r ra n g e m e nt s   w i t h   a u t h o r i t i e s   i n   
1 0   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   a n d   n e g o t i a t i o n s   a r e   c u r r e n t l y   u n d e r w a y 
w i t h   fo u r   o t h e r s 2 6.   H owe ve r,   s e ve ra l   M e m b e r   St ate s   h ave   n o t 
communicated to OLAF which national authorit y or investiga -
tion ser vice is in charge of cooperation with OLAF in the field 
of direct expenditure or have not set up the necessar y national 
a n d   j u d i c i a r y   a u t h o r i t i e s   w i t h   c o m p e t e n c e s   f o r   t h e   f i e l d   o f 
d i re c t   e x p e n d i t u re.  T h e re fo re,   O L A F   c o n t i n u e s   t o   e n c o u n t e r 
d i f f i c u l t i e s   a n d   l a c k   o f   s u p p o r t   w h e n   c a r r y i n g   o u t   o n - t h e -
spot checks and inspec tions in cer tain Member States, notably 
w h e r e   n a t i o n a l   i n s p e c t o r s   d o   n o t   h a v e   t h e   c o n t r o l   c o m p e -
tences  refer re d to  in R egu l ation  (Euratom,  E C )  N o  2 1 8 5 /9 6 27. 

The audit confirmed the obser vations of the Cour t in its Opin-
ion No 8/2005 that the existing legal framework for combating 
frau d and ir reg ul ar ities  is com pli c ate d an d d if fi c ult to i mple -
ment and that weak nesses persist in cooperation bet ween the 
C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   M e m b e r   S t a t e s 2 8.  T h e   a u d i t   a l s o   c o n f i r m e d 
t h a t   g i v e n   t h e   l i m i t a t i o n s   o f   O L A F ’s   p o w e r s   t o   i n v e s t i g a t e , 
the response of Member States to the O ffice’s requests remain 
we ak 29.   

 D i f f i c u l t i e s   m ay   a l s o   a r i s e   w h e n   a l l e g at i o n s   u n d e r   i nve s t i g a -
t i o n   by   O L A F   i nvo l ve   e co n o m i c   o p e rato r s   f ro m   s e ve ra l   M e m -
be r St ate s. I n su c h c ases, co operat ion  wi th  Euroj us t  be com es 
impor tant, as Eurojust is responsible for coordinating national 
cr im inal   invest ig ations  and  pros ecut ion   proce dure s. To  m ake 
c o o p e r a t i o n   a s   e f f i c i e n t   a s   p o s s i b l e ,   a   P r a c t i c a l   A g r e e m e n t 
o n   a r ra n g e m e nt s   o f   co o p e rat i o n   b e t we e n   Eu ro j u s t   a n d   O L A F 
wa s signed o n 24  S ep temb er 2 0 0 8 30. Th e Prac t ical Agreement 
requires OLAF to inform Eurojust as soon as possible of the ex-
istence of any case where it appears that it directly involves ju-
dicial cooperation between the competent national authorities 
of   t wo   o r  mo re   M emb er  St ates,   or   wh ere   th e   c ase   con cer n s  a 
M ember State and the Communit y. On the basis of the Cour t ’s 
sample, some 20 % of investigations fall into these categories. 
A l t h o u g h   q u a r t e r l y   m e e t i n g s   t a k e   p l a c e   b e t w e e n   O L A F   a n d 
Euro jus t as req uired by t he agree me nt,  prac t ic al  coope rati on 
in   t he  fo r m  o f  t rans mis sion  of  in for mat ion   on   case s  h as   bee n 
l i m i t e d .   I n   2 0 0 8   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   f i v e   c a s e s   w a s   t r a n s m i t t e d 
fro m O LA F  to Eu roj us t and in  20 0 9  on  j us t  one  c as e. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

26

31  See Stockholm Programme 
adopted by the European Council 

in December 2009 Council 

document 17024/09, p. 24. 

32  The monthly updates of 
the annual management plan 

show the percentage of cases 

opened in certain sectors and 

geographical areas, follow-up 

cases with an impact over 

certain amounts, percentage 

of cases closed with follow-up, 

clearance rate (cases opened/

cases closed), percentage 

of cases closed in a certain 

time and number of cases per 

investigator.

33  Monthly management reports 
show results for the current year 

to date and four previous years 

in terms of prison sentences 

and amounts recovered and 

also show the duration of 

assessments, investigations and 

follow-up.

44.   Ar ticle 85 of the TFEU provides for an ex tension of the role of 
Euro jus t to in itiating  inves tigati on s.  I n  t hi s reg ard,  th e Cour t 
notes the recommendations adopted by the European Council 
in D ecember 2009 on the possibilit y of fur ther ing the powers 
o f   E u r o j u s t   n a t i o n a l   m e m b e r s ,   r e i n f o r c i n g   o f   t h e   p o w e r s   o f 
t h e   E u r o j u s t   C o l l e g e   o r   t h e   s e t t i n g - u p   o f   a   E u r o p e a n   Pu b l i c 
Pro s e c u t o r 3 1.   M o re   e f fe c t i ve   c o o p e r a t i o n   b e t we e n   O L A F   a n d 
Eurojust is necessar y in view of developments in this direction.

R E P O R T I N G 	 O N 	T H E 	 E F F E C T I V E N E S S 	 O F	
I N V E S T I G AT I O N S

45.  

The a udit  ass es sed w hether th e ac t io n ta ke n  by  O LAF had  re -
sul ted  in  cl ea r  ob jec tives  fo r  inves ti g ati on s  an d  rel evant   a nd 
rel ia bl e rep o r t s  on p er for m ance. 

46.  

47.  

TA R G E T S 	 A R E 	 S E T 	 A N D 	 M O N I TO R E D 	 B U T 	 D O 	 N OT	
F O C U S 	 O N 	 R E S U LT S

T h e   C o u r t   m a d e   a   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   t o   s p e c i f y   r e s u l t s   t o   b e 
achie ve d  by  invest ig ations  and  to  int roduce   per for man ce   i n-
dicato rs  ( reco mmendation 1) .

For the O ffice as a whole, cer tain sec tors and geographical ar-
eas, OLAF now sets objec tives in the Annual Management Plan 
with clearly quantified targets. These targets are monitored in 
monthly updates of the Annual Management Plan 32 and fur ther 
in fo r mat ion  is p rovid ed in  m ont hly man ag ement  re por ts 33.

48.   Co n c e r n i n g   i n d i v i d u a l   i nve s t i g a t i o n s,   t h e   i n i t i a l   a s s e s s m e n t 
d i d   n o t   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y   i d e n t i f y   c l e a r   f i n a n c i a l   o b j e c t i ve s   fo r 
investigations. Although the amounts affec ted are not always 
the key concern, the initial assessment of information received 
sho ul d  identify  t he p o ssib l e fina nci al  impa c t an d  re cover y. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

27

R E P O R T S 	 O N 	 P E R F O R M A N C E 	 D O 	 N OT 	 F U L LY	
E X P LO I T 	T H E 	 I N F O R M AT I O N 	 AVA I L A B L E

49.  

The Cour t made a recommendation that repor ts on OLAF’s per-
formance should be based on relevant and reliable data. They 
s h o u l d   e n a b l e   co m p a r i s o n s   ove r   t i m e   a n d   i n c l u d e   i n d i c ato r s 
bas ed  on real  resu l ts ( recom men dat ion  1 1 ) .

34  The OLAF Manual identifies 
four kinds of follow-up: 

administrative, financial, judicial 

and disciplinary.

50.   OLAF produces the following repor ts and follow-up documents 
o n   p e r fo r m a n c e :   a n n u a l   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n   m o n t h l y   u p d a t e, 
mo nt hl y  manage ment   rep or ts,  an n ual  ac t iv it y  repor t,   an nual 
o p e rat i o n a l   re p o r t ,   a n d   a d   h o c   re p o r t s   ( s u c h   a s   t h e   2 0 0 8   re -
por t  co ncer ning on -th e -sp o t c he c ks ).

51.   At   t h e   e n d   o f   a n   i nve s t i g a t i o n ,   a   f i n a l   c a s e   re p o r t   i s   s u b m i t-
t e d   t o   t h e   B o a r d .   T h e   B o a r d   r e c o m m e n d s   w h e t h e r   t h e   c a s e 
s h o u l d   b e   c l o s e d   w i t h   o r   w i t h o u t   f o l l o w - u p.   Fo l l o w - u p   a c -
tion includes recovering funds and opening criminal proceed -
ings 34. The responsibility for follow-up ac tion does not lie with 
O L A F,   b u t   rat h e r   w i t h   Co m m i s s i o n   D G s   a n d   n at i o n a l   a u t h o r i -
ties. OLAF’s role is to optimise conditions for follow-up and to 
ve r ify w het her ac tio n has  b een  take n . 

52.   Table 5 sh ows how info r mation is  repor ted  i n di ffe re nt  docu-
ments  which are pro du ced at  di ffe re nt t ime s  (m ont h ly,  an n u-
ally or ad hoc) and for different readers (inter nal or ex ter nal).

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

28

53.  

I t is diff icu lt  to fo r m an over vie w o f OL AF’s per for man ce. The 
i n fo r m a t i o n   p rov i d e d   i s   to   b e   fo u n d   i n   d i f fe re n t   d o c u m e n t s, 
w h i c h   a re   p re p a re d   fo r   d i f fe re n t   p u r p o s e s   a n d   a d d re s s e d   t o 
d i f f e r e n t   a u d i e n c e s .   A d d i t i o n a l ,   m o r e   c o m p r e h e n s i v e   i n f o r-
mation available in CMS is not presented. The Annual Ac tivit y 
R e p o r t   d o e s   n o t   e n a b l e   t h e   r e a d e r   t o   m a k e   c o m p a r i s o n s   o f 
O L A F ’s   p e r fo r m a n c e   o ve r   t i m e   b e c a u s e   t h e re   i s   n o   s u m m a r y 
o f   k e y   s t a t i s t i c s   f o r   p r e v i o u s   y e a r s .  T h e   A n n u a l   O p e r a t i o n a l 
Repor t provides comparisons with previous years for a number 
of  indic ators re lat ing to ac tivit y ( i nfor mat ion  re ce ive d,  i n it ial 
evaluations car r ied out, opening decisions and average dura -
tion of cases), potential results (% of cases closed with follow-
u p )   a n d   r e a l   r e s u l t s   ( f u n d s   a c t u a l l y   r e c o v e r e d ) .   H o w e v e r,   i t 
d o e s   n o t   m a k e   t h e   i m p o r t a n t   l i n k   b e t w e e n   O L A F ’s   a c t i v i t y 
( n u m b e r   o f   c a s e s   c l o s e d   i n   a   y e a r )   a n d   t h e   e n s u i n g   r e s u l t s , 
bot h p otent ial ( e. g. amounts ident if ie d for  re cove r y )  an d real 
(e. g. a mou nts ac tu al l y recovered) .

TA B L E 	 5

AVA I L A B I L I T Y 	 O F 	 P E R F O R M A N C E 	 I N D I C ATO R S

Internal

Public

Monthly reports

Annual reports

Annual 
management 
plan monthly 
update

Monthly 
management 
reports

Annual  
activity report

Annual  
operational 
report

One-off 
reports

2008 report 
concerning 
on-the-spot 
checks

√

√

Ativity

Number of investigations closed

Potential results

% of investigations closed with follow-up

Amounts identified for recovery from 
investigations 

Stakeholder satisfaction1

Views of Commission DGs

Real results

Actual recovery resulting from investigations

Actual recovery resulting from all cases

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

√

1 

In 2007 OLAF launched a user satisfaction survey which was unsuccessful due to the low response rate (only six replies were received to the 45 

questionnaires sent). OLAF has introduced operational conferences with Commission DGs.

Source: OLAF reports.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

29

54.   Relevant indicators are those which measure the link bet ween 
OLAF’s investigations, its potential results (for example, funds 
i d e n t i f i e d   f o r   r e c o v e r y,   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   t o   o p e n   c r i m i n a l 
pro ceed in gs)  and  its  real   results   ( for   exa mple,   f und s  ac tuall y 
recovered, cases resulting in a penalt y or sentence). Although 
these are largely outside OLAF’s control, they do also depend 
on  the  qu alit y and  t imelin ess of O L AF’s  inve s ti gat ion s.

55.  

I n order to be reliable, indicators should be based on accurate 
d at a   a n d   p re s e nte d   co n s i s te nt l y   i n   o rd e r   to   e n a b l e   co m p a r i -
s o n s   b e t we e n   ye a r s   a n d   a c ro s s   s e c to r s   ( e. g.   a gr i c u l t u re,   c u s-
toms, external aid) or types of investigation (internal, external, 
coo rdinatio n a nd assis tance) .

56.   C M S   c o n t a i n s   i n fo r m a t i o n   o n   f i n a n c i a l,   j u d i c i a l   a n d   d i s c i p l i -
n a r y   r e s u l t s .   I t   a l s o   r e c o r d s   c a s e s   c l o s e d   w i t h o u t   f o l l o w - u p 
w h e re   O L A F   h a s   d i s p rove d,   o r   b e e n   u n a b l e   to   p rove,   t h e   i n i-
tial   al l eg at io ns. The  t y p e  o f  in for mat ion   whi c h   i s  avai lable   i n 
t h e   C M S   a n d   w h i c h   c o u l d   b e   r e p o r t e d   a n n u a l l y   i s   s h o w n   i n 
A n n e x   I I I .  Th e   i n d i c a to r s   re l a te   to   t h re e   d i m e n s i o n s   o f   O L A F 
ou tco me s:  f in anc ial,   judic ial   and  outcome s  by  a rea   or   s e c tor. 
For the financial and judicial outcomes, the tables outline the 
fol low ing :

(a ) ac t ivit y (numb er of investigat ion s cl os ed );

(b) potential results (investigations closed with follow-up, rec -
o mme ndat io ns  to   recover  fun ds  or   o pen   c r i mi nal  o r   d is ci -
p l inar y  pro cee din gs) ;

(c) real results (actual amounts recovered or sentences passed).

57.  

Th e   t a b l e s   i n   A n n ex   I I I   co m p l e m e n t   i n fo r m at i o n   ava i l a b l e   i n 
cur rent repor ts. They link the real results to the year in which 
t h e   c a s e s   we re   c l o s e d.  Th e   i n fo r m a t i o n   i s   p re s e n te d   to   d e m-
onstrate ways in which indicators available in CMS may be re -
por ted, enabling reliable comparisons over time and bet ween 
s e c t o r s   a n d   t y p e s   o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n .   Wi t h   a d d i t i o n a l   a n a l y s i s 
and explanation by OLAF, this information may provide a more 
complete pic ture of the ac tivit y trends and per formance in its 
rep or t s. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

30

C L A R I F Y I N G 	T H E 	 R O L E 	 O F 	T H E 	 S U P E R V I S O R Y	
CO M M I T T E E

58.  

The Cour t followed up the recommendation of Special R epor t 
No 1/ 2005 to cl ar if y the rol e of  t he  Super v is or y  Comm it tee.

35  Rules of Procedure of the 
OLAF Supervisory Committee,  

24 August 2006 (OJ L 33, 

7.2.2007, p. 7).

U P D AT I N G 	 P R O C E D U R E S 	 N OT 	Y E T 	 CO M P L E T E D

36  Case T-48/05 of 8 July 2008.

37  The judgment of the Court 
further stipulates that ‘it 

cannot be disputed that the 

requirement to consult that 

committee before forwarding 

information to the national 

judicial authorities is intended 

to confer rights on the persons 

concerned’ (para 168).

