REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2013 financial year (Summary)
Date: 2015-10-08
Institutions: Directorate-General for Budget, European Commission
Subjects: EU control, EU expenditure, European Anti-fraud Office, audit, budgetary control, budgetary discharge, financial control, financial year, general budget (EU), management audit

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 8.10.2015  COM(2015) 505 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL on the follow-up to the discharge for the 2013 financial year (Summary) {SWD(2015) 194 final} {SWD(2015) 195 final}  
 
 
REPORT ON THE FOLLOW-UP TO THE REQUESTS MADE BY THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT IN 
ITS DISCHARGE RESOLUTIONS AND THE COUNCIL IN ITS DISCHARGE RECOMMENDATION FOR 
BUDGETARY YEAR 2013  

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS 

This  is  the  Commission's  report  to  the  European  Parliament  (EP)  and  the  Council  on  the 
follow-up  to  the  EP  discharge  resolutions1  and  the  Council  Recommendation2  for  the  2013 
financial  year,  pursuant  to  Article  319(3)  of  the  Treaty  on  the  Functioning  of  the  European 
Union  (TFEU),  Article  166  of  the  Financial  Regulation  (FR),  and  Article  119(5)  of  the  9th 
European Development Funds (EDF) Financial Regulation and Article 144 of the 10th EDF 
Financial Regulation. 

It is the first report presented by the Commission which took up office on 1.11.2014. The new 
Commission is pursuing a more focused agenda according to the political priorities set out by 
President  Juncker  and  attaches  particular  importance  to  the  principle  of  sound  financial 
management. 

The Commission has thoroughly examined the concerns expressed by the EP and Council in 
the 2013 discharge.  

In  the  EP  general  discharge  resolution,  a  certain  number  of  issues  such  as  necessary 
improvements  in  shared  management,  simplification,  performance  as  well  as  other  specific 
points are highlighted. These requests have been extensively discussed during the discharge 
procedure,  in  particular  with  the  rapporteur  and  the  Members  of  the  Budgetary  Control 
Committee  (CONT).  In  the  letter  by  Vice-President  Georgieva3,  evidence  was  given  of  the 
Commission's  formal  commitment  to  implement  fully  and  timely  a  series  of  actions  and 
measures related to the issues identified. 

The  Council  recommendation  also  contains  important  issues  related  to  the  need  of 
improvements in shared management, simplification and performance. 

The  present  communication  takes  into  account  this  commitment  whilst  updating,  where 
necessary, the situation as far as further actions have been taken so far. It is accompanied by 
two  Commission  Staff  Working  Documents  (CSWD)  containing  replies  to  319  EP  and  75 
Council specific discharge requests. 

The Commission agrees to start new actions on 139 requests (115 from the EP and 24 from 
the Council). It considers that for 218 requests (168 from the EP and 50 from the Council), 
the required action has already been taken or is on-going, though in some cases the results of 
the  actions  will  need  to  be  assessed.  Finally,  for  reasons  related  to  the  existing  legal  and 
budgetary framework or its institutional role or prerogatives, the Commission cannot accept 

1 

2 

3  

2013  General  Budget  Discharge,  ECA'  Special  Reports  in  the  context  of  the  Commission  Discharge, 
EDF  Discharge,  Agencies  Discharge.  Document  references  P8_TA-PROV(2015)0118,  P8_TA-
PROV(2015)0119,  P8_TA-PROV(2015)0120  and  P8_TA-PROV(2015)0130  respectively  available  at 
the following Web address:  
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=20150429&secondRef=TOC&lan
guage=en 
Document references 5303/15 ADD 1, 5303//1/15 REV 1, 5304/15, 5305/15, 5305/15 ADD1, 5306/15,   
5306/15 ADD 1, 5549/15 published on: 
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/cont/discharge-2013.html 

Ares(2015)971353, 4.3.2015. 

2 

 
  
  
                                                            
 
 
37 requests (36 from the EP4 and 1 from the Council5). A detailed justification is provided in 
the two attached CSWD. 

1. 