38  OLAF Manual of Operational 
Procedures, 1 December 2009, 

Sections 3.3.6.1.1 and 3.4.3.2.1.

39  OLAF also provides the 
Committee with a summary note 

indicating whether the person 

concerned has been informed 

and been given the right to 

reply and whether the case is 

within the time limits set by the 

national authorities.

59.  

60.  

The recommendation of the Cour t, was to clarify the role of the 
S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t te e   to   e n s u re   t h at   t h e re   wa s   n o   i nte r fe r-
ence in  inves tig at ion s ( recomme nd ati on  1 6 ) .

The Super visor y Committee revised its rules of procedure 35 in 
2006 and produced a number of repor ts and opinions concern-
in g  the   m anag e ment   of   OLA F  wit h   th e  ai m  of   re in forc in g   th e 
in dep ende nce of th e O ffice.

61.   H o w e v e r,   a   j u d g m e n t   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o f   Fi r s t   I n s t a n c e   i n   J u l y 
2 0 0 8 3 6  h e l d   t h a t   a n   i m p o r t a n t   f u n c t i o n   o f   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y 
Co m m i t te e   w a s   to   p ro te c t   t h e   r i g h t s   o f   p e r s o n s   w h o   a re   t h e 
subjec t of OLAF investigations 37. Af ter the judgment was pro -
nounced, a prac tical work ing ar rangement had to be found to 
consult the Super visor y Committee before for warding informa-
tio n to  t he  nat io n al  j ud icial  author it ie s. 

62.  

T h e   n e w   m a n u a l   r e q u i r e s   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   t o   b e   p r o v i d e d   a t 
l e a s t   f i ve   wo r k i n g   d ays   b e fo re   t ra n s m i s s i o n 3 8.   I n   J u n e   2 0 1 0   a 
new procedure has been agreed between OLAF and the Super-
visor y Committee to ensure that the letter transmitting cases 
t o   n a t i o n a l   j u d i c i a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   i s   s i g n e d   a t   l e a s t   f i v e   w o r k -
in g days af te r th e no te info r min g th e  S upe r vi sor y  Com mit tee 
about the envisaged transmission 39. OLAF committed itself to 
t a k e   a ny   a d v i c e   o f   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
an d reac t  o n a cas e - by- case bas is. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

31

63.   However, in consideration of the decision of the Cour t of First 
I ns tan ce,  t his  p ro cedu re  p ut s  at   r is k   th e   r i g ht s  of  i n div id ua ls 
con ce r ne d s in ce it d oes  no t descr ibe  t h e ste ps to be take n  i n 
t h e   e v e n t   t h a t   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   d e c i d e s   t o   i s s u e 
an  op inio n. The  ab sen ce o f bindi n g procedure s  i n t hi s re ga rd 
makes it more difficult to ascer tain that the Super visor y Com -
m i t te e   h a s   n o t   i nte r fe re d   w i t h   t h e   co n d u c t   o f   i nve s t i g at i o n s 
in  p ro gres s. 

40  The decision stipulates 
‘that the Committee must be 

informed before the information 

is forwarded to the national 

judicial authorities’ (paragraph 

164) and ‘that the obligation 

to inform the Supervisory 

Committee is unconditional and 

leaves no margin of discretion’ 

(paragraph 170).

64.  

65.  

 Fur thermore, OLAF applies a polic y of transmitting information 
to the national authorities without infor ming the Super visor y 
Co m m i t te e   w h e re   O L A F   i s   awa re   t h at   a   c a s e   i s   a l re a d y   b e i n g 
dealt with by the national judicial authorities. In 2009 OLAF re -
corded nine such cases where infor mation was transmitted to 
nat ion al   aut ho r ities   w ithou t  infor m in g   th e   S uper v is or y   Com-
mittee in contrast to the position of the Cour t of First Instance, 
whe reby t he ob l igatio n to infor m t he  S upe r v i sor y  Commi tte e 
is ‘u ncond it io nal  and l eaves n o  margi n  of  di scret ion’ 40.

The members of the Super visor y Committee are appointed by 
com mo n  accord   of  th e  Eu rop ean   Par liame nt,   th e   Coun c il  an d 
the  Co mmissio n ( see Ar t ic l e 11  of  OL AF reg ulat ion ) . Th e  te r m 
of office of the members of the Super visor y Committee is three 
years and is renewable once. On expir y of their ter m of office, 
m e m b e r s   s h a l l   re m a i n   i n   o f f i c e   u n t i l   t h e i r   a p p o i n t m e n t s   a re 
re n e we d   o r   u nt i l   t h e y   a re   re p l a ce d.  Th e   m e m b e r s   o f   t h e   c u r-
rent Super visor y Committee took office on 30 November 2005. 
Their  ter m  of   o ff ice  exp ired   on  2 9   N ovem ber   2 0 0 8 .  The   Cour t 
notes that more than two years later, a decision to renew their 
ter m o f o ffice  o r to  rep l ace th em is  s ti ll pe nd in g.  Such a si tu-
at ion  is un sat is fac to r y.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

CONCLUSIONS AND 
RECOMMENDATIONS

32

66.  

67.  

R E F O C U S I N G 	 O N 	T H E 	 I N V E S T I G AT I V E	
F U N C T I O N

The Cour t ’s previous repor t made six recommendations to refo -
cus ac tivities on OLAF’s investigative func tion. Three of these 
recommendations, concerning the divestment or separation of 
ac tivities (recommendations 2, 14 and 15), were not accepted, 
and the other three have been par tially implemented (recom -
mendations 7, 17 and 13). Consequently, all six recommenda -
tions for OLAF to refocus on its investigative func tion are still 
val id.

I n  ter m s of t he all oc atio n of it s res ources,  OL AF h a s n ot  refo -
cused on its investigative func tion. The Commission considers 
OLAF as an all-round anti-fraud authority rather than a ser vice 
concentrated on investigations. Consequently it did not accept 
the recommendations of the Cour t ’s previous repor t to divest 
activities such as anti-fraud strategy and funding programmes. 
The numb er of  staff in invest ig at ion  di rec torate s as  a propor-
t i o n   o f   a l l   s t a f f   a m o u nte d   to   3 4   %   i n   J a n u a r y   2 0 1 0 .  Th e  Ti m e 
M a n a g e m e nt   Sys te m   s h owe d   t h at   t h e   O f f i ce   a s   a   w h o l e   a l l o -
cated  37  %   o f  it s   time  to  cas ewor k   i n   2 0 0 9   (s ee   paragraph s   8 
to  11).

68.   Wh en ca r r ying  o ut  inves tig ations,  OL AF now mak es  more us e 
o f   i t s   i nve s t i g a t i ve   p owe r s,   fo r   e x a m p l e   to   c a r r y   o u t   o n - t h e -
spot checks and inter views. OLAF suppor t ser vices contr ibute 
t o   i nve s t i g a t i o n s   w h e re   a p p ro p r i a t e   a n d   i n   2 0 0 9   s p e n t   2 5   % 
of   t heir  t ime  in   t his  way.  I n   th is  contex t,  t he   st rategi c  i nte lli-
gence units identify areas of risk , but their work rarely triggers 
inves tig at io ns (s ee p aragrap h s 1 2  to 1 8 ) . 

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 1

O L AF   sh o u l d   in cre as e   th e   nu m b e r   an d   sp e e d   o f   inve s ti g a -
tions by increasing the prop or tion of time sp ent on it s core 
inve s ti g ati ve  f u n c ti o n . 

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 2

T h e   co ntr ib u ti o n  th e  inte lli g e n ce   uni t s   m ake  to   inve s ti g a -
ti ve  wo r k  sh o u l d  b e e nh an ce d .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

33

69.  

70.  

I M P R O V I N G 	T H E 	 E F F I C I E N C Y 	 O F	
I N V E S T I G AT I O N S

Th e   Co u r t ’s   p re v i o u s   re p o r t   m a d e   e i g ht   re co m m e n d at i o n s   to 
i m p r o v e   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   ( r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s 
3,  4,   5,  6,   8 ,  9,  10  and  12).   Except   for   recomme n dat ion s  3   an d 
12, the other recommendations are not yet fully implemented 
an d t here fo re st il l  val id.

T h e   C o u r t ’s   p r e v i o u s   r e p o r t   m a d e   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   t o   e n -
s u r e   a   c l e a r   p r o c e d u r a l   f r a m e w o r k   fo r   i nv e s t i g a t i o n s   a n d   t o 
improve planning and super vision so that investigations were 
implemented in a timely and efficient manner. OLAF has taken 
measures to clar ify the procedural framewor k through the in-
t ro d u c t i o n   o f   a   n e w   m a n u a l   i n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 0 9   a n d   a   Pr a c t i-
c a l   Ag r e e m e n t   fo r   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   E u r o j u s t   i n   2 0 0 8 .   O t h e r 
m e a s u r e s   t a k e n   b y   O L A F   t o   i m p r o v e   e f f i c i e n c y   w e r e   t h e   i n -
t r o d u c t i o n   o f   a   t i m e   m a n a g e m e n t   s y s t e m ,   t h e   d e v e l o p m e n t 
of a de minimis polic y to focus on ser ious and complex cases, 
b e t te r   u s e   o f   C M S   ( t h o u g h   i t   i s   s t i l l   n o t   f u l l y   u s e d ) ,   m o re   fo-
c u s e d   t r a i n i n g,   a   re d u c t i o n   i n   t e m p o r a r y   s t a f f,   a n d   s p l i t t i n g 
the  B oa rd into sm al ler  gro u pin g s.

71.   D e s p i t e   t h e   s t e p s   t a k e n   b y   O L A F   t o   i m p r o v e   e f f i c i e n c y , 
p r o g r e s s   h a s   b e e n   s l o w   a n d   r e m a i n s   i n c o m p l e t e .   T h e   n e w 
m a n u a l   wa s   n o t   i nt ro d u ce d   u nt i l   D e ce m b e r   2 0 0 9   a n d   t h e   l e -
g al   f ram e wo r k   ha s   n o t   c h a n g ed   s i n ce   t he   Co u r t ’s   la st   re po r t. 
A l t h o u g h   O L A F   e n t e r e d   i n t o   a n   a g r e e m e n t   f o r   c o o p e r a t i o n 
w i t h   Eu ro j u s t,   i n fo r m at i o n   o n   o n l y   o n e   c a s e   wa s   t ra n s m i t te d 
from OLAF to Eurojust in 2009. Although TMS is used to record 
time spent, the information it contains is not used to plan and 
sup er vis e inve stigatio ns.  Th e vol um e of  i n it ial i nfor mat ion  to 
b e   a s s e s s e d   h a s   i n c r e a s e d   c o n s i d e r a b l y   a n d   t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f 
these assessments has doubled. The duration of investigations 
remains long, sometimes due to outside factors, but more gen-
erally due to internal fac tors such as other priorities or lack of 
reso urces  ( see p aragrap hs  1 9 to 4 4 ) .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

34

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 3

T h e l e gal f r am ework for comb ating f r aud and ir re gularities 
should be revised to simplif y and consolidate the anti -fraud 
l e g i s l a t i o n .   S u c h   a n   o v e r h a u l   s h o u l d   a d d r e s s   w e a k n e s s e s 
i n   O L A F ’s   c u r r e n t   p o w e r s   a n d   p r o c e d u r e s ,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r 
co n ce r nin g co o p e r ati o n b e t we e n O L AF an d th e co mp e te nt 
s e r v i ce s in M e m b e r St ate s .

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 4

O L A F   s h o u l d   s t r e n g t h e n   i t s   c o o p e r a t i o n   a n d   p a r t n e r s h i p 
with Eurojust, which, under Ar ticle 85 of the T FEU, is taske d 
with co ordinating criminal inves tigations and prose cutions 
r e l a t i n g   t o   o f f e n c e s   a g a i n s t   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   i n t e r e s t s   o f   t h e 
U n i o n .   To   t h i s   e n d ,   O L A F   s h o u l d   p u t   i n   p l a c e   p r o c e d u r e s 
to i d e nti f y all re l ev ant c as es , co mmunic ate inf o r m ati o n o n 
them to Eurojust on a timely basis, and repor t on the results 
o f i t s co o p e r ati o n  w i th Eurojus t o n  a re gular   b asis .

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 5

T h e  p rov isi o nal  p l ans  f o r inve s ti g ati o ns  sh o ul d  in clu d e  e s -
t i m a t e s   o f   r e s o u r c e s   r e q u i r e d   a n d   d e a d l i n e s .   T h e s e   p l a n s 
should be monitored and updated once investigative ac tivi -
ties are under way. Info r matio n f rom th e T im e M anagem ent 
System ( TMS) should be used to provide more ef fec tive sup -
p o r t  to  inve s ti g ato r s  an d m ana g e r s .

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 6

T h e   o v e r a l l   d u r a t i o n   o f   a s s e s s m e n t s   a n d   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 
s h o u l d   b e   b e t t e r   c o n t r o l l e d   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   i n -
ves tigations and make b et ter use of res ources av ailab le. To 
t h i s   e n d ,   t h e   B o a r d   s h o u l d   p l ay   a   r o l e   i n   m o n i t o r i n g   l o n g 
a n d   co m p l e x   i nve s t i g a t i o ns ,   to   e ns u r e   a p p r o p r i a te   a c t i o n 
is t ake n .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

35

72.  

73.  

74.  

R E P O R T I N G 	 O N 	T H E 	 E F F E C T I V E N E S S 	 O F	
I N V E S T I G AT I O N S

The Cour t ’s previous repor t made t wo recommendations con-
ce r n i n g   t h e   d e m o n s t rat i o n   o f   t h e   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   i nve s t i g a -
tions (recommendations 1 and 11). Although these have been 
par t ial l y imp l emented, th e reco mme n dat ion s  are  s ti ll valid.

T h e   A n n u a l   M a n a g e m e n t   P l a n   e s t a b l i s h e s   c l e a r l y   q u a n t i f i e d 
targets for the O ffice which are regularly monitored. However, 
clear financial objec tives are not systematically identified for 
in dividu al inves t ig atio ns  ( see paragraph s  4 5  to 4 8 ) .

There is considerable information available in CMS which ena-
bles OLAF’s per formance to be compared over time and across 
different  s ec to rs. Thes e  s t atistic s   con ce r n   ac t iv it y   ( inves ti g a-
tions closed), potential results (investigations closed with fol-
low-up ;   re coverab l e  amou nt)  an d  re al  re s ul ts   ( ac t ua l  am ount 
recovered). However, the information is not currently repor ted 
in a single document which would enable the reader to assess 
OLAF’s per formance. The 696 ex ternal investigations closed in 
the period 2004 to 2009 identified 656 million euros for recov-
er y, of which 180 million euros had ac tually been recovered at 
the  tim e o f the  audit in  Apr il 2 0 1 0  ( se e  paragraph s 4 9   to  5 7 ).

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 7

Clear objec tives for individual investigations should b e s ys-
tematically set and updated, and results should be repor ted 
in te r ms o f o bj e c ti ve s  a chi eve d .

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 8

C M S   s h o u l d   b e   u s e d   m o r e   e x t e n s i v e l y   i n   m a n a g e m e n t 
d e c is i o n - m a k i n g   a n d   to   p r o d u ce   b e t te r   r e p o r t s .   Pe r f o r m -
ance s t atis tic s on O L AF’s ac tiv it y, p otential and real result s 
should b e made available in a single rep or t, including com -
p ar is o ns  ove r tim e.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

36

75.  

76.  

C L A R I F Y I N G 	T H E 	 R O L E 	 O F 	T H E 	 S U P E R V I S O R Y	
CO M M I T T E E

T h e   C o u r t ’s   p r e v i o u s   r e p o r t   m a d e   o n e   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   t o 
c l a r i f y   t h e   ro l e   o f   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t te e   ( re co m m e n d a -
t i o n   1 6 ) .   S o m e   a c t i o n   h a s   b e e n   t a k e n ,   b u t   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n 
remains  incom pl ete.

Following the July 2008 judgment of the Cour t of First Instance, 
OLAF applies a new procedure to consult the Super visor y Com -
mittee before transmitting information to national judicial au -
t h o r i t i e s.   H o we ve r,   t h i s   p ro c e d u re   d o e s   n o t   d e f i n e   t h e   s t e p s 
to   b e   t a k e n   i f   t h e   S u p e r v is o r y   Co m m i t te e   d e c i d e s   to   i s s u e   a n 
o p i n i o n .   A p a r t   f ro m   c a s e   l aw,   t h e   l e g a l   f ra m e wo r k   to   p ro te c t 
the rights of persons being investigated has not changed since 
the Cour t ’s last repor t (see paragraphs 58 to 65). 

F O L L O W - U P 	 R E C O M M E N D AT I O N 	 9

In agreement with OL AF, the Sup er visor y Commit tee should 
d e f in e a f o r m al  p ro ce dure to o u tlin e  th e s te ps to  b e  t ake n 
i f   i t   d e c i d e s   t o   i s s u e   a n   o p i n i o n   o n   a   c a s e   o n   w h i c h   i t   i s 
co nsu l te d . T h e l e g al  f r am ewo r k sh o ul d b e  rev is e d  in  o r d e r 
b e t te r to p rote c t th e r i g ht s o f  p e r s o ns  b e in g inve s ti g ate d .

Th i s   R e p o r t   wa s   a d o p te d   by   C h a m b e r   I V,   h e a d e d   by   M r   I g o r s 
LU D B O R Ž S ,   M e m b e r   o f   t h e   Co u r t   o f   Au d i to r s,   i n   Lu xe m b o u rg 
at  its  me eting  o f 8 Feb ru ar y 2 01 1 .

Fo r  th e  Co u r t  o f Audi to rs

Víto r  M anuel da  S I LVA   C A L D E I R A
Presi de nt

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

	
 
 
 
37

A N N E X 	 I

S TAT U S 	 O F 	 I M P L E M E N TAT I O N 	 O F 	 R E CO M M E N D AT I O N S	
( S P E C I A L 	 R E P O R T 	 N o1/20 0 5 ) 1

Recommendations

Accepted

Implemented2

Recommendations to refocus activities on OLAF’s investigative function

Divest or separate non-core activities

7. Remove follow-up activities (involvement in judicial proceedings and recovery of funds) that can be performed by 
authorising officers

14. Transfer responsibility for anti-fraud strategy to other Commission services 

15. Give responsibility for managing funding programmes (e.g. Pericles and Hercules) to other Commission services

2. Consider creating a separate unit dedicated to coordination and assistance operations to improve management of 
resources

Improve contribution of strategic services to the investigative function

Partially

Partially

Not accepted

Not accepted

Not accepted

No

No

No

17. Refocus activities on the investigative function, accompanied by changes in governance and regulations

13. Strategic analysis services should seek improvement in the data forwarded by Member States and create databases 
which can be used to identify anomalies and launch investigations

Partially

Accepted

Partially

Partially

Recommendations to improve the efficiency of investigations

Legal and procedural framework

8. Codify and publish procedures to protect the rights of individuals at all stages of the investigation and to provide controls 
on the legality of the investigative acts in progress

Accepted

Partially

Cooperation with Member States

9. Formalise arrangements for cooperation between OLAF and the Member States through legislation or the conclusion of 
agreements with national investigation services

Accepted

Partially

Planning

3. Establish smaller groupings on the Executive Board with the aim of setting clear plans and objectives for investigations

5. Introduce a time recording system linked to work plans with estimates of time to be spent on investigations to align 
workload with resources and to avoid delays

Accepted

Accepted

Yes

Partially

Focus on priorities

4. Supervise the investigation process to focus on priorities and on the search for evidence by making better use of the 
investigation means available

Accepted

Partially

Timely completion

6. Establish a maximum duration for investigations 

Support from IT systems and personnel function

10. Convert CMS into a true system of investigation management and increase training of investigators in investigation 
techniques, legislation and report-writing skills

12. Implement a masterplan for personnel management to resolve structural problems 

Recommendations to demonstrate the effectiveness of investigations

1. Specify results to be achieved by investigations and introduce performance indicators to assess success

11. Produce reliable and relevant reports on performance, based on real rather than potential results

Partially3

Partially4

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Accepted

Partially

Yes

Partially

Partially

Recommendation for the Supervisory Committee to reinforce OLAF’s independence

16. Clarify the role of the Supervisory Committee to ensure  that there is no interference in ongoing investigations

Accepted

Partially

1  The recommendations made in Special Report No 1/2005 were not numbered. They are numbered here according to the order they appeared in the report.
2  Yes – recommendation implemented; No – recommendation not implemented and still valid; Partially – varying degrees of implementation and further action recommended.
3  The Commission replied that it proposed to amend Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and introduce a duration of 12 months with the possibility of extending investigations by up to six 
  months at a time.
4  The legal framework has not yet been amended.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

38

A N N E X 	 I I

O L A F 	 O R G A N I S AT I O N 	 C H A R T 1

DIRECTOR-GENERAL
13 staff

DIRECTORATE A
Investigations and 
Operations I
6 staff

DIRECTORATE B
Investigations and 
Operations II
4 staff

DIRECTORATE C
Operational and  
Policy Support
4 staff

DIRECTORATE D
General Affairs
3 staff

UNIT A1
Internal Investigations: 
European Institutions
21 staff

UNIT A2
Internal/External  
Investigations: 
EU Bodies
9 staff

UNIT A3
Direct Expenditure 
and External Aid
20 staff

UNIT B1
Agriculture
20 staff

UNIT B2
Customs I  
20 staff

UNIT B3
Customs II
17 staff

UNIT C1
Judicial and Legal 
Advice
21 staff

UNIT D1
Spokesman,  
Communication and 
Public Relations
9 staff

UNIT D5
 Administration and 
Human Resources 
12 staff

UNIT C2
Fraud Prevention  
and Intelligence
31 staff

UNIT D2
Legal Affairs
7 staff

UNIT C3
Mutual Assistance
and Intelligence
36 staff

UNIT D3
Inter-institutional and 
External relations
9 staff

UNIT D6
Budget
10 staff

UNIT D7
Training
9 staff

UNIT A4
External Aid
24 staff

UNIT B4
Structural Measures
21 staff

UNIT C4
Operational 
Intelligence
28 staff

UNIT D4
Corporate Planning 
and policy
14 staff

UNIT D8
Information services
110 staff

UNIT C5
Euro protection;
Hercule and Pericles-
 Programmes
11 staff

1   The chart shows the actual number of staff employed in March 2010.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

39

A N N E X 	 I I I

P OT E N T I A L 	 I N D I C ATO R S

TABLE	A	—	Indicators	of	activity,	potential	and	real	financial	results1

Activity

External investigations closed

151

104

100

117

121

103

696

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

s
n
o
i
t
a
g
i
t
s
e
v
n

i

l
a
n
r
e
t
x
E

Potential results

With financial follow-up

Recoverable amount (million euro)

Real results

Amount recovered (million euro)

Amount written off (million euro)

Amount outstanding (million euro)

59

183,7

73,0

5,7

105,0

52

43,8

8,8

0,3

34,7

60

54,7

9,2

1,9

43,6

66

67

52

122,6

121,0

130,6

43,8

1,8

77,0

28,3

0,0

92,7

16,6

15,4

98,6

356

656,4

179,7

25,1

451,6

1 The financial amounts in the table are attributed to the year in which follow-up commenced regardless of the year in which the money was actually 
received. The table therefore does not show amounts recovered relating to cases closed in 2003.

Source: OLAF as at April 2010.

Table A shows CMS data on external investigations concerning activity (number of investigations closed), 
potential results (closed with follow-up and amounts identified for recovery) and real results (actual recovery).  

Over the six year period between 2004 and 2009, of the 696 external investigations closed, 356 (51 %) cases 
involved potential financial follow-up.  

Over the same six year period the total amount identified for recovery was 656,4 million euro. The total actual 
amount recovered (over the same six years) up to the time of the audit in April 2010 was 179,7 million euro 
(27 %).

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

 
40

A N N E X 	 I I I

TABLE	B	—	Indicators	of	activity,	potential	and	real	judicial	results

Activity

Investigations closed

Potential results

With judicial follow-up

Related actions

Real results

Cases dismissed

Cases outstanding

Penalty or sentence

Investigations closed

Penalty or sentence

Cases closed

Penalty or sentence

Cases closed

Penalty or sentence

Disciplinary actions triggered

External  
investigations

Internal  
investigations

Coordination and 
assistance

Total all cases

Internal  
investigations

Year of follow-up recommendation

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Total

151

104

100

117

121

103

696

33

112

63

26

23

39

1

149

182

339

206

8

46

91

24

55

12

30

2

99

63

32

48

17

28

3

31

2

86

17

42

67

11

51

5

34

0

81

39

55

66

9

57

0

25

0

41

19

32

22

0

16

6

37

0

48

2

240

406

124

233

49

196

5

504

322

233

217

232

187

188

1 396

77

12

22

13

44

19

19

12

8

1

376

65

Source: OLAF as at April 2010 (One case may lead to a number of actions and subsequent penalties and sentences).

Table B shows CMS data on activity, potential and real results in the judicial sphere. Over the six year period 
between 2004 and 2009, the following observations can be made:  

• 

• 

External Investigations: out of the 696 external investigations closed, 240 (34 %) have been with judicial 
follow-up, leading to 406 related actions. Of these, 49 (12 %) have resulted in judicial decisions (including 
four acquittals and 11 rulings under appeal), 124 actions (30 %) have been dismissed while the results 
of 233 actions remain outstanding. Of the 124 cases dismissed, 76 (61 %) were due to lack of evidence 
whilst nine (7 %) were due to prescription. 

Internal investigations: the number of final rulings by judicial authorities in respect of internal 
investigations is extremely limited, amounting to five rulings for a total of 196 cases closed with 45 
judicial paths opened and 62 related actions, 16 of which were dismissed. Internal investigations closed 
during the period also triggered disciplinary proceedings against 65 persons. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

41

A N N E X 	 I I I

•  Coordination and assistance cases: these are considerably more successful than internal and external 
investigations in terms of achieving final rulings by judicial authorities for cases closed with follow-up 
during the period 2004 to 20091. 

The table shows how judicial results vary between the different categories of cases. Judicial follow-up 
takes on average 3,5 years to complete, which explains in part why the number of penalties or sentences 
are lower in recent years.

1 

In coordination and assistance cases national judicial authorities have already taken a decision to deal with a case which explains 

the higher success rate of these cases.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

42

A N N E X 	 I I I

TABLE	C	—	Financial	results	in	different	areas

Cases 
closed 
2004–09

Closed with 
financial 
follow-up 

Recover-
able 
(million 
euro)

Recovered to date 

(million 
euro)

%

Recovery 
per case 
closed with 
financial 
follow-up
(million 
euro)

92

102

225

124

153

696

196

504

1 396

49

69

101

76

61

356

33

201

590

136,8

306,6

74,9

124,2

13,9

656,4

3,0

877,0

1 536,4

5,5

112,9

10,9

46,6

3,8

179,7

0,5

138,3

318,5

1,7 %

35,4 %

3,4 %

14,6 %

1,2 %

56,4 %

0,2 %

43,4 %

100,0 %

0,11

1,64

0,11

0,61

0,06

0,50

0,02

0,69

0,54

External In-
vestigations

Agriculture

Customs

External Aid

Structural Funds

Other1

Sub total

Internal investigations

Coordination and assistance 

Total

1  Other consists of direct expenditure, EU bodies and agencies and trade.

Source: OLAF as at April 2010.

Table C compares financial results in different sectors. For external investigations, the customs area 
represented the highest proportion of recoverable amounts (20 %) and of actual recoveries (35 %). 
The financial results from other areas were lower.

Over the six year period (2004 to 2009), coordination and assistance cases account for 57 % (877 million 
euro out of 1 536 million euro) of potentially recoverable amounts for the Office as a whole, and 43 % 
(138 million euro out of 319 million euro) of actual recoveries.

The recovery per investigation shows the average amount recovered per case closed with financial follow-
up in each sector (for example in the case of agriculture, 5,5 million euro was recovered, from a total of 
49 cases, resulting in an average recovery per case of 0,11 million euro).

Whilst the different sectors are not directly comparable because they manage different types of cases, the 
table shows the variation in average amounts recovered per case, across sectors.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

4343

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

EXECUTIVE	SUMMARY

I .–I I .
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w o u l d   l i k e   t o   p o i n t   o u t 
t h a t   O L A F ’s   d e v e l o p m e n t   o v e r   t h e   p a s t 
1 1   y e a r s   h a s   p r o v e n   t h a t   O L A F   i s   b e s t 
p l a c e d   a s   a n   a l l - r o u n d   a n t i - f r a u d   s e r v i c e 
i n   o r d e r   t o   p r o t e c t   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   i n t e r e s t s 
o f   t h e   E U.   T h i s   o v e r a l l   m i s s i o n   c o m p r i s e s 
t h r e e   c o m p l e m e n t a r y   t a s k s ,   i . e .   c o n d u c t -
i n g   a d m i n i s t r a t i v e   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   i n   f u l l 
independence, assisting M ember States by 
o r g a n i s i n g   c l o s e   a n d   re g u l a r   c o o p e r a t i o n 
b e t we e n   t h e i r   co m p e te nt   a u t h o r i t i e s,   a n d 
by   co nt r i b u t i n g   to   t h e   d e s i gn   o f   t h e   Co m -
mission’s anti-fraud regulator y ac tivit y and 
s t rate g y.   O L A F’s   p o l i c y   wo r k   b e n e f i t s   f ro m 
its investigative exper ience and vice versa. 

N e a r l y   7 5   %   o f   s t a f f   a r e   o p e r a t i o n a l   i n 
t h e   s e n s e   t h a t   t h e y   a re   e i t h e r   c o n d u c t i n g 
o r   s u p p o r t i n g   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,   b o t h   i n   t h e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n   d i r e c t o r a t e s   a n d   t h e   s u p -
por tin g direc torates.