IMPROVEMENTS IN SHARED MANAGEMENT 

1.1.  Reservations  qualifying  the  Directors-General  "statement  of  assurance"  on 
agriculture  and  rural  development,  regional  policy  and  employment  and  social 
affairs (§§ 1-4) 

The  Commission  considers  that  reservations  confirm  the  well-functioning  of  the  control 
procedures  put  in  place  in  the  Commission  and  Member  States  (MS).  The  number  of 
reservations in the Annual Activity Reports (AARs) [21 in 2013], is the result of an enhanced 
and  more  targeted  approach  of  the  Commission,  inter  alia  as  a  result  of  the  ongoing  strict 
policy of interruption and suspension of payments and not due to a deterioration of the control 
systems or a lack of accountability. Reservations are generally linked to action plans that are 
closely supervised by the Commission. 

The fact that the Commission systematically identifies deficiencies and risks, takes action and 
reports  on  progress  made  allows  the  EP  to  monitor  on  a  permanent  basis  the  situation  and 
evolution of the quality of financial management. 

The  preventive,  detective  and  corrective  measures  implemented  by  the  Commission  on  the 
basis of the multi-annual supervisory and control systems offer reasonable assurance that the 
EU budget is adequately protected from expenditure in breach of law and risks arising from 
deficiencies in MS' management and control systems. 

1.2.  Single Audit chain and responsibility of the Commission and MS (§§ 44, 47) 

The  Commission  has  been  working  towards  an  effective  "single  audit  chain"  which  is  a 
leitmotiv of a large part of the resolution. 

In this context the main sources for the assurance of the Commission that resources have been 
used in accordance with the legal framework and principles of sound financial management 
are  the  results  of  its  own  audit  work,  audits  of  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  (ECA)  and 
reports  provided  by  OLAF,  as  well  as  information  presented  by  national  authorities,  in 
particular  the  audit  opinions  and  control  statistics  on  error  rates  transmitted  as  part  of  the 
annual control reports and the national system audits provided throughout the year. 

One  important  aspect  of  the  single  audit  is  the  management  declaration  which  introduces  a 
reinforced  mandatory  reporting  for  MS,  signed  by  the  Directors  /  heads  of  the  agencies  or 
bodies. This declaration will be accompanied by a report containing a summary of all control 
and  audit  results  carried  out  as  well  as  corrective  actions  taken  or  planned.  However,  the 
issuance  of  a  national  declaration  (Article  59(1)  FR)  could  constitute  another  important 
element of the single audit. 

On the request to submit a recommendation to promote the use of such national declarations 
the  Commission,  whilst  endorsing  the  recommendations  of  the  Interinstitutional  Working 
Group6, would like to stress that other actions constitute a more appropriate way to promote 

4  

5  
6  

See §§ 2, 10, 12, 26-27, 34-35, 40, 44-45, 58, 91, 94, 103, 110, 137-138, 141, 143-144, 148, 152, 156, 
169, 218, 222, 224, 268-269, 271, 282-283, 290, 294-295, 297 of the CSWD on the EP resolutions.. 

See § 50 of the CSWD on the Council Recommendation; 

COM(2014)688 final. 

3 

 
  
  
 
 
                                                            
 
their  use,  like  including  information  in  public  documents  such  as  the  AARs  of  the 
Commission,  collection  of  best  practices,  information  sessions  in  the  relevant  fora  or 
promotion  of  the  national  declarations  vis-à-vis  the  Ministers  of  Finance,  National 
Parliaments and Supreme Audit Institutions. 

As  for  the  EP  request  to  publish  national  declarations,  annual  summaries  and  management 
declarations, the Commission underlines that it has not he right to publish such documents. 

1.3.  Reliability of the information provided by MS (§§ 24-25, 49-50)  

The Commission is of the opinion that the credibility of AARs is not undermined by the lack 
of  reliability  of  some  of  the  first  level  checks  performed  by  MS.  It  has  indeed  a  good 
overview and builds its assurance based on a robust and solid process encompassing several 
levels of controls: 

-the first level controls performing verifications on all expenditure before it is declared to the 
Commission; 

-the  second  level  control  of  the  certifying  authority  (the  accountant)  before  submitting  the 
accounts to the Commission; 

-the third level of control comprising audits of the projects and of the procedures in place; 

-and  the  own  controls  of  the  Commission  targeting  either  the  national  bodies  for 
implementation and control or directly the projects which are based on the assessment of 15 
key requirements. 

For  its  assurance  the  Commission  takes  into  account  the  results  from  the  work  of  all  these 
levels of control as well as the results from the ECA audit work and the OLAF investigations. 

The  controls  are  furthermore  spread  in  time  with  some  controls  taking  place  after  the 
certification  of  expenditure  to  the  Commission.  In  particular,  the  final  assessment  of  the 
residual  risk  and  therefore  the  success  of  implementation  will  be  performed  at  the  time  of 
closure. 