I II .	
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h a r e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s   o v e r -
a l l   a s s e s s m e n t   o f   t h e   p r o g r e s s   m a d e   b y 
O L A F,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   w i t h   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   o f 
its investigations. OLAF’s line management 
s u p e r v i s e s   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f 
wo r k p l a n s   w h i c h   a re   re g u l a r l y   u p d a t e d   i n 
t h e   Ca s e   M a n a g e m e nt   Sys te m   (C M S ) .   O L A F 
is committed to improving its management 
tools on  a cont inuous  basis. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

IV.	
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   p r e p a r i n g 
a   r e v i s e d   p r o p o s a l   t o   a m e n d   R e g u l a t i o n 
1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9 .   I t   i s   e n v i s a g e d   t h a t   t h e   p r o -
p o s a l   w i l l   s t r e n g t h e n   t h e   r i g h t s   o f   t h e 
p e r s o n s   c o n c e r n e d   a n d   a l s o   c o m p r i s e 
p r o v i s i o n s   o n   a   r e v i e w   p r o c e d u r e   a n d   o n 
cooperatio n w it h Euroj us t and Europol.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t ,   e v e n 
u n d e r   t h e   e x i s t i n g   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k ,   t h e 
r i g h t s   o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a r e   p r o -
t e c t e d   a n d   t h a t   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   c o n t r o l 
o f   i n v e s t i g a t i v e   a c t s   e x i s t s ,   t o   w h i c h   t h e 
c a s e   l a w   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   h a s   b e e n 
i n c r e a s i n g l y   c o n t r i b u t i n g   s i n c e   t h e   Co u r t 
made it s st atem ent  in 20 05 . 

V.	
O L A F ’s   r e p o r t s   a r e   u n d e r   c o n s t a n t   d e v e l -
o p m e n t   i n   o r d e r   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e i r   p r a c t i -
c a l   u s e   a s   a   m a n a g e m e n t   t o o l .   O L A F   w i l l 
examine whether a statistical annex can be 
appended to the annual operational repor t 
i n   t h e   f u t u re   w h i c h   wo u l d   e n s u re   a   b e t te r 
compar iso n of  p er for m an ce indi c ator s. 

VI.	
T h e   p r o p o s a l   f o r   t h e   r e f o r m   o f   R e g u l a -
t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   co n s o l i d ate   t h e   r i g ht s 
o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a n d   m a k e   t h e m 
more  visibl e. 

T h e   r i g h t s   o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a r e 
a l r e a d y   p r o t e c t e d   i n   t h e   e x i s t i n g   l e g a l 
f r a m e w o r k ,   a s   w e l l   a s   b y   n a t i o n a l   c o u r t s 
a n d   by   t h e   ra p i d l y   d e ve l o p i n g   c a s e   l aw   o f 
th e Cour t o f J ust ice.

44

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

V II .	
( a)  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a gre e s   t h at   t h e   s p e e d 
o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   i s   a n   a r e a   t h a t   c o u l d 
be fur t her  improved. 

OL AF will make ever y  effor t  to inc reas e 
t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   a n d   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   i t s 
i n v e s t i g a t i v e   w o r k ,   w h i c h   r e m a i n s   i t s 
c o re   t a s k .   Fu r t h e r m o re,   O L A F   w i l l   l o o k 
i n t o   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t y   o f   i n c r e a s i n g   t h e 
p r o p o r t i o n   o f   i t s   t i m e   s p e n t   o n   i t s   i n -
vestig ative func tion.

I n  order to us e it s resources  ef fic i e ntly, 
OLAF is pr imar ily committed to dealing 
w i t h   s e r i o u s   c a s e s   a n d   i s   p ro gre s s i ve l y 
applying minimum financial thresholds.

( b)  O L A F   a l r e a d y   h a s   i n i t i a l   w o r k p l a n s   i n 
place, which it is committed to develop 
f u r t h e r   s o   a s   t o   i m p r o v e   o v e r a l l   p l a n -
n ing. 

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   O L A F 
should endeavour to reduce the overall 
duration   of  assessm ents   an d  inve st ig a-
t i o n s .   D u r a t i o n   i s   a   k e y   p e r f o r m a n c e 
in dicator  for   OL AF,   whic h  OL AF  is  com-
m i t t e d   t o   r e d u c i n g   w h e re ve r   p o s s i b l e, 
par ticularly through improved monitor-
in g of complex invest igations. 

U n d e r   t h e   e x i s t i n g   g o v e r n a n c e   f r a m e -
wo r k ,   t h e   B o a rd   d e l i ve r s   re co m m e n d a -
tions on fundamental decisions relating 
t o   t h e   t re a t m e n t   o f   c a s e s.   B u t   i t   i s   t h e 
role of line management to examine in -
vestig ation  plan s  regular ly,   guide  th e ir 
d e ve l o p m e n t   a n d   t a k e   d e c i s i o n s   i n   o r-
der to respec t timeframes and speed up 
investigations wherever possible. OLAF 
considers that the Board involvement in 
the monitoring process would dilute re -
sponsibility of OLAF’s line management.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

 
 
 
 
4545

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

OBSERVATIONS

6 .
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s   t h a t   O L A F   h a s 
e x p r e s s e d   d i f f e r e n t   v i e w s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e 
grad ing s of a num ber  of c ases. 

9 .
O L A F   h a s   fo c u s s e d   i t s   f i n a n c i a l   fo l l o w - u p 
a c t i v i t i e s   o n   i m p o r t a n t   c a s e s   w h e r e   t h e 
f i n a n c i a l   i m p a c t   m e e t s   s p e c i f i c   t h r e s h -
olds defined for the respec tive sec tors and 
t ype s of proce dures. 

1 0.
T h e   3 4   %   f i g u r e   i n   i s o l a t i o n   d o e s   n o t 
r e f l e c t   t h e   p r o p o r t i o n   o f   O L A F   r e s o u r c e s 
d e v o t e d   t o   i n v e s t i g a t i o n .   I n   t e r m s   o f 
s t a f f   a l l o c a t i o n   to   i nve s t i g a t i ve   a c t i v i t i e s, 
n e a r l y   7 5   %   a r e   i n v o l v e d   i n   o p e r a t i o n a l 
c a s e wo r k ,   i . e.   i n c l u d i n g   p rov i d i n g   s u p p o r t 
to   i nve s t i g at i o n s.  Th e   s p l i t   by   d i re c to rate s 
d o e s   n o t   t h u s   r e f l e c t   t h e   p r o p o r t i o n   o f 
sta ff involved in  inves tig ation s. 

1 1.
E v e n   t h o u g h   t h e   f i g u r e   o f   3 7   %   i s   g e n e r -
a t e d   f r o m   t h e   T i m e   M a n a g e m e n t   S y s t e m 
( T M S ) ,   i t   d o e s   n o t   e n t i re l y   re f l e c t   t h e   re a l 
s i t u a t i o n .   I n   p a r t i c u l a r,   i n v e s t i g a t o r s   i n 
D i re c to ra te s   A   &   B   re g u l a r l y   u s e   t h e  ‘ M a n-
a g e m e n t   a n d   a d m i n i s t r a t i o n ’  c a t e g o r y 
w h e n   t h e y   a re   d e a l i n g   w i t h   a d m i n i s t rat i ve 
t a s k s   e . g .   r e p o r t s   w h i c h   a r e   p u r e l y   c a s e -
r e l a t e d .   A l s o   m i d d l e   a n d   s e n i o r   m a n a g e -
m e n t   a n d   s e c r e t a r i e s   i n   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i v e 
u n i t s   o f t e n   u s e   t h i s   c a t e g o r y   f o r   c a s e -
related paper wor k . OLAF will examine how 
t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   u s e   o f   t h e   T M S   t o   b e t t e r 
reflec t th e division  of  wor k . 

(c)  OLAF’s  var io us rep or t s are intend ed  for 
d i f fe re n t   a u d i e n ce s,   i n c l u d i n g   i n te r n a l 
management and external stakeholders. 
O L A F   w i l l   t r y   t o   i m p ro ve   t h e s e   re p o r t s 
fur the r.   

(d)  A n   a d e q u a t e   p r o c e d u r e   h a s   b e e n   d e -
f i n e d   a n d   i m p l e m e n t e d   b y   O L A F   a n d 
t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   t h a t   t a k e s 
a c c o u n t   o f   t h e   r e q u i r e m e n t   f o r   O L A F 
t o   i n f o r m   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e 
b e f o r e   t r a n s m i t t i n g   c a s e s   t o   n a t i o n a l 
judicia l aut hor ities  as wel l  as o f  t he  i n-
v e s t i g a t i v e   i n d e p e n d e n c e   o f   t h e   O L A F 
D i r e c t o r.   O L A F   w i l l   t a k e   a n y   a d v i c e   o f 
the Super visor y Committee into account 
a n d   re a c t   o n   a   c a s e - by - c a s e   b a s i s.   A ny 
f o r m a l   p r o c e d u r e   f o r   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y 
C o m m i t t e e   t o   i n t e r v e n e   i n   o n g o i n g 
c a s e s   co u l d   b e   s e e n   a s   a n   i n te r fe re n ce 
with the investigative independence of 
th e O LAF  Direc to r.

INTRODUCTION

B ox 	1	—	O L A F ’s 	role 	a nd	ta s ks
Key obje c tives  a n d a c ti vities
I t   i s   e nv i s a g e d   t h a t   t h e   d r a f t   re v i s e d   p ro -
p o s a l   to   a m e n d   R e g u l at i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l 
f u r t h e r   u n d e r l i n e   O L A F ’s   r o l e   t o   p r o m o t e 
a n d   c o o r d i n a t e   a   m o r e   i n t e n s i v e   s h a r i n g 
o f   o p e rat i o n a l   ex p e r i e n ce   a n d   b e s t   p ro ce -
d u ra l   p ra c t i ce s,   a s   we l l   a s   to   s u p p o r t   j o i nt 
ant i-fraud  a c t ions.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

46

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

O L A F   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   i n v o l v e m e n t   o f   t h e 
B o a rd   i n   t h e   m o n i to r i n g   p ro ce s s   wo u l d   b e 
l i k e l y   to   re s u l t   i n   a   d i l u t i o n   o f   re s p o n s i b i l -
it y  of  OLAF’s lin e manage me nt.

2 2.
The TMS was designed to provide manage -
ment with a global view of how much time 
i s   s p e n t   o n   a   s e t   o f   2 0   p re - d e f i n e d   a c t i v i-
ties, such as investigation, follow-up, intel -
l i g e n ce,   a d m i n i s t rat i o n ,   e tc.  Th i s   i n fo r m a -
t i o n   i s   c o m p i l e d   i n   a   m o n t h l y  T M S   r e p o r t 
f o r   e a c h   o r g a n i s a t i o n a l   e n t i t y ,   w h i c h 
allows managers to review resource alloca -
tion within their area of responsibilit y and 
s e n i o r   m a n a g e m e n t   t o   i n i t i a t e   r e s o u r c e 
a l l o c a t i o n   a c r o s s   t h e   O f f i c e .   T h e   e x i s t i n g 
c a s e   m a n a g e m e n t   fe a t u re s   o f   C M S   w i l l   b e 
re v i e we d   w i t h   a   v i e w   to   s t re n g t h e n i n g   i t s 
case plan ning  capabilities. 

2 3.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   w o r k p l a n s 
c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   e f f i c i e n c y   o f   i n v e s t i g a -
t i o n s.   O L A F ’s   M a n u a l   a l re a d y   o u t l i n e s   t h e 
b a s i c   e l e m e n t s   o f   i n i t i a l   wo r k p l a n s   w h i c h 
s h o u l d   d e s c r i b e   t h e   s c o p e   a n d   i nv e s t i g a -
t i v e   s t e p s   i n s o f a r   a s   t h e y   c a n   b e   a n t i c i -
p a t e d   a t   t h a t   s t a g e .   H o w e v e r,   w h e n   a n 
i nve s t i g a t i o n   s t a r t s,   i t   i s   d i f f i c u l t   to   k n ow 
w h e r e   i t   w i l l   l e a d .   C i r c u m s t a n c e s   c a n 
change for reasons outside OLAF’s control, 
s o   i nve s t i g ato r s   a n d   t h e i r   m a n a g e r s   a re   i n 
c o n s t a n t   t o u c h ,   a n d   re v i s e   t h e   wo r k p l a n s 
whe n n eeded.

T h e   i n i t i a l   w o r k p l a n   a n d   s u b s e q u e n t 
updates are all re gistere d in  th e  CM S .

13.
I n order to improve the gover nance frame -
w o r k ,   t h e   r e v i s e d   p r o p o s a l   f o r   a m e n d -
i n g   R e g u l a t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   i n t e r   a l i a 
c o m p r i s e   a   p r o v i s i o n   o n   t h e  ‘e xc h a n g e   o f 
v i e w s’  b e t w e e n   t h e   E U   i n s t i t u t i o n s   ( E u r o -
p e a n   C o m m i s s i o n ,   E u r o p e a n   P a r l i a m e n t 
a n d   C o u n c i l )   a n d   O L A F   o n   r e l e v a n t   q u e s -
t i o n s   co n ce r n i n g   i t s   s t rate gi c   wo r k i n g   p r i-
or ities. 

17.
OLAF has issued specific recommendations 
to severa l Co mmiss ion ser vices  to  i mprove 
f r a u d   p r e v e n t i o n   fo l l o w i n g   a n a l y s i s   o f   i t s 
operational c ases.

18.
A c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e   j u r i s p r u d e n c e   o f   t h e 
Co u r t   o f   J u s t i ce 1,  ‘s u f f i c i e n t l y   s e r i o u s   s u s -
p i c i o n’  i s   re q u i re d   fo r   o p e n i n g   a   c a s e.  Th i s 
means that OLAF is not allowed to conduc t 
investigative ac tivities based solely on r isk 
a s s e s s m e nt s   w i t h o u t   s e r i o u s   l e ve l s   o f   s u s -
p i c i o n   b e i n g   a t t a i n e d .   S i n c e   2 0 0 7 ,   O L A F 
has produced more than 10 strategic intel -
l i g e n c e   a n a l y s e s   fo r   C o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s 
and M ember States, which contain specific 
re c o m m e n d a t i o n s   t o   s u b s t a n t i a l l y   re d u c e 
t h e   r i s k s   a n d   i m p a c t   o f   i r r e g u l a r i t i e s   a n d 
fraud.

21.
I t  is  pr imar ily  th e  rol e  o f  l ine  m an ag em e nt 
to   e n s u re   t h at   c l e a r   c a s e   p l a n s   a n d   o b j e c -
tives a re set  and  regul ar l y  m oni to re d. 

T h e   B o a r d   d e l i v e r s   r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s   o n 
f u n d a m e n t a l   d e c i s i o n s   r e l a t i n g   t o   t h e 
treatment  of c ases. 

1 C-11/00 Commission v. ECB; C-15/00 Commission v. EIB, 10 July 
2003

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

I n  the light o f t he Cour t ’s comm e nt s:

 Ū O L A F   w i ll   e n s u re   t h at   i n i t i a l   wo r k pl a n s 
always include the objec tives and scope 
o f   t h e   i nv e s t i g a t i o n ,   a n d   e s t i m a t e d   f i -
n a n c i a l   i m p a c t .   I f   i t   i s   p o s s i b l e   a t   s u c h 
a n   e a r l y   s t a g e ,   t h e   p l a n s   w i l l   a l s o   i n -
c l u d e   a n   i n i t i a l   e s t i m a t e   o f   r e s o u r c e s 
required, possible missions and a likely 
timeframe.

 Ū O L A F   i s   c o m m i t t e d   t o   i m p r o v i n g   t h e 
m o n i to r i n g   a n d   u p d at i n g   o f   wo r k p l a n s 
on  a reg ul ar bas is.

 Ū A s   r e g a r d s   t h e  T M S ,   s e e   r e p l y   t o   p a r a -

graph 22 2. 

26.
I t   s h o u l d   b e   e m p h a s i s e d   t h a t   O L A F ’s 
o v e r a l l   o b j e c t i v e   i s   t h e   p r o t e c t i o n   o f   t h e 
f i n a n c i a l   i n t e r e s t s   o f   t h e   E U.  T h e   n u m b e r 
o f   c a s e s   i s   n o t   a n   a d e q u a t e   p a r a m e t e r 
b y   w h i c h   t o   j u d g e   O L A F ’s   p e r f o r m a n c e . 
G i ve n   t h at   O L A F’s   p o l i c y   i s   to   fo c u s   o n   t h e 
m o re   s e r i o u s   a n d   co m p l ex   c a s e s   w h e re   i t s 
i n v o l v e m e n t   c l e a r l y   a d d s   v a l u e ,   t h e   f a c t 
t h a t   t h e   n u m b e r   a n d   d u r a t i o n   o f   i n v e s t i -
gations has remained largely stable should 
be consid ered as an ac hievement.

2 As regards the two cases mentioned in footnote 10, these were 
exceptional cases and OLAF will review its procedures in this 

regard.

4747

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

2 7.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   c o n s i d e r   t h a t   a 
m a x i m u m   d u r a t i o n   f o r   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,   i n 
t h e   s e n s e   o f   a n   a b s o l u t e   l i m i t ,   w o u l d   b e 
a p p r o p r i a t e .   B e c a u s e   o f   t h e   v e r y   n a t u r e 
o f   a n   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   a n d   i t s   u n c e r t a i n t i e s , 
a   f i xe d   m a x i m u m   d u r a t i o n   c a n n o t   b e   s e t . 
Ta k i n g   i n t o   a c c o u n t   i t s   o p e r a t i o n a l   e x p e -
r i e n ce   a n d   t h e   va r i o u s   f a c to r s   i n f l u e n c i n g 
t h e   co u r s e   o f   a n   i nve s t i g a t i o n ,   O L A F   s e t   a 
realistic target in its 2010 Annual M anage -
m e n t   P l a n   ( A M P )   o f   c l o s i n g   7 5   %   o f   c a s e s 
w i t h i n   2 4   m o n t h s .  T h i s   i s   n o t   a   m a x i m u m 
duration, but a target allowing for a neces-
sar y amount of flexibilit y.

I t   i s   e n v i s a g e d   t h a t   t h e   p r o p o s a l   f o r   t h e 
r e fo r m   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   c o n -
t a i n   p rov i s i o n s   fo r   i m p rov i n g   t h e   m o n i to r -
in g of th e duration of inve stigati on s.

2 8.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h a r e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s   v i e w 
th at th e duration of inve stigatio ns  i s  a k ey 
p e r fo r m a n c e   i n d i c a t o r   i n   t e r m s   o f   O L A F ’s 
o p e r a t i o n a l   p r o c e d u r e s .   I t   i s   r e c o g n i s e d 
a s   s u c h   i n   O L A F’s   AM P.   O n   t h e   o t h e r   h a n d, 
t a r g e t s   n e e d   t o   b e   r e a l i s t i c   a n d   h a v e   t o 
reflec t ac tual ope ration al c irc um st an ces.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e c a l l s   t h a t   t h e   p r o v i -
s i o n   o n   9 - m o n t h   r e p o r t s   i n   R e g u l a t i o n 
1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   i s   n o t   a   t a rg e t   d e a d l i n e   fo r   t h e 
completion  of  an  inves tigat ion 3. 

3 The obligation to report to the Supervisory Committee on cases 
that are still open after nine months should be considered in 

the context of the Supervisory Committee’s role of reinforcing 

the independence of the Office. Historically, the purpose of this 

reporting was to prevent an interference by the Institutions in 

OLAF’s independent case work.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

48

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

Th e   2 4   m o nt h s   t a rg e t   s e t   i n   O L A F’s   AM P   i s 
r e a l i s t i c   t a k i n g   i n t o   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   O L A F ’s 
o p e r a t i o n a l   e x p e r i e n c e   a n d   t h e   v a r i o u s 
f a c t o r s   i n f l u e n c i n g   t h e   c o u r s e   o f   i n v e s t i -
g a t i o n s   ( s u c h   a s   O L A F ’s   d e p e n d e n c e   o n 
c o o p e r a t i o n   f r o m   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   o r   t h i r d 
c o u n t r i e s ) .   H owe ve r,   o n e   s i ze   d o e s   n o t   f i t 
a l l ,   a n d   i n   r e c o g n i t i o n   o f   t h e s e   f a c t o r s , 
OLAF is assessing the possibilit y of mak ing 
a   c l e a r   d i s t i n c t i o n   b e t w e e n   t h e   d u r a t i o n 
t a r g e t s   fo r   d i f fe r e n t   t y p e s   o f   c a s e ,   w h i l s t 
s t i l l   re t a i n i n g   t h e   ave ra g e   d u rat i o n   t a rg e t 
of 24 mont hs. 

29– 30.
I n addition to the 9- and 18-month repor ts, 
t h e r e   i s   c o n t i n u o u s   s u p e r v i s i o n   o f   d u r a -
tion by  line manag ement.

On a monthly basis, statistics are produced 
f o r   m a n a g e m e n t   d r a w i n g   a t t e n t i o n   t o 
longer cases. These are regular ly discussed 
at D irec tors’ me eting s. 

R e g a rd i n g   t h e   ro l e   o f   t h e   B o a rd,   s e e   re p l y 
to paragra ph 21.

Th e   re v i s e d   p ro p o s a l   to   a m e n d   R e g u l at i o n 
1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   fo re s e e   re i n fo rce d   co nt ro l s 
of the duration of investigations, including 
i n fo r m i n g   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t te e   i n   a 
timely ma nne r. 

31.
E v e n   t h o u g h   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   c a s e s   p e r 
i nv e s t i g a t o r   i n   I nv e s t i g a t i o n s   a n d   O p e r a -
t i o n s   D i r e c t o r a t e s   m a y   h a v e   d e c r e a s e d , 
t h e   a m o u n t   o f   i n c o m i n g   i n f o r m a t i o n 
n e e d i n g   to   b e   e v a l u a te d   h a s   co n s i d e ra b l y 
i n c r e a s e d ,   w h i c h   h a s   a   s i g n i f i c a n t   i m p a c t 
on  th e ove ral l  wo r k l oad of inves t i g ator s. 

D u e   to   O L A F’s   p o l i c y   to   fo c u s   o n   t h e   m o re 
ser ious cases, their duration tends to be in 
line  with t heir in c rease d complexi t y.

O L A F   i s   f u l l y   co m m i t te d   to   co nt ro l l i n g   t h e 
d u r a t i o n   o f   c a s e s   t h r o u g h   t h e i r   e f f i c i e n t 
management. S ee also reply to paragraphs 
2 9–3 0.

3 2.
A s   a l r e a d y   m e n t i o n e d ,   t h e   v o l u m e   o f 
i n c o m i n g   i n f o r m a t i o n   h a s   i n c r e a s e d   c o n -
siderably and OLAF intends to put in place 
a   p ro ce d u re   fo r   a   m o re   e f f i c i e nt   a n d   a cc u -
r a te   p ro ce s s i n g   o f   t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   d u r i n g 
t h e   e va l u at i o n   p e r i o d.  Th i s   w i l l   i n c l u d e   a n 
upstream  filter ing an d where  n ece ss a r y  an 
an alys is of in for mation. 

3 3.
I n   m a n y   c a s e s   w h e r e   i n i t i a l   i n f o r m a t i o n 
n e e d s   to   b e   ve r i f i e d   w i t h   e x te r n a l   b o d i e s, 
M e m b e r   S t a te s   a n d   t h i rd   co u n t r y   a u t h o r i -
t i e s ,   O L A F   d e p e n d s   o n   i t s   e x t e r n a l   p a r t -
n e r s   t o   r e s p o n d   i n   a   t i m e l y   m a n n e r   a n d 
r e l i e s   u p o n   t h e i r   g o o d w i l l   a n d   c o o p e r a -
tion. Although OLAF is investing heavily in 
i m p r o v i n g   t h e s e   re l a t i o n s h i p s   i n   o r d e r   t o 
r e d u c e   d e l a y s   i n   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   o f   i n fo r-
m a t i o n ,   t h i s   r e m a i n s   a   f a c t o r   l a r g e l y   o u t-
side  its control. 

T h e   t w o -   a n d   s i x - m o n t h   g u i d e l i n e s   f o r 
a s s e s s m e n t s   h a ve   b e e n   s e t   b y   O L A F   i t s e l f 
f o r   w o r k   m o n i t o r i n g   p u r p o s e s .   T h e y   a r e 
n o t   r e g u l a t o r y   d e a d l i n e s   a s   s u c h .   M o r e o -
ve r,   t h e   p ro g re s s i ve   a p p l i c a t i o n   o f   t h e   d e 
m i n i m i s   g u i d e l i n e s   ( a s   l a i d   d o w n   i n   a n 
a n n e x   t o   t h e   O L A F   M a n u a l )   s h o u l d   f a c i l i -
tate progress in reducing assessment dura -
tion  in t he medium to long er  te r m. 

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

4949

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t ,   e v e n 
u n d e r   t h e   e x i s t i n g   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k ,   t h e 
r i g h t s   o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a r e   p r o -
t e c t e d   a n d   t h a t   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   c o n t r o l 
o f   i n v e s t i g a t i v e   a c t s   e x i s t s ,   t o   w h i c h   t h e 
c a s e   l a w   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o f   J u s t i c e   h a s   b e e n 
i n c r e a s i n g l y   c o n t r i b u t i n g   s i n c e   t h e   Co u r t 
made its statement in 2005. Even though it 
considers that OLAF’s investigative ac tions 
( i n c l u d i n g   t h e   Fi n a l   C a s e   R e p o r t s )   c a n n o t 
b e   c h a l l e n g e d   f o r   a n n u l m e n t 4,   t h e   C o u r t 
o f   J u s t i c e   c o n t r i b u t e s   t o   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t 
co nt ro l   n o t a b l y   o f   t h e s e   by   m e a n s   o f   p o s -
s i b l e   a c t i o n s   fo r   d a m a g e s 5.   Ev i d e n ce   m u s t 
b e   c o l l e c t e d   i n   a   l a w f u l   m a n n e r   i n   o r d e r 
to   e n s u re   t h at   n at i o n a l   a d m i n i s t rat i ve   a n d 
j u d i c i a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   c a n   m a k e   u s e   o f   i t   i n 
t h e i r   r e s p e c t i v e   p r o c e d u r e s .   T h e   s a m e   i s 
v a l i d   fo r   a d m i n i s t ra t i ve   a n d   re cove r y   p ro -
ce d u re s   to   b e   i n i t i ate d   by   t h e   a u t h o r i s i n g 
officers. I n addition to this, the OLAF M an-
u a l   p r o v i d e s   c l e a r   i n t e r n a l   g u i d e l i n e s   f o r 
i n v e s t i g a t o r s   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   c o n d u c t i n g 
of an  investigation.

4 1.
O L A F   h a s   n o   p o w e r s   t o   f o r c e   i t s   p a r t n e r s 
to reac t in a timely manner and relies upon 
t h e i r   g o o d w i l l   a n d   co o p e r a t i o n .   A l t h o u g h 
O L A F   i s   i n v e s t i n g   h e a v i l y   i n   i m p r o v i n g 
t h e s e   r e l a t i o n s h i p s ,   t h i s   r e m a i n s   a   f a c t o r 
largely  outside its control.

4 Refer to cases T-193/04 Tillack v. Commission dated 4 October 
2006 and T-261/09P Violetti et Schmit dated 20 May 2010.

5 Refer to cases T-48/05 Franchet et Byk v. Commission dated 8 July 
2008 and F-5/07 and 7/05 Violetti v. Commission dated 28 April 

2009 and F-72/06 Verheyden v. Commission dated 28 April 2009.

35.
O L A F   h a s   m a d e   c o n s i d e r a b l e   p r o g r e s s   i n 
e n s u r i n g   t h a t   d a t a   s u b j e c t s   a r e   i n f o r m e d 
o f   i t s   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,   i n   a c c o r d a n c e   w i t h 
R e g u l a t i o n   ( E C )   N o   4 5 / 2 0 0 1 .   T h i s   w a s 
a c h i e ve d   i n   a   t ra n s p a re n t   w ay   fo l l ow i n g   a 
p l a n   a g r e e d   w i t h   t h e   E u r o p e a n   D a t a   Pr o -
te c t i o n   S u p e r v i s o r   ( E D P S ) .   O L A F   h a s   co m -
p l e te d   a   d a t a   p ro te c t i o n   b a c k l o g   e xe rc i s e 
covering specified groups of investigations 
t h a t   w e r e   o p e n e d   p r i o r   t o   t h e   e x i s t e n c e 
o f   t h e   d a t a   p r o t e c t i o n   m o d u l e ,   t h e r e f o r e 
the five outstanding cases have been dealt 
wi th a cco rding ly. 

A l t h o u g h   t h e   E D P S   w a s   c o n s u l t e d   o n   a l l 
t h e   a s p e c t s   re fe r re d   to   by   t h e   Co u r t   i n   t h e 
contex t  of  t he  p r ior  c hec ks  on  O L A F  i nves-
t i g a t i o n s   a n d   f o l l o w - u p ,   O L A F   i s   w i l l i n g 
t o   c o n s u l t   t h e   E D P S   a g a i n   o n   t h e   s p e c i f i c 
issue  raise d.

37.
A s   o f   1   J a n u a r y   2 0 1 1 ,   O L A F   h a s   a c h i e v e d 
i t s   g o a l   a n d   r e d u c e d   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   i t s 
temporar y ag e nt s to 21 %. 

39.
I t   i s   e n v i s a g e d   t h a t   t h e   p r o p o s a l   f o r   t h e 
r e fo r m   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   c o n -
s o l i d a t e   t h e   r i g h t s   o f   t h e   i n d i v i d u a l   c o n -
ce r n e d   a n d   m a k e   t h e m   m o re   v i s i b l e.   Ad d i-
t i o n a l l y,   i t   w i l l   i n t r o d u c e   a n   i n d e p e n d e n t 
r e v i e w   m e c h a n i s m / p r o c e d u r e   fo r   d e a l i n g 
w i t h   c o m p l a i n t s   by   p e r s o n s   c o n c e r n e d   by 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,   w h o   c o n s i d e r   t h a t   t h e i r 
procedural r ights have not been respec ted 
by  OLA F.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

50

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

4 4.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   p ay i n g   c l o s e   a t t e n t i o n 
t o   t h e   p o s s i b i l i t i e s   o f f e r e d   b y   t h e   L i s b o n 
Treat y in ter ms of the fur ther development 
o f   E u r o j u s t   a n d   t h e   s e t t i n g   u p   o f   a   E u r o -
pean Public Prosecutor ’s O ffice (EPPO). The 
Commission is planning to issue a Commu -
n i c a t i o n   o n   t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   a n   E P P O 
f r o m   E u r o j u s t   a n d   t o   f u r t h e r   r e f l e c t   o n 
t h e   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   a l l   a c t o r s   i n v o l v e d , 
i n c l u d i n g   O L A F.   O L A F   i s   f u l l y   awa re   o f   t h i s 
perspec tive and will fur ther improve coop -
e r a t i o n .   I t   i s   e nv i s a g e d   t h a t   t h e   re fo r m e d 
R e g u l a t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   l a y   d o w n   r u l e s 
f o r   c l o s e r   c o o p e r a t i o n   b e t w e e n   E u r o j u s t 
a n d   O L A F.   I t   w i l l   p r o v i d e   a   l e g a l   b a s i s   fo r 
O L A F   t o   c o n c l u d e   c o o p e r a t i o n   a r r a n g e -
m e nt s   w i t h   b o t h   Eu ro p o l   a n d   Eu ro j u s t.   An 
i n fo r m a t i o n   e xc h a n g e   b e t w e e n   O L A F   a n d 
Eu ro j u s t   w i l l   b e   re i n fo rce d   i n   t h e   n e w   p ro -
posal.