It  considers  that  the  information  provided  in  the  AARs,  in  the  Synthesis  Report,  in  the 
Communication  on the protection  of  the  EU  budget  and in  the  annual  accounts  provides an 
adequate basis for assessing the corrective capacity of systems put in place. 
The  prudent  approach  adopted  in  the  Communication  on  the  Protection  of  the  EU  budget7, 
should  not  be  understood  as  meaning  that  MS  reported  unreliable  information.  The 
Commission's  comment  refers  to  the  practice  of  some  certifying  authorities  to  report  as 
Financial Corrections (FC) a figure that includes FC made by the MS and by the Commission. 
Therefore,  the  Commission  systematically  subtracts  from  the  figures  reported  by  MS  an 
amount that equals the Commission's corrections in order to avoid the risk of double counting. 

DG  REGIO  and  DG  EMPL  are  taking  measures  to  ensure  the  reliability  of  the  information 
reported by MS on FC. The measures consist in: 

 

the performance of an annual risk assessment on data reported by MS, 

  contacts  with 

the  certifying  authorities 

to  clarify 

the  reported  data  when 

inconsistencies are found, 

 

the performance of on-the-spot audits to verify the accounting system of the certifying 
authorities  and  the  reliability  of  data  reported  on  FC  based  on  the  risk  assessment 

7  

COM(2014)618 final. 

4 

 
  
  
 
                                                            
results; coverage of such audits was increased in 2014 to obtain additional assurance. 

On the request to put in place procedures linking corrective measures to the original year of 
payment, the Commission points out that under the 2007-2013 programming period, it is first 
the responsibility of MS to put in place sound procedures to confirm the timing, the origin and 
the amount of corrective measures. 

The Commission has always stated that linking corrections to the original year of payment is 
not feasible. 

In case the Commission considers, based on its assessments and analysis, that data from MS 
are not correct, this will be clearly disclosed in the respective AAR of its services. 

On the request that the Directors-General report in their AARs on the error rates notified by 
the  MS  and  on  the  corrections  made  by  the  Commission,  it  recalls  that  this  information  is 
currently  provided  by  the  DGs  for  all  operational  programmes  under  reservation.  As  from 
2014 this has been extended to all operational programmes on an ad-hoc basis. 

1.4. 

 The Synthesis Report and the AAR (§§ 26-27, 217-218) 

In  response  to  the  request  of  the  EP,  the  Commission  has  clarified  the  calculation  of  the 
amount  at  risk  in  the  2014  Synthesis  report8,  presenting  also  the  estimated  impact  of 
corrective actions.  

On  the  request  to  issue  in  the  Synthesis  report  a  proper  "Statement  of  assurance",  the 
Commission stresses that, in line with the need to reinforce financial control as one of the key 
priorities  of  its  administrative  reform  and  reinforcement  actions  since  2000,  the  governance 
framework (in particular Article 66(9) FR) fully empowered Directors-General, making them 
personally  accountable  for  financial  management.  Therefore  the  managerial  responsibility 
assumed  by  the  Directors-General  ensures  the  necessary  continuity  and  sustainability  of  the 
accountability structure.  

The Commission recalls that the College takes political responsibility on the basis of Article 
317 of the TFEU by adopting annually the Synthesis Report which constitutes a summary of 
the AARs of the preceding year (Article 66(9) FR). It considers that the combination of AARs 
and the synthesis report fulfils the internal and external accountability objectives. 

Concerning  the  EP  request  for  clarifications  of  the  standard  instructions  for  the  AARs 
(possible adverse opinion, sanction mechanism), the Commission underlines that the present 
instructions  already  allow  the  Authorising  Officers  by  Delegation  (AOD)  to  conclude  that 
he/she has no reasonable assurance that the control procedures put in place give the necessary 
guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions. 

On  the  sanction  mechanism,  both  the  FR  and  the  Staff  Regulations  (SR)  currently  already 
foresee that the AOD is liable to disciplinary procedures and has pecuniary responsibility in 
the event of illegal activity, fraud or corruption. 

2.  

SIMPLIFICATION 

The legal framework for 2014-2020 provides a basis for further simplification by introducing 
measures  like  the  reduced  number  of  programmes,  the  alignment  of  the  provisions  between 
European  Structural  Investment  Funds  and  other  EU  instruments,  the  reinforcement  of 
simplified cost options (SCO) or the introduction of Joint Action Plans and the reduction of 
audit burden in line with the principle of proportionality. 