S ee  also reply  to paragraph  4 3 .

4 8.
O L A F   m a k e s   e ve r y   p o s s i b l e   e f fo r t   to   e v a l -
u a t e   a n d   q u a n t i f y   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   i m p a c t 
o f   f r a u d u l e n t   a c t i v i t y.   N e v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e 
a m o u n t s   t o   b e   r e c o v e r e d   a r e   n o t   a l w a y s 
p o s s i b l e   t o   q u a n t i f y   a t   t h e   o u t s e t   a n d 
t h e r e f o r e   t h e   p o t e n t i a l   f i n a n c i a l   i m p a c t 
c a n n o t   a l w a y s   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   a s   a   c l e a r 
‘obj ec tive’ for  an inve stigation .   

Wi t h   r e g a r d   t o   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   M e m b e r 
S t a t e s   i n   t h e   f i e l d   o f   d i r e c t   e x p e n d i t u r e , 
s t e p s   t o w a r d s   s o l v i n g   t h i s   p r o b l e m   h a v e 
a l re a d y   b e e n   t a k e n   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n .   I n 
2 0 0 9 ,   a s   p a r t   o f   t h e   q u e s t i o n n a i re   fo r   t h e 
2 0 0 8   A n n u a l   C o m m i s s i o n   R e p o r t   o n   t h e 
p r o t e c t i o n   o f   t h e   E U ’s   f i n a n c i a l   i n t e r e s t s 
-   f i g h t   a g a i n s t   f r a u d,   m o s t   M e m b e r   S t a te s 
co m m u n i c ate d   to   O L A F   t h e   co m p l e te   co n -
t a c t   d e t a i l s   o f   n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   f o r 
a l l   e x p e n d i t u r e   f i e l d s ,   i n c l u d i n g   d i r e c t 
e x p e n d i t u r e ,   t h u s   e n a b l i n g   O L A F   i n v e s t i -
g ato r s   to   i d e nt i f y   a n d   co nt a c t   t h e   co m p e -
t e n t   a u t h o r i t y   i n   g o o d   t i m e   o f   t h e   c h e c k . 
O L A F   w i l l   r e m a i n   i n   c l o s e   c o n t a c t   w i t h 
M e m b e r   S t a t e s   fo r   t h e   c o n t i n u o u s   u p d a t -
ing of this infor mation. I n the 2009 repor t, 
t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   s t r o n g l y   r e c o m m e n d s   a l l 
M ember States to set up national and judi -
c i a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   w i t h   c o m p e t e n c e s   fo r   t h e 
f i e l d   o f   d i r e c t   e x p e n d i t u r e ,   a s   t h e   s a m e 
l e v e l   o f   p r o t e c t i o n   o f   f i n a n c i a l   i n t e r e s t s 
m u s t   b e   e n s u r e d   f o r   a l l   a r e a s   o f   t h e   E U 
b u d g e t .   I t   i s   e nv i s a g e d   t h a t   t h e   re fo r m e d 
R e g u l at i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   a d d re s s e s   t h i s   i s s u e 
b y   p r o p o s i n g   a n   A n t i - f r a u d   C o o r d i n a t i o n 
S er vice (A FCOS) for each M emb e r   State.

43.
T h e   P r a c t i c a l   A g r e e m e n t   p r o v i d e s   f o r   a 
f r a m e w o r k   f o r   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e   c o o p e r a -
t i o n .   T h e r e   i s   a   c o m m o n   u n d e r s t a n d i n g 
b e t we e n   O L A F   a n d   Eu ro j u s t   t h a t ,   i n   o rd e r 
t o   e n s u r e   s o u n d   m a n a g e m e n t ,   t h e   t e x t   i s 
n o t   i n   p ra c t i ce   i nte r p re te d   i n   a   l i te ra l   way 
b u t   c o o p e r a t i o n   i s   f o c u s e d   o n   c o m p l e x 
a n d   s e n s i t i v e   c r i m i n a l   c a s e s ,   a n d   w h e r e 
i t   b r i n g s   a d d e d   v a l u e.  T h i s   c o o p e r a t i o n   i s 
handled by the OLAF-Eurojust liaison team 
w h i c h   m e e t s   re g u l a r l y.   Ad d i t i o n a l l y,   O L A F 
a n d   E u r o j u s t   o r g a n i s e   r e g u l a r   e x c h a n g e 
v i s i t s   to   f u r t h e r   i m p rove   u n d e r s t a n d i n g   o f 
th eir respe c t ive task s.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

5151

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

5 6.–5 7.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a p p r e c i a t e s   t h e   i d e a   o f 
fur ther improving OLAF’s repor ting, allow-
in g for reliable compar is ons  over  t im e. 

T h e   p r o p o s a l   w i l l   b e   c a r e f u l l y   e x a m i n e d . 
H owe ve r,   d i f f i c u l t   te c h n i c a l   i s s u e s   h ave   to 
be taken into account and resolved, in par -
t i c u l a r   w i t h   re s p e c t   to   t i m e   l a g s   a n d   q u a l -
it y  of  data.

6 0.
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   f i n d i n g s 
o f   t h e   Co u r t .   I t   s h o u l d   a l s o   b e   n o t e d   t h a t 
the relations bet ween OLAF and the Super-
visor y Committee have become much more 
fr uit ful since  the previous au dit. 

6 3.
T h e   r i g h t s   o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a r e 
a l r e a d y   p r o t e c t e d   i n   t h e   e x i s t i n g   l e g a l 
f r a m e w o r k .   A n y   f o r m a l   p r o c e d u r e   o n   t h e 
p a r t   o f   O L A F   o r   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t -
te e   fo r   a n   i n te r ve n t i o n   o f   t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y 
C o m m i t t e e   o n   t h i s   i s s u e   i n   o n g o i n g   i n d i -
v i d u a l   c a s e s   c o u l d   b e   s e e n   a s   a n   i n t e r fe r -
e n ce   w i t h   t h e   i nve s t i g at i ve   i n d e p e n d e n ce 
of th e OL AF Dire c tor.

T h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   O L A F   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s 
c a n n o t   b e   a s s e s s e d   s i m p l y   i n   f i n a n c i a l 
ter ms. OLAF gathers evidence both against 
a n d   i n   f a v o u r   o f   p e r s o n s   c o n c e r n e d ,   s o   a 
c o n c l u s i o n   t h a t   a   p e r s o n   c o n c e r n e d   d o e s 
n o t   h a v e   a   c a s e   t o   a n s w e r   i s   a l s o   t o   b e 
c o n s i d e r e d   a   p o s i t i v e   r e s u l t .   A l s o,   a   c a s e 
w h i c h   h a s   l i m i t e d   i m m e d i a t e   f i n a n c i a l 
i m p a c t   m a y   h a v e   s u b s t a n t i a l   l o n g e r   t e r m 
f i n a n c i a l   i m p l i c a t i o n s   o n c e   l e s s o n s   l e a r n t 
h a v e   b e e n   r e f l e c t e d   i n   i m p r o v e d   p r o c e -
dures.

51.
I n d e e d ,   O L A F   f u l f i l s   i t s   r o l e   t o   o p t i -
m i s e   c o n d i t i o n s   f o r   f o l l o w - u p .   I n   m a n y 
i n s t a n c e s ,   w i t h o u t   O L A F ’s   a s s i s t a n c e,   fo l -
low-u p  woul d not  h ave been s u cce s sf ul.

52.
Ta b l e   5   i n   t h e   E C A   re p o r t   c o m p a re s   i n t e r -
n a l   i n fo r m at i o n   ava i l a b l e   fo r   m a n a g e m e nt 
pur poses and annual repor ts. M anagement 
infor mation is necessar ily more detailed to 
e n a b l e   m a n a g e r s   t o   c a r r y   o u t   t h e i r   f u n c -
t i o n .   O L A F   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e   p u b l i c   s h o u l d 
h a v e   a c c e s s   t o   c o m p a r a b l e   i n f o r m a t i o n 
o ve r   t i m e,   i n   o rd e r   t o   g i ve   re s u l t s   g re a t e r 
visibilit y, but reser ves the r ight to produce 
m o r e   d e t a i l e d   i n f o r m a t i o n   f o r   m a n a g e -
ment  pur po se s onl y.

53.
O L A F   w i l l   ex a m i n e   h ow   to   f u r t h e r   i m p rove 
i t s   a n n u a l   o p e rat i o n a l   re p o r t,   w h e re   i t   h a s 
a   c e r t a i n   l e e w a y   a s   o p p o s e d   t o   i t s   o t h e r 
repor ts.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

52

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

CONCLUSIONS	AND		
RECOMMENDATIONS

6 7.
The Commission reiterates its opinion that 
OL AF  sh ould  continue  to  contr ibute   to  th e 
e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   i t s   a n t i - f r a u d   p o l i c y   a n d 
s t rate g y.   O L A F’s   p o l i c y   wo r k   b e n e f i t s   f ro m 
its investigative exper ience and vice versa. 

T h e   3 4   %   f i g u r e   i n   i s o l a t i o n   d o e s   n o t 
r e f l e c t   t h e   p r o p o r t i o n   o f   O L A F   r e s o u r c e s 
d e v o t e d   t o   i n v e s t i g a t i o n .   I n   t e r m s   o f 
s t a f f   a l l o c a t i o n   to   i nve s t i g a t i ve   a c t i v i t i e s, 
n e a r l y   7 5   %   a r e   i n v o l v e d   i n   o p e r a t i o n a l 
c a s e wo r k ,   i . e.   i n c l u d i n g   p rov i d i n g   s u p p o r t 
to   i nve s t i g at i o n s.  Th e   s p l i t   by   d i re c to rate s 
d o e s   n o t   t h u s   r e f l e c t   t h e   p r o p o r t i o n   o f 
sta ff involved in  inves tig ation s.

E v e n   t h o u g h   t h e   f i g u r e   o f   3 7   %   i s   g e n e r -
a t e d   f r o m   t h e   T M S ,   i t   d o e s   n o t   e n t i r e l y 
re f l e c t   t h e   re a l   s i t u at i o n .   S e e   a l s o   re p l y   to 
paragraph  1 1 .

6 8.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a p p r e c i a t e s   t h e   C o u r t ’s 
f i n d i n g s   t h a t   O L A F   i s   m a k i n g   m o re   u s e   o f 
its  invest igat ive powers.

Concer nin g  strategic  intellige nce,   i ts   m ain 
c o n c e r n   i s   t o   u n d e r s t a n d   t h e   p a t t e r n s   o f 
f r a u d   a n d   t o   i d e n t i f y   ( s e c t o r a l   a n d   o t h e r ) 
r i s k s   w h i c h   s u p p o r t   o p e r a t i o n a l   a c t i v i t i e s 
an d fraud  prevention.

64.
A s   r e g a r d s   t h e   q u e s t i o n   w h e t h e r   t h e 
Super visor y Committee has to be infor med 
w h e n   O L A F   t r a n s m i t s   i n f o r m a t i o n   t o 
national judicial author ities in cases which 
are already dealt with by the national judi-
c i a l   a u t h o r i t i e s ,   n o   d e f i n i t i v e   a n s w e r   t o 
t h i s   q u e s t i o n   i s   t o   b e   f o u n d   i n   A r t .   1 1 ( 7 ) 
o f   R e g u l a t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9 .   T h e   p r o v i s i o n 
c o u l d   b e   i n t e r p re t e d   s t r i c t l y,   l i m i t e d   o n l y 
t o   i n t e r n a l   c a s e s ,   o r   i n   a   b r o a d e r   s e n s e . 
OLAF is willing to apply an ex tensive inter -
p re t a t i o n ,   i . e.   i n c l u d i n g   e x te r n a l   c a s e s,   a s 
t h i s   wo u l d   f a c i l i t a t e   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   wo r k 
of the Su pe r viso r y  Committee.  Co ncer n ing 
a l re a d y   o n g o i n g   c r i m i n a l   c a s e s   at   n at i o n a l 
l e v e l ,   O L A F   c o n s i d e r s   i t   a p p r o p r i a t e   t o 
i n fo r m   t h e   Co m m i t te e   o f   t h e s e   c a s e s   i f   a n 
ex ter nal or inter nal investigation has been 
o p e n e d   a n d   i nve s t i g a t i ve   a c t i o n   t a k e n   b y 
OLAF. 

O L A F   h a s   a l r e a d y   a d a p t e d   i t s   p r a c t i c e 
according  to t his inter p retat ion.

65.
Wi t h   t h e   D e c i s i o n   o f   t h e   E u ro p e a n   Pa r l i a -
m e n t ,   t h e   C o u n c i l   a n d   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
o f   1 5   Fe b r u a r y   2 0 1 1 ,   t h e   m a n d a t e   o f   t h e 
p r e s e n t   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   M e m b e r s 
wi ll  be ex tended u nt il 30 Novem b e r  2 0 1 1.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

5353

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

7 1.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   o f   t h e   v i e w   t h a t   O L A F 
h a s   m a d e   co n s i d e ra b l e   p ro gre s s   s i n ce   t h e 
audit of 2 00 5,  in  par tic ular :

 Ū From 2005 until the introduc tion of the 
4 th  e dition  of  t he  M anual  in   D e cembe r  
2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   p re v i o u s   ve r s i o n   o f   t h e   M a n -
u a l   s e r ve d   a s   a   va l u a b l e   to o l   fo r   i nve s -
tig ator s;

 Ū Cooperation with Eurojust has improved 
based  on  t he agree me nt  wh ich  entered 
i n t o   f o r c e   i n   2 0 0 8   ( s e e   r e p l y   t o   p a r a -
graph  4 3) ;

 Ū T h e   C M S ,   ( a n d   n o t   t h e   T M S , )   w a s   d e -
s i g n e d   a s   a   t o o l   f o r   c a s e   m a n a g e m e n t 
an d fur t her  developed; 

 Ū T h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   h a s   r e -
m a i n e d   s t a b l e   i n   r e c e n t   y e a r s   e v e n 
though cases have become more serious 
a n d   c o m p l e x .   H o w e v e r,   f u r t h e r   e f fo r t s 
w i l l   b e   m a d e   t o   i m p r o v e   i nv e s t i g a t i o n 
planning and therefore contribute to re -
ducing   t he  durat ion   of  c ases   ( see  reply 
to  paragraph 2 3) .

C h a n g e s   t o   i m p r o v e   t h e   l e g a l   f r a m e w o r k 
a r e   u n d e r w a y   a n d   e x p e c t e d   b y   t h e   e n d 
o f   2 0 1 1 .  T h e s e   w i l l   c o n s o l i d a t e   t h e   r i g h t s 
o f   p e r s o n s   c o n c e r n e d   b y   a n   i nve s t i g a t i o n 
and make them more visible. They will also 
c o m p r i s e   p r o v i s i o n s   o n   a   r e v i e w   p r o c e -
dure and on cooperation with Eurojust and 
Europol.

I n   a d d i t i o n   t o   t h e   a s s i s t a n c e   O L A F ’s   s t r a -
tegic intelligence offers to M ember States, 
O L A F   co nt r i b u te s   s i gn i f i c a nt l y   to   t h e   a nt i -
f ra u d   p o l i c y   o f   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n .   Fo r   ex a m-
p l e ,   O L A F   h a s   i s s u e d   s p e c i f i c   r e c o m m e n -
d a t i o n s   t o   s e v e r a l   C o m m i s s i o n   s e r v i c e s 
t o   i m p ro ve   f r a u d   p re ve n t i o n   fo l l o w i n g   a n 
ana lysis  of  it s o perat ion al cas es.

Follow-up	recomm e ndation	1
This recommendation is par tially accepted. 
Th e   s p e e d   o f   i nve s t i g at i o n s   i s   a n   a re a   t h at 
could be fur ther improved (see also replies 
t o   p a r a g r a p h s   2 7 – 2 9 ) .   H o w e v e r,   a s   O L A F 
i s   c o m m i t t e d   t o   d e a l i n g   w i t h   t h e   m o r e 
s e r i o u s   c a s e s   a n d   i s   p r o g r e s s i v e l y   a p p l y -
i n g   f i n a n c i a l   t h r e s h o l d s   w h e n   d e c i d i n g 
w h e t h e r   o r   n o t   t o   o p e n   a   c a s e ,   i n c r e a s e d 
t i m e   s p e nt   o n   i nve s t i g at i o n s   m ay   n o t   n e c -
e s s a r i l y   i m p l y   a n   i n c r e a s e   i n   t h e   n u m b e r 
of investigations. M oreover, the number of 
c a s e s   i s   n o t   t h e   o n l y   i n d i c ato r   by   w h i c h   to 
judge OLA F’s p er for mance.

OLAF will make ever y effor t to increase the 
e f f i c i e n c y   a n d   e f fe c t i ve n e s s   o f   i t s   i nve s t i -
g a t i v e   w o r k ,   w h i c h   r e m a i n s   i t s   c o r e   t a s k . 
Fu r t h e r m o re,   O L A F   w i l l   l o o k   i n t o   t h e   p o s -
s i b i l i t y   o f   i n c re a s i n g   t h e   p ro p o r t i o n   o f   i t s 
time  spent  o n its  investig ative f un c ti on .

Follow-up	recomm e ndation	2
This recomme ndat ion  is  accep ted.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

54

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

I t is envisaged that the revised proposal to 
amend R egulation 1073/1999 will compr ise 
p r o v i s i o n s   o n   c o o p e r a t i o n   w i t h   E u r o j u s t , 
t a k i n g   i n t o   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e 
s c o p e s   o f   c o m p e t e n c e   o f   O L A F   a n d   E u r o -
j us t.

Fo llow-u p	 reco mmen dat io n	 5
This re com me ndat ion  is acce pted. 

O L A F   a l r e a d y   u s e s   i n i t i a l   w o r k p l a n s   a n d 
i s   c o m m i t t e d   t o   d e v e l o p   t h e s e   f u r t h e r   i n 
order  to improve  its  plannin g sys tem.

T h e s e   wo r k p l a n s   a re   re v i s e d   w h e n   n e c e s -
s a r y   i n   t h e   c o u r s e   o f   t h e   c o n t i n u o u s   d i a -
l o g u e   b e t we e n   i nve s t i g ato r s   a n d   m a n a g e -
ment. 

D epending on the different t ypes of inves-
t i g a t i o n ,   m o n i t o r i n g   m a y   t a k e   d i f f e r e n t 
fo r m s.   H o we ve r,   i n   a l l   c a s e s,   b o t h   t h e   i n i -
t i a l   w o r k p l a n   a n d   i t s   u p d a t e s   a r e   a l r e a d y 
r e g i s t e r e d   i n   t h e   C M S   i n   t h e   f o r m   o f 
repor t s or n otes.

OLAF will wor k on fur ther improvements in 
ter ms  of  investig ation plann in g :

 Ū O L A F   w i ll   e n s u re   t h at  i n i t i a l   wo r k pl a n s 
always include the objec tives and scope 
of t he invest igat ion , an d the  e st im ated 
financial impac t. I f it is possible at such 
a n   e a r l y   s t a g e ,   t h e   p l a n s   w i l l   a l s o   i n -
c l u d e   e s t i m a t e s   o f   re s o u rc e s   r e q u i r e d, 
p o s s i b l e   m i s s i o n s   a n d   a   l i k e l y   t i m e -
frame.

 Ū O L A F   i s   c o m m i t t e d   t o   i m p r o v i n g   t h e 
m o n i to r i n g   a n d   u p d at i n g   o f   wo r k p l a n s 
on a  regular basis.

Follow-up	recomm e ndation	3
This recommendation is par tially accepted. 

The reform of Regulation 1073/1999, which 
i s   c u r r e n t l y   u n d e r w a y,   a l r e a d y   a d d r e s s e s 
t h e   i s s u e   o f   O L A F ’s   co m p e te n ce s   a n d   p ro -
c e d u r e s .   I t   w i l l   a l s o   c o n s o l i d a t e   r e l a t i o n s 
b e t w e e n   O L A F   a n d   t h e   M e m b e r   S t a t e s ’ 
c o m p e t e n t   a u t h o r i t i e s .   Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   t h e 
r e f o r m   f o r e s e e s   t h a t   M e m b e r   S t a t e s   w i l l 
d e s i g n a t e   a n   a u t h o r i t y   t o   e n s u r e   g o o d 
cooperatio n w it h OLA F.

T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   g e n e r a l l y   i n   f a v o u r   o f 
a n   o ve r a l l   c o n s o l i d a t i o n   o f   t h e   a n t i - f r a u d 
l e g i s l a t i o n .   H o w e v e r,   g i v e n   t h a t   t h i s   i s 
a   v e r y   c o m p l e x   i s s u e   i n v o l v i n g   d i f f e r e n t 
p i e c e s   o f   l e g i s l a t i o n ,   i t   i s   n o t   e n v i s a g e d 
in  the  fram ewo r k  o f  t he  ongo ing   re for m  of 
R egulation 1073/1999, but is considered as 
a lon ger ter m ob j ec tive.

Follow-up	recomm e ndation	4
This recommendation is par tially accepted. 
Th e   co o p e r a t i o n   b e t we e n   O L A F   a n d   Eu ro -
j u s t   h a s   d e ve l o p e d   co n s i d e ra b l y   i n   re ce n t 
y e a r s ,   b a s e d   o n   t h e   n e w   E u r o j u s t   D e c i -
s i o n   a n d   t h e   P r a c t i c a l   A g r e e m e n t   o n   t h e 
Ar rangeme nt  o f Coop eratio n w i t h Euro just 
o f   S e p te m b e r   2 0 0 8 .  Th e   exc h a n g e   o f   c a s e -
r e l a t e d   i n f o r m a t i o n   a n d   t h e   f o l l o w - u p   o f 
o n g o i n g   c a s e s   h a v e   b e e n   f a c i l i t a t e d   a n d 
now occur o n a m ore reg ul ar ba s i s.

O L A F   h a s   a l re a d y   p u t   i n   p l a c e   p ro c e d u re s 
r e g a r d i n g   t h e   t r a n s m i s s i o n   o f   i n f o r m a -
t i o n   re g a rd i n g   re l e va nt   c a s e s   to   Eu ro j u s t 6. 
Fu r t h e r m o r e ,   i n   2 0 1 1   a   n e w   s e c u r e   i n f o r -
m a t i o n   e xc h a n g e   s y s t e m   w i l l   b e   i n s t a l l e d 
i n   o r d e r   t o   f u r t h e r   f a c i l i t a t e   i n f o r m a t i o n 
excha nge.

6 The transmission of information on cases to Eurojust has 
increased compared to 2008 and 2009. In 2010 OLAF has already 

transmitted four cases to Eurojust; Eurojust has transmitted one 

case to OLAF.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

5555

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

7 3.
OLAF makes ever y possible effor t to evalu-
a t e   a n d   q u a n t i f y   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   i m p a c t   o f 
f ra u d u l e nt   a c t i v i t y,   b u t   t h e   a m o u nt s   to   b e 
recovered are not always possible to quan-
t i f y   a t   t h e   o u t s e t .   Fi n a n c i a l   i m p l i c a t i o n s 
are taken into account for reasons of pr ior-
itisation, rather than ser ving as ‘objec tives’ 
as such . S ee also reply to   paragraph  48. 

7 4.
T h e   s p e n d i n g   C o m m i s s i o n   D i r e c t o r a t e s -
G e n e r a l   ( D G s )   ( a s   a u t h o r i s i n g   D G s )   a n d 
M ember States’ ser vices are responsible for 
f i n a n c i a l   r e c o v e r y   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   O L A F ’s 
findings. Therefore, the amounts recovered 
a re   o n l y   a n   i n d i c ato r   i n   a   b ro a d e r   co ntex t, 
i . e .   w i t h   r e g a r d   t o   s t a k e h o l d e r s   a n d ,   i n 
p a r t i c u l a r,   t h e   s p e n d i n g   Co m m i s s i o n   D G s 
an d M ember  St ates. 

Fo llow-u p	 reco mmen dat io n	 7
This recommendation is par tially accepted.

O L A F   a l r e a d y   s e t s   o b j e c t i v e s   f o r   i n v e s -
t i g a t i o n s   a n d   u p d a t e s   t h e m   r e g u l a r l y 
v i a   w o r k p l a n s .   O L A F   a g r e e s   t h a t   s o m e 
i m p r o v e m e n t s   c o u l d   b e   m a d e   t o   t h e   c u r -
r e n t   a r r a n g e m e n t s .   H o w e v e r,   s u b s t a n t i a l 
chan ge s are not required.

O L A F ’s   o b j e c t i v e   i s   t o   g a t h e r   e v i d e n c e 
b o t h   f o r   a n d   a g a i n s t   a n d   t o   i d e n t i f y 
amounts for re cover y  as accuratel y as pos-
sible. 

Follow-up	recomm e ndation	6
This recommendation is par tially accepted. 
M o n i t o r i n g   l o n g   a n d   c o m p l e x   i n v e s t i g a -
tions shoul d b e fu r t her imp rove d. 

W i t h i n   t h e   e x i s t i n g   g o v e r n a n c e   f r a m e -
w o r k ,   t h e   B o a r d   d e l i v e r s   r e c o m m e n d a -
tions on fundamental decisions relating to 
t h e   t r e a t m e n t   o f   c a s e s .   B u t   i t   i s   t h e   r o l e 
o f   l i n e   m a n a g e m e n t   t o   e x a m i n e   i n v e s t i -
g a t i o n   p l a n s   r e g u l a r l y,   g u i d e   t h e i r   d e v e l -
o p m e n t   a n d   t a k e   d e c i s i o n s   i n   o r d e r   t o 
re s p e c t   t i m e f r a m e s   a n d   s p e e d   u p   i nve s t i -
gat ion s wh erever p os sib l e.

OLAF is of the opinion that an involvement 
o f   t h e   B o a r d   i n   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   p r o c e s s 
w o u l d   b e   l i k e l y   t o   r e s u l t   i n   a   d i l u t i o n   o f 
res ponsibilit y  of OLA F’s  l ine man ag em e nt.

T h e   d u r a t i o n   o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s   i s   i n d e e d 
a   k e y   p e r f o r m a n c e   i n d i c a t o r   i n   t e r m s   o f 
OLAF’s ope rat io nal  p roced ures.  I t  i s  re cog-
n i s e d   a s   s u c h   i n   O L A F ’s   AM P.   O n   t h e   o t h e r 
h a n d ,   t a r g e t s   n e e d   t o   b e   r e a l i s t i c   a n d 
h ave   to   re f l e c t   a c t u a l   o p e r a t i o n a l   c i rc u m -
stances.

O L A F   i s   a l e r t   a s   r e g a r d s   t h e   d u r a t i o n   o f 
c a s e s   a n d   i s   c o m m i t t e d   t o   c o n t i n u e   m o n -
i t o r i n g   d e v e l o p m e n t s   i n   t h i s   f i e l d   a n d   t o 
r e d u c e   d u r a t i o n   w h e r e v e r   p o s s i b l e .   S e e 
also replies to  paragrap hs  27– 29 .

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

56

REPLY OF THE 
COMMISSION

Fo llow-u p	 reco mmen dat io n	 9
T h e   f i r s t   s e n t e n c e   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   S u p e r -
v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   i s   r e j e c t e d .   A n y   f o r -
m a l   p ro c e d u re   o n   t h e   p a r t   o f   O L A F   o r   t h e 
S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   c o u l d   b e   s e e n 
a s   a n   i n t e r f e r e n c e   w i t h   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i v e 
i n d e p e n d e n c e   o f   t h e   O L A F   D i r e c t o r.   T h e 
s e c o n d   s e n t e n c e   i s   p a r t i a l l y   a c c e p t e d . 
T h e   p r o p o s a l   f o r   t h e   r e f o r m   o f   R e g u l a -
t i o n   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9   w i l l   co n s o l i d ate   t h e   r i g ht s 
o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a n d   m a k e   t h e m 
more visible. 

T h e   r i g h t s   o f   i n d i v i d u a l s   c o n c e r n e d   a r e 
a l r e a d y   p r o t e c t e d   i n   t h e   e x i s t i n g   l e g a l 
f r a m e w o r k .   E v e n   t h o u g h   i t   d o e s   n o t 
c o n s i d e r   O L A F ’s   i n v e s t i g a t i v e   a c t i o n s 
( i n c l u d i n g   t h e   F i n a l   C a s e   R e p o r t s )   a s 
a c t s   a d v e r s e l y   a f fe c t i n g   t h e   p e r s o n s   c o n -
cerned 7, the Cour t of Justice contributes to 
a n   i n d e p e n d e n t   co n t ro l   o f   t h e s e.   S e e   a l s o 
reply  to paragraph  3 9.

A d d i t i o n a l l y,   t h e   O L A F   M a n u a l   p r o v i d e s 
c l e a r   i n t e r n a l   g u i d e l i n e s   fo r   i nve s t i g a t o r s 
conce r nin g th e conduc t of inves ti gat io ns. 

7 Refer to cases T-193/04 Tillack v. Commission dated 4 October 
2006 and T-261/09P Violetti et Schmit dated 20 May 2010.

Follow-up	recomm e ndation	8
This recommendation is par tially accepted. 

T h e   C M S   s h o u l d   b e   f u r t h e r   d e v e l o p e d   fo r 
these pur poses. However, there will always 
b e   f a c t o r s   o u t s i d e   t h e   C M S   t o   b e   t a k e n 
i n t o   a c c o u n t .   O L A F   w i l l   e x a m i n e   t h e   p o s -
s i b i l i t i e s   f o r   f u r t h e r   i m p r o v e m e n t   i n   i t s 
repor ting, including in relation to compar -
isons  ove r t ime.

75.
The role of the Super visor y Committee will 
b e   f u r t h e r   c l a r i f i e d   by   t h e   re fo r m   o f   R e g u-
lat ion  1073/ 19 99 . 