In  the  area  of  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development,  the  new  legal  framework  includes 

8  

COM(2015)279 final. 

5 

 
  
  
                                                            
simplification  elements  such  as  the  small  farmers'  scheme  or  standard  costs  and  lump  sum 
payments  in  rural  development.  Since,  however,  many  of  these  elements  are  voluntary  for 
MS, their effects on the ground depend on national implementation choices. Moreover, some 
of the elements introduced by the co-legislators in the course of the legislative procedure have 
added  complexity  to  the  Commission's  initial  proposals.  The  Commission  has  moreover 
started a screening exercise on simplification, the results of which will be communicated soon 
to the relevant stakeholders. 

As far as Cohesion Policy is concerned, wide ranges of simplification opportunities have been 
offered to MS which they must now take up while avoiding 'gold-plating'. In the same vein 
public procurement and State aid rules have also been recently simplified through improved 
legislation, which should contribute to  error reduction  once fully in  force. The Commission 
has  moreover  taken  the  political  initiative  to  set  up  a  group  of  experts  to  carry  out  an 
independent  assessment  on  the  take  up  of  simplification  by  MS  and  the  identification  of 
further possibilities to simplify rules. On 10 July 2015, the Commission adopted the decision 
setting  up  the  High  Level  Group  of  Independent  Experts  on  Monitoring  Simplification  for 
Beneficiaries  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds,  which  was  announced  by 
Commissioner  for  Regional  Policy  Corina  Creţu  on  9  June  2015.  The  group's  purpose  is  to 
assess the  uptake  by the  MS  of  simplification  opportunities  to  access and  use  the Funds,  in 
order to reduce the administrative burden for beneficiaries. 

Starting from 2016, the electronic administration of cohesion policy will come into operation. 
The regulatory framework for the 2014-2020 strengthens the possibility to use SCO and sets 
out new simplified instruments, such as the Joint Action Plans, which are entirely defined in 
terms  of  outputs  and  results  to  be  achieved  and  implemented  through  SCO.  Furthermore, 
concerning  Employment,  the  Commission  conducts  simplification  seminars  in  MS.  The 
Commission  intends  to  present a  simplification  survey  report  on  the  state  of  play  to  the  EP 
and to Council by the end of 2015.  

SCO  and  harmonisation  of  rules  between  funds  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for 
beneficiaries  and  risk  of  error.  Therefore,  simplification  helps  focus  effort  on  achieving 
projects and programs results. 

The  Commission  will  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  simplification  elements  in  each 
policy area and streamline these separate initiatives through an Administrative Simplification 
Scoreboard by end 2015. 

The  Commission  will  take  into  account  the  results  of  this  monitoring  and  coordination 
activity in the mid-term review of the MFF (which is due end of 2016) and the next revision 
of the FR. 

3.  

PERFORMANCE (§§ 303-310) 

The new generation of spending programmes  for the MFF 2014-2020 will contribute to  the 
Europe 2020 strategy objectives as it is more performance-oriented, as described in detail in 
the letter of Vice-President Georgieva mentioned earlier. 

Following  the  EP  resolution  of  3.12.2013  on  the  "Integrated  internal  control  framework" 
(item  40)9,  the  Commission  has  undertaken  the  necessary  steps  to  establish  the  Inter-
Institutional Working Group on Performance-Based Budgeting in the course of 2015. 

The  EP  requests  that  the  Management  Plan  of  the  Directors-General  should  have  a  limited 
number  of  targets  on  which  they  report  in  their  AAR.  The  Commission  underlines  that  the 

9  

Available 
0319&language=EN&ring=A7-2013-0189 

at: 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&reference=P7-TA-2013-

6 

 
  
  
                                                            
2013 AARs contained the progress in achieving milestones and long-term targets defined in 
the  2013  management  plans  and  also  included  a  summary  of  evaluations  and  performance 
audits carried out.  

The  resolution  asks  for  two  analysis  to  be  included  in  the  next  evaluation  report  both 
concerning the efficiency, the effectiveness and the results achieved in terms of growth and 
jobs respectively by the Investment Plan10 and by the Growth and Jobs plan. 

As  for  the  first  one,  and  following  the  agreement  reached  between  the  EP  and  the  Council 
(5.6.2015), the Commission will submit: (a) an evaluation on the use and functioning of the 
EU  guarantee,  accompanied  by  an  opinion  of  the  ECA,  and  (b)  a  report  containing  an 
independent evaluation of the application of the Regulation. 

On the second one, the Commission points out that the evaluation report is providing data on 
the Growth and Jobs plan adopted by the European Council in June 2012 in as far as actions 
have been financed by the EU budget.  

Two further requests concern coordination in the internal organisation of the Commission. In 
its new working methods, the Commission sets out how it ensures that its work falls within 
the key areas of the Political Guidelines across the Commission services and aims to develop 
a  stronger  performance  culture  in  relation  to  the  EU  budget.  Furthermore  EU  policies  are 
managed and co-ordinated taking account of the cross cutting nature of DGs activities. 

In this context, a network of Commissioners has been established focussing on a EU budget 
for results. 

4. 

SPECIFIC ISSUES 

4.1  

Conflict of interest (COI) (§56) 

As  regards  the  EP  request  to  examine  the  current  situation  of  the  legislation  in  MS  in  this 
domain, the Commission recalls that, in general terms, the avoidance of conflict of interest at 
national  level  falls  under  the  competence  of  MS,  also  when  the  possible  COI  refers  to  the 
management of funds from the Union budget. 

As far as the call to present recommendations or legally binding solutions is concerned, the 
Commission  recalls  that  legal  provisions11  are  already  in  place  for  avoiding  COI  when 
implementing EU budget in shared management. 

In  particular  as  far  as  the  provisions  of  the  FR  are  concerned,  it  is  up  to  MS  to  take  the 
necessary measures to avoid COI both in management and control activity. 

Moreover the Common Provisions Regulation provides that the operational programme shall 
ensure adequate separation of functions when the managing authority is also a beneficiary. 

In  the  same  vein,  the  procurement  rules  foresee  that  MS  shall  ensure  that  contracting 
authorities take appropriate measures to effectively prevent, identify and remedy COI arising 
in the conduct of procurement procedures so as to avoid any distortion of competition and to 
ensure equal treatment of all economic operators. 

4.2. 

Pre-Accession pre-financing (§ 215) 

COM (2015)10 final. 

10  
11  
Parliament and of the Council on procurement procedures. 

Articles 32(3) and 59(1) FR, Article 125(7) CPR, Article 24 of Directive 2014/24/EU of the European 

7 

 
  
  
                                                            
Concerning  the  clearance  of  nine  transactions  relating  to  the  national  programmes  for  pre-
accession, the Commission stresses that these were only affected by a temporary accounting 
procedural error. The Commission has consistently maintained that this error had neither an 
impact  on  the  reliability  of  accounts,  nor  on  the  legality  and  regularity  of  the  transactions 
involved. 

Moreover the paragraph concerned only partially reflects the conclusions drawn by ECA and 
the related replies of the Commission in the 2013 ECA's annual report. 

As far as the accordance of DG Enlargement practice with Article 88 FR and Article 100 of 
its  rules  of  application  (RAP),  the  Commission  underlines  that  these  provisions  refer 
specifically to the validation of expenditure, which did not occur in any of these transactions. 
Hence the Commission does not agree that the article was not complied with: at no stage was 
there any communication on these transactions with the beneficiary country indicating that the 
Commission has validated related expenditure. 

The  Commission  notes  that  the  temporary  accounting  procedure  had  only  been  in  place  for 
two  years,  and  was  cancelled  in  the  third.  The  Directorate  General  has  now  put  in  place  a 
system  with  the  relevant  beneficiary  countries  to  ensure  that  the  recognition  of  cost  in  the 
accounting records is fully compliant with the FR. 

4.3. 

IMG (§§ 234-235) 

The resolution asks for the reasons concerning the leak of the OLAF final report on IMG as 
well  as  to  take  a  decision  on  the  legal  status  of  this  organisation.  Within  the  limits  of 
confidentiality, the Commission will inform the EP about the results of its investigations on 
the circumstances of the alleged unauthorised leak. 

As far as the legal status of IMG is concerned, the Commission has already made clear that, in 
view of the new factual elements contained in the OLAF final report, it will not sign further 
agreements  with  IMG  under  the  special  procedure  applicable  to  international  organisations 
until IMG has clarified its status. 

The Commission would like to recall that the FR and its RAP provide a clear legal framework 
for  the  award  of  grants  without  a  call  for  proposals  and  for  the  award  of  procurement 
contracts under a negotiated procedure without prior publication (in direct management). The 
legal  bases  provide  the  specific  situations  where  these  direct  awards  can  be  used,  such  as 
humanitarian  aid,  civil  protection  or  crisis  management  aid,  emergencies,  monopoly 
situations,  bodies  identified  in  the  basic  act  by  the  legislator  or  specific  actions  requiring  a 
particular  type  of  beneficiary  in  terms  of  its  technical  competence,  high  degree  of 
specialisation or special administrative power mostly. In the case of procurement, the number 
of  ensuing  negotiated  procedures  used  during  one  year  is  reported,  according  to  Article  53 
RAP in each AAR (Annex 3, Tables 11 and 12). 

It  is  important  to  note  that  there  is  no  link  between  these  specific  situations  and  the  legal 
status  of  the  beneficiary  or  contractor.  Whether  an  entity  is  an  international  organisation  or 
not is irrelevant in these particular cases: the supposed privilege that an entity could obtain by 
being classified as such is not to be found in direct management but rather by gaining access 
as well to the previous joint management, now indirect management.  

The  resolution  also  requires  to  inform  EP  about  the  OLAF  enquiry  opened  in  2011  and  to 
provide it  with  a  list  enumerating  all the  organisations,  companies, other  bodies  or persons, 
detailing their legal status, which have received contracts from the Commission without a call 
for proposals. 

8 

 
  
  
On  the  first  request,  the  Commission  has  regularly  kept  informed  the  CONT  Chair  and  its 
Members.  In  particular  it  recalls  that  on  17.6.2015,  CONT  Chair  and  its  Members  were  
informed,  during  an  "in  camera"  meeting,  about  the  thrust  of  the  follow-up  given  by  the 
Commission to OLAF on IMG. The Commission would refer to that information  

Concerning the second request, the Commission considers that it would be a disproportionate 
workload  to  provide  the  list  of  recipients  of  contracts  awarded  by  negotiated  procedure  or 
directly  awarded  grants  and  link  them  to  their  legal  status,  as  such  data  are  not  readily 
available from central databases. Besides, the cases for direct award are clearly listed in the 
AARs, as already mentioned above. 

4.4. 

OLAF (§§ 280-287) 

Parliament’s  requests  in  this  domain  mainly  concern  the  relations  between  OLAF  and  its 
Supervisory  Committee  (SC).  The  Commission  can  assure  the  EP  that  these  are  duly 
considered.  

In particular, as regards the independence of the SC, in line with Regulation 883/2013, OLAF 
has undertaken, to the extent possible, measures to guarantee the independent functioning and 
the financial autonomy of the SC and its budget. The Commission is exploring the possibility 
of further strengthen it, especially in its human resources and budget management within the 
existing legal framework. The EP will be informed in due course. In the same vein, regarding 
the  request  to  consult  the  SC  prior  to  modifying  instructions  to  staff  on  investigation 
procedures and prior to setting investigation policy priorities, OLAF has already consulted the 
SC  on  its  guidelines  to  staff  on  investigation  procedures  and  on  its  investigation  policy 
priorities  in  line  with  Regulation  883/2013  and  the  Working  Arrangements  between  OLAF 
and the SC, and is committed to do so also in the future. 

As far as the implementation of the SC’s recommendations is concerned, the Commission can 
assure  the  EP  that  all  SC  recommendations  have  been  carefully  considered  by  OLAF  and 
considerable resources are invested to implement a number them. 2014 was the first year in 
which the SC followed-up on the recommendations it had issued over the preceding years. A 
procedure  on  how  to  carry  out  such  follow-up  in  the  future  is  currently  being  set  up.  Both 
OLAF  and  the  SC  are  working  together  to  achieve  a  good  cooperation  in  this  respect.The 
legality of the investigations opened by OLAF in the context of its reorganisation on 1.2.2012 
was considered in the SC Report 3/2014 of 20.1.2015. OLAF provided its comments to the 
SC Report on 9.2.2015 and these were attached to the SC Report sent to the institutions  on 
12.2.2015.  The  statistics  on  the  duration  of  the  investigations  are  covered  by  OLAF  in  its 
annual reports. Furthermore, the Director-General of OLAF has requested the SC to issue a 
comprehensive Opinion on OLAF's statistics; the SC included this Opinion in its 2015 work 
programme. 

* * * 

9