76.
T h e   n e w   p r o c e d u r e   o f   i n f o r m i n g   t h e 
S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   b e f o r e   t r a n s m i t -
t i n g   a   c a s e   to   n at i o n a l   j u d i c i a l   a u t h o r i t i e s 
e n t e r e d   i n t o   f o r c e   w i t h   t h e   4 t h   e d i t i o n 
o f   t h e   O L A F   M a n u a l   i n   D e c e m b e r   2 0 0 9 . 
T h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   i s   i n f o r m e d 
f i v e   w o r k i n g   d a y s   b e f o r e   t h e   t r a n s m i s -
s i o n   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   t o   n a t i o n a l   j u d i c i a l 
a u t h o r i t i e s .   O L A F   w i l l   t a k e   a n y   a d v i c e   o f 
t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
a n d   r e a c t   o n   a   c a s e - b y - c a s e   b a s i s .   A n y 
f o r m a l   p r o c e d u r e   o n   t h e   p a r t   o f   O L A F   o r 
t h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   Co m m i t te e   co u l d   b e   s e e n 
a s   a n   i n t e r f e r e n c e   w i t h   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i v e 
i n d e p e n d e n c e   o f   t h e   O L A F   D i r e c t o r   c o n -
ce r n i n g   o n g o i n g   i nve s t i g at i o n s,   a s   a n   e l e -
m e nt   o f   h i s   i n d e p e n d e n ce   i n c l u d e s   d e c i d-
i n g   w h e t h e r   a n d   w h e n   a   c a s e   s h a l l   b e 
t r a n s m i t t e d   t o   n a t i o n a l   j u d i c i a l   a u t h o r i -
t i e s .   C o n c e r n i n g   t h e   p r o t e c t i o n   o f   t h e 
r i g h t s   o f   p e r s o n s   b e i n g   i n v e s t i g a t e d ,   s e e 
reply to p aragrap h 3 9.   

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

5757

REPLY OF THE 
OLAF SUPERVISORY 
COMMIT TEE

T h e   S u p e r v i s o r y   C o m m i t t e e   t a k e s   n o t e 
o f   t h e   o b s e r v a t i o n s   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o f   A u d i -
to r s   i n   t h e   fo l l ow- u p   o f   t h e   S p e c i a l   R e p o r t 
1 / 2 0 0 5   c o n c e r n i n g   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f 
t h e   Eu ro p e a n   A nt i - f ra u d   O f f i ce   a n d   wo u l d 
make t he fo llow in g resp o ns es :

1.	The	ro le	of 	the 	S up er vis or y	
Committe e 	following	the 	Fra n ch et a nd 
Byk	ruli ng	(pa ra graph s 58–63 	a nd	7 5–7 6	
of	th e	Co ur t	of 	Audi to rs 	obs e r vati ons)

(a) Ac ti on  to  b e t a ken  by  t he  SC   w h ere 
funda m ent al  r igh ts  a nd  pro ce du ra l 
gua ra n te es  a re  a t s ta ke  (pa ra gra p hs 
58–63 , 75–7 6  a n d  f irst  pa r t  of  th e 
fol low-up  re com me nda ti on  9 )

Current	s ituation
Cu r re nt l y,   O L A F   fo r wa rd s   t h e   c a s e   re p o r t s 
t o   t h e   S C   f i v e   w o r k i n g   d a y s   b e fo r e   t r a n s -
m i s s i o n   t o   n a t i o n a l   j u d i c i a l   a u t h o r i t i e s 
(NJA). These case repor ts are accompanied 
b y   a   s p e c i a l   r e p o r t   d e t a i l i n g   i t s   h a n d l i n g 
of funda mental  r ights.

Following examination of these repor ts the 
SC may request, where appropr iate, access 
to   t h e   e nt i re   f i l e.  Th e   S C   t h e n   a r ra n g e s   fo r 
a discussion on substantive and procedural 
aspec ts of cases with OLAF staff who regu -
l a r l y   p a r t i c i p a te   i n   t h e   S C ’s   p l e n a r y   m e e t -
ings. This discussion is focused, in par ticu -
l a r,   o n   re s p e c t   fo r   f u n d a m e nt a l   r i g ht s   a n d 
procedural g uarantees  of the p e r s o n s con -
c e r n e d   i n   t h e   i n v e s t i g a t i o n .   T h e   S C   p a y s 
p a r t i c u l a r   at te nt i o n   to   t h e   d u rat i o n   o f   t h e 
i nve s t i g a t i o n   a n d   t o   t h e   q u e s t i o n   o f   t i m e 
bar r ing.

Po sit io n	 o f	 t he	 SC
T h e   S C   c o n s i d e r s   t h a t   r e s p e c t   f o r   f u n d a -
m e n t a l   r i g h t s   i s   b o t h   a   s a fe g u a rd   fo r   p e r -
s o n s   u n d e r   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   a n d   a   c r i t e r i o n 
f o r   a s s e s s i n g   t h e   e f f e c t i v e n e s s   o f   O L A F ’s 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .   T h e   S C   i s   a w a r e   a n d   c o n -
f i r m s   t h at   i t   s h a l l   n o t   i nte r fe re   i n   t h e   co n -
d u c t   o f   o n g o i n g   i n v e s t i g a t i o n s ,   a s   s t i p u -
l a t e d   b y   R e g u l a t i o n   N o   1 0 7 3 / 9 9 .   T h a t   i s 
w hy,   i n   o r d e r   t o   f u l f i l   i t s   r o l e   o f   a s s i s t i n g 
t h e   D i re c t o r   G e n e r a l   o f   O L A F   i n   d i s c h a rg -
i n g   h i s   r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s 1,   t h e   S C   c a n ,   a n d 
d o e s,   d r aw   g e n e r a l   o b s e r v a t i o n s   f ro m   t h e 
a n a l y s i s   o f   a n   i n d i v i d u a l   c a s e   w i t h   a   v i e w 
t o   i m p r o v i n g   O L A F ’s   p r a c t i c e s   i n   f u t u r e 
i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .   H o w e v e r,   t h e   S C   s h a l l   n o t 
give direc tions or recommendations to the 
D i r e c t o r - G e n e r a l   o f   O L A F   o n   t h e   s u b s e -
q u e n t   c o u r s e   o f   t h e   i n d i v i d u a l   i n v e s t i g a -
tion .

The SC can  als o be consulte d by  t h e Di rec -
tor- G en eral of OL AF on a s pec ifi c  cas e. 

T h e   S C   i s   c u r r e n t l y   w o r k i n g   t o   a d a p t   i t s 
r u l e s   o f   p r o c e d u r e   t o   f o r m a l l y   t a k e   i n t o 
a c c o u n t   t h e   r u l i n g   o f   t h e   C o u r t   o f   F i r s t 
I n stan ce in t he Franch et  and  B yk c ase.

Th e   S C   co n s i d e r s   i n   p a r t i c u l a r,   t h at   b e fo re 
t h e   i n fo r m a t i o n   i s   s e n t   t o   N J A s ,   i t   s h o u l d 
b e   e n t i t l e d   t o   r e q u e s t   a c c e s s   t o   r e l e v a n t 
c a s e   f i l e s   to   a s ce r t a i n   w h e t h e r   f u n d a m e n-
t a l   r i g h t s   a n d   p r o c e d u r a l   g u a r a n t e e s   a r e 
b e i n g   c o m p l i e d   w i t h .   T h e   S C   s e c r e t a r i a t 
s h a l l   b e   a f fo rd e d   a cce s s   to   t h e   d o c u m e nt s 
w i t h i n   a   t i m e   l i m i t   s u f f i c i e n t   t o   g u a r a n -
t e e   c o m p l i a n c e   w i t h   t h i s   f u n c t i o n .   Co r r e -
s p o n d i n g   w o r k i n g   a r r a n g e m e n t s   s h a l l   b e 
agreed with  OLAF.   

1 The ECA’s Special Report No 1/2005 concluded that ‘the 

Supervisory Committee does not provide the Office’s Director with 

all necessary support’ (see paragraph 93).

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

58

REPLY OF THE 
OLAF SUPERVISORY 
COMMIT TEE

Th e   S C   co n s i d e r s   t h at   i t   m u s t   b e   i n fo r m e d 
o f   t r a n s m i s s i o n   o f   i n f o r m a t i o n   t o   N J A s 
b o t h   i n   i n t e r n a l   a n d   e x t e r n a l   i n v e s t i g a -
t i o n s .   I n   a d d i t i o n   t o   c a s e s   w h e r e   O L A F 
t r a n s m i t s   i n fo r m a t i o n   t o   N J A s   i n   o r d e r   t o 
i n i t i a t e   j u d i c i a l   p r o c e e d i n g s ,   O L A F   s h a l l 
i n f o r m   t h e   S C   w h e n   t r a n s m i s s i o n   o c c u r s 
i n   c a s e s   a l r e a d y   p e n d i n g   b e fo r e   t h e   N J A s 
w h e n   c a s e s   a r e   o p e n e d   a n d   i nv e s t i g a t i v e 
a c t i o n   i s   t a k e n   b y   O L A F.   T h i s   o b l i g a t i o n 
d o e s   n o t   a p p l y   i f   O L A F   t ra n s m i t s   i n fo r m a-
tion to national administrative author ities.

3 .	Th e	term	 o f	 o ffice	o f	 t he	 Sup er vi sor y	
Commit tee’s 	 M emb ers 	 (p aragrap h	 6 5)

Th e   M e m b e r s   o f   t h e   c u r re nt   S C   to o k   o f f i ce 
o n   3 0   N o v e m b e r   2 0 0 5 ,   o n   a   t h r e e   y e a r 
m a n d a t e ,   r e n e w a b l e   o n c e .   O n   e x p i r y   o f 
t h e i r   te r m   o f   o f f i ce   o n   2 9   N ove m b e r   2 0 0 8 , 
t h e y   re m a i n e d   i n   o f f i ce,   a cco rd i n g   to   Ar t i -
c l e   1 1   ( 4 )   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   N o   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9 , 
s i n c e   t h e y   we re   n o t   re n e we d   o r   re p l a c e d. 
T h e   p r o c e d u r e   f o r   t h e   r e n e w a l   o f   t h e i r 
a p p o i n t m e n t   b y   c o m m o n   a c c o r d   o f   t h e 
Eu ro p e a n   Pa r l i a m e n t ,   t h e   Co u n c i l   a n d   t h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   w a s   a t   i t s   f i n a l   s t a g e   a t   t h e 
time  th is respon se was  draf te d.

T h e   S C   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   E C A   t h a t   t h e   S C 
must have a for mal mandate from all three 
i n s t i t u t i o n s .   T h e   S C   r e g r e t s   t h e   l a c k   o f 
a l a c r i t y   o n   t h e   p a r t   o f   t h e   i n s t i t u t i o n s   i n 
c o n c l u d i n g   t h i s   m a t t e r,   s i n c e   t h e   e n d   o f 
th e  SC ’s  f irst  ter m  of  office.  D espi te   a  lon g 
p e r i o d   o f   u n c e r t a i n t y,   t h e   S C   h a s   c o n t i n -
u e d   to   f u l l y   p e r fo r m   i t s   t a s k   o f   re i n fo rc i n g 
O L A F ’s   i n d e p e n d e n c e   by   re g u l a r   m o n i t o r-
i n g   o f   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   i nv e s t i -
gative func t ion . 

I n   c o n f o r m i t y   w i t h   t h e   c u r r e n t   p r a c t i c e , 
t h e   S C   m a y   a l s o   a p p o i n t   a   r a p p o r t e u r   t o 
ex a m i n e   t h e   c a s e s   a n d   p a r t i c i p ate   i n   t h e i r 
p r e s e n t a t i o n   a t   t h e   C o m m i t t e e’s   p l e n a r y 
session.  The   man agement   o f  O LA F  s h all  be 
invited to t his  s es sio n.

I f necessa r y, t he S C c an iss ue an  o p in ion .

(b) Legal  fra me work  prote c ti ng  th e 
p er sons b ei ng  i nvest i gate d   (pa ra gra p h 
76 a n d se co nd  pa r t  of  th e  f oll ow- u p 
re comme ndat ion  9 )

T h e   r e f o r m   o f   R e g u l a t i o n   N o   1 0 7 3 / 1 9 9 9 
i s   o n g o i n g   a n d   t h e   S C   c o n t r i b u t e d   t o   t h e 
d e b ate   by   s u b m i t t i n g   t wo   o p i n i o n s :   O p i n -
i o n   N o   3 / 2 0 1 0   o n   t h e   R e f l e c t i o n   P a p e r 
o n   t h e   re fo r m   o f   t h e   E u ro p e a n   A n t i - f r a u d 
O f f i c e   a n d   O p i n i o n   N o   5 / 2 0 1 0   o n   f u n d a -
m e n t a l   r i g h t s   a n d   p r o c e d u r a l   g u a r a n t e e s 
within OLAF’s investigations. The SC would 
w e l c o m e   a ny   i m p r o v e m e n t   i n   t h e   l e g i s l a -
t i o n   d e s i g n e d   t o   c l a r i f y   a n d   s t r e n g t h e n 
O L A F ’s   p o w e r s   o f   i n v e s t i g a t i o n   a n d   t h e 
p r o c e d u r a l   g u a r a n t e e s   a p p l i c a b l e   t o 
OLAF’s inves t ig atio ns.

2.	S cop e	of 	O L A F ’s 	obligation	to	
communic ate 	c a se s 	to	the 	S up e r vi sor y	
Committe e 	prior	to	the ir	tra ns m issio n	
to	NJAs	(pa ra graph 	64)

Th e   Eu ro p e a n   Co u r t   o f   Au d i to r s   n o te s   t h at 
i n   2 0 0 9 ,   t h e   S C   w a s   n o t   i n f o r m e d   a b o u t 
n i n e   c a s e s   w h i c h   h a d   b e e n   t ra n s m i t te d   to 
N J As.  Th e   re a s o n   fo r   n o t   i n fo r m i n g   t h e   S C 
w a s   t h a t   t h e s e   c a s e s   w e r e   a l r e a d y   b e i n g 
dealt with by the NJAs at the time of trans-
mis sion o f the  infor m ation by OL A F. 

T h e   S C   a g re e s   w i t h   t h e   E C A   t h a t   t h e   o b l i -
g at i o n   to   i n fo r m   t h e   S C   o f   c a s e s   t ra n s m i t-
ted to the NJAs is unconditional and leaves 
no ma rgin for di sc ret ion 2. 

2 See Franchet and Byk judgement, § 170.

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

European Court of Auditors

Special	Report	No	2/2011

Follow-up	of	special	report	no	1/2005	concerning	the	management	of	the	European	Anti-Fraud	Office

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union

2011 — 58 pp. — 21 × 29,7 cm

ISBN 978-92-9237-115-9

doi:10.2865/7996

Special Report No 2/2011 — Follow-up of special report no 1/2005 concerning the management of the European Anti-Fraud Office

How	to	obtain	EU	publications

Free	publications:

• 

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu);

at the European Union’s representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details 
on the Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

Priced	publications:

• 

via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced	subscriptions	(e.g.	annual	series	of	the	Official Journal of the European Union	and	
reports	of	cases	before	the	Court	of	Justice	of	the	European	Union):

• 

via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union 
(http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

 
 
Q
J
-
A
B
-
1
1
-
0
0
3
-
E
N

-
C

THE  EUROPEAN  ANTI-FRAUD  OFFICE  (OLAF)  PROVIDES  AN  INDEPENDENT 

INVESTIGATION  SERVICE  IN  THE  FIGHT  AGAINST  FRAUD  AND  OTHER  ILLEGAL 

ACTIVITIES DETRIMENTAL TO THE EU BUDGET. IN 2005 OLAF WAS THE SUBJECT 

OF A SPECIAL REPORT BY THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS WHICH MADE A 

NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE ITS INVESTIGATIVE FUNCTION MORE 

EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE. THIS FOLLOW-UP REPORT EXAMINES WHETHER THE 

ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED AND RECOMMENDS 

FURTHER MEASURES WHICH COULD HELP OLAF IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY AND 

EFFECTIVENESS OF ITS INVESTIGATIONS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS