Article 17 Director-General
1. The Office shall be headed by a Director-General. The Director-General shall be appointed by the Commission, in accordance with the procedure specified in paragraph 2. The term of office of the Director-General shall be seven years and shall not be renewable. 2. In order to appoint a new Director-General, the Commission shall publish a call for applications in the Official Journal of the European Union . Such publication shall take place at the latest six months before the end of the term of office of the Director-General in office. After a favourable opinion has been given by the Supervisory Committee on the selection procedure applied by the Commission, the Commission shall draw up a list of suitably qualified candidates. After consultation with the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission shall appoint the Director-General. 3. The Director-General shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or any institution, body, office or agency in the performance of his duties with regard to the opening and carrying-out of external and internal investigations or to the drafting of reports following such investigations. If the Director-General considers that a measure taken by the Commission calls his independence into question, he shall immediately inform the Supervisory Committee, and shall decide whether to bring an action against the Commission before the Court of Justice. 4. The Director-General shall report regularly to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission and the Court of Auditors on the findings of investigations carried out by the Office, the action taken and the problems encountered, whilst respecting the confidentiality of the investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons concerned and of informants, and, where appropriate, national law applicable to judicial proceedings. 5. The Director-General shall each year determine, within the context of the annual management plan, the investigation policy priorities of the Office and shall, prior to their publication, forward them to the Supervisory Committee. The Director-General shall keep the Supervisory Committee periodically informed of the Office’s activities, the implementation of its investigative function and the action taken by way of follow-up to investigations. The Director-General shall inform the Supervisory Committee periodically: (a) of cases in which the recommendations made by the Director-General have not been followed; (b) of cases in which information has been transmitted to judicial authorities of the Member States; (c) on the duration of investigations in accordance with Article 7(8). 6. The Director-General may delegate in writing the exercise of certain of his functions under Article 5, Article 7(2), Article 11(7) and Article 12(2) to one or more members of the staff of the Office, specifying the conditions and limits governing such delegation. 7. The Director-General shall put in place an internal advisory and control procedure, including a legality check, relating, inter alia, to the respect of procedural guarantees and fundamental rights of the persons concerned and of the national law of the Member States concerned, with particular reference to Article 11(2). 8. The Director-General shall adopt guidelines on investigation procedures for the staff of the Office. Those guidelines shall be in accordance with this Regulation and shall cover, inter alia: (a) the conduct of investigations; (b) the procedural guarantees; (c) details on the internal advisory and control procedures, including the legality check; (d) data protection. Those guidelines, and any modification thereto, shall be adopted after the Supervisory Committee has been given the opportunity to submit its observations thereon and shall then be transmitted for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and published for information purposes on the Office’s website in the official languages of the institutions of the Union. 9. Before imposing any disciplinary penalty on the Director-General, the Commission shall consult the Supervisory Committee. The imposition of any disciplinary penalty on the Director-General shall be the subject of a reasoned decision, which shall be forwarded for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Supervisory Committee. 10. Any reference to the ‘Director’ of the Office in any legal text shall be read as a reference to the Director-General.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission is pursuing an ambitious legislative agenda to strengthen the protection of the Union's financial interests. In July 2017, the Parliament and the Council adopted the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. In October 2017, the Council adopted the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO). The establishment of the EPPO is a key Commission priority in the areas of criminal justice and the fight against fraud to the Union budget. The EPPO will change the EU institutional anti-fraud landscape significantly. It will have the power to conduct criminal investigations and prosecute before the courts of the participating Member States. It is expected to bring a more consistent and effective prosecution policy for crimes affecting the Union budget, leading to more prosecutions, convictions and a higher level of recovery. As a consequence of the adoption of the EPPO Regulation, Regulation No 883/2013 governing investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) needs to be adapted. OLAF was set up in 1999 with the task, in particular, of conducting administrative investigations in the area of the protection of the Union's financial interests. Within its administrative mandate, OLAF investigates administrative irregularities as well as criminal behaviour. It plays a significant role in the fight against fraud, corruption and other illegal activities through its investigations aimed at enabling financial recoveries, disciplinary and administrative action, as well as indictments and prosecutions. OLAF has used its investigative expertise in a constantly developing context of fraud to the Union budget. It has handled increasing numbers of investigations, leading to increasing numbers of recommendations and amounts recommended for recovery. In the area of fraud, the creation of the EPPO will be a substantial improvement to the current situation. Today, OLAF carries out administrative investigations using administrative powers which are limited compared to criminal investigations. When it encounters possible criminal offences, it can only address a recommendation to national judicial authorities, but with no guarantees as to whether a criminal investigation will be opened. In future, in the Member States participating in the EPPO, it will report such suspected offences to the EPPO, and collaborate with it in the context of its investigations. Provisions to regulate the relationship between the EPPO and OLAF already exist in the EPPO Regulation. They are based on the principles of close cooperation, exchange of information, complementarity and non-duplication. These rules need to be mirrored and complemented in Regulation No 883/2013. The adaptation of the OLAF legal framework by the time the EPPO becomes operational is therefore the main driver for the amendment of Regulation No 883/2013. To ensure a smooth transition into the new framework, the amended Regulation should enter into force before the EPPO becomes operational (envisaged for the end of 2020). The EPPO and OLAF are both, within their respective remits, entrusted with the mandate to protect the Union's financial interests. While the EPPO will conduct criminal investigations aimed at investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, offences affecting the financial interests of the Union, OLAF will continue conducting administrative investigations with a particular emphasis on facilitating administrative recovery and preventing further harm to the EU finances through administrative measures. Thus, the focus of activity of the future EPPO and of OLAF is distinct, although they converge towards a common goal. OLAF will also continue its investigations, in the same way as today, in the Member States not participating in the EPPO at this stage. In these Member States, the national authorities as well as OLAF should contribute to creating the conditions to ensure an effective and equivalent level of protection of the Union’s financial interests in the whole EU. In such circumstances, it is essential that the legal framework for OLAF is fit-for-purpose to allow it to fulfil its role with regard to the EPPO, the Member States and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. The Commission evaluation of Regulation No 883/2013 concluded that the Regulation allowed OLAF to continue delivering concrete results in the protection of the Union budget. The 2013 changes brought clear improvements, as regards the conduct of investigations, cooperation with partners and the rights of persons concerned. At the same time, the evaluation highlighted shortcomings which impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations. These findings relate to a wide range of areas including OLAF’s investigative tools, the enforcement of OLAF powers, uniform conditions in the conduct of internal investigations, the conduct of digital forensic operations, divergences in the follow-up to OLAF recommendations, the duties of cooperation by Member States and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, or the overall coherence of the legal framework. However, addressing all evaluation findings is outside the scope of this proposal, as the revised Regulation should be in force by the time the EPPO becomes operational. The proposal therefore contains a limited number of targeted changes, based on the most unambiguous evaluation findings. These are essential changes necessary in the short term to strengthen the framework for OLAF investigations, in order to maintain a strong and fully-functioning OLAF that complements the EPPO's criminal law approach with administrative investigations, but which do not entail a change to its mandate or powers. The focus is on areas where, today, the lack of clarity of certain provisions in the current Regulation results in obstacles which hinder OLAF’s effective operations, regarding, notably, on-the-spot-checks and inspections or access to bank account information. The amendments proposed aim to clarify and reduce ambiguity in the current provisions for the economic operators concerned, for the Member States, and for OLAF, thus enhancing legal certainty. They would allow OLAF to operate in an effective and more coherent manner in all its investigations. This is directly related to the objectives of a strong protection of the budget across the Union coupled with appropriate procedural safeguards for economic operators subject to investigation. The overall objective of the proposal is to strengthen the protection of the Union's financial interests. This will be achieved by three specific objectives to: – adapt the operation of OLAF to the establishment of the EPPO; – enhance the effectiveness of OLAF’s investigative function; – clarify and simplify selected provisions of Regulation No 883/2013. The Commission evaluation report already indicated that the proposal containing these targeted changes could be followed by a more far-reaching process to modernise the OLAF framework, which in its core aspects dates from the creation of OLAF in 1999. This would be the opportunity to consider other more fundamental changes in the context of 21st century fraud areas and trends, and it should take account of the experience gained in the cooperation between the EPPO and OLAF. It would also allow considering other evaluation findings, as well as aspects of the legal framework where further reflection and discussion may be needed.
Revised version (Article 17 Director-General):
1. The Office shall be headed by a Director-General. The Director-General shall be appointed by the Commission, in accordance with the procedure specified in paragraph 2. The term of office of the Director-General shall be seven years and shall not be renewable. 2. In order to appoint a new Director-General, the Commission shall publish a call for applications in the Official Journal of the European Union . Such publication shall take place at the latest six months before the end of the term of office of the Director-General in office. The Commission shall draw up a list of suitably qualified candidates. After a favourable opinion has been given by the Supervisory Committee on the selection procedure applied by the Commission, the European Parliament and the Council shall in due time agree on a shortlist of three candidates from the list of suitable candidates drawn up by the Commission. The Commission shall appoint the Director-General from that shortlist. 3. The Director-General shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or any institution, body, office or agency in the performance of his or her duties with regard to the opening and carrying-out of external and internal investigations or coordination activities, or to the drafting of reports following such investigations or coordination activities. If the Director-General considers that a measure taken by the Commission calls his or her independence into question, he or she shall immediately inform the Supervisory Committee and shall decide whether to bring an action against the Commission before the CJEU. 4. The Director-General shall report regularly, and at least annually, to the European Parliament, to the Council, to the Commission and to the Court of Auditors on the findings of investigations carried out by the Office, the action taken and the problems encountered, whilst respecting the confidentiality of the investigations, the legitimate rights of the persons concerned and of informants, and, where appropriate, national law applicable to judicial proceedings. Those reports shall also include an assessment of the actions taken by the competent authorities of Member States and the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, following reports and recommendations drawn up by the Office. 4a. At the request of the European Parliament or of the Council, in the context of their budgetary control rights, the Director-General may provide information about the Office’s activities, respecting the confidentiality of investigations and follow-up proceedings. The European Parliament and the Council shall ensure the confidentiality of information provided in accordance with this paragraph. 7. The Director-General shall put in place an internal advisory and control procedure, including a legality check, relating, inter alia, to the respect of procedural guarantees and fundamental rights of the persons concerned and of the national law of the Member States concerned, with particular reference to Article 11(2). The legality check shall be carried out by Office staff who are experts in law and investigative procedures. Their opinion shall be annexed to the final investigation report. 8. Those guidelines, and any modification thereto, shall be adopted after the Supervisory Committee has been given the opportunity to submit its observations thereon and shall then be transmitted for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission, and published for information purposes on the Office’s website in the official languages of the institutions of the Union. 9. Before imposing any disciplinary penalty on the Director-General or waiving his or her immunity, the Commission shall consult the Supervisory Committee. The imposition of any disciplinary penalty on the Director-General shall be the subject of a reasoned decision, which shall be forwarded for information to the European Parliament, the Council and the Supervisory Committee. 10. Any reference to the ‘Director’ of the Office in any legal text shall be read as a reference to the Director-General.
Article 18 Financing
The total appropriations for the Office, including for the Supervisory Committee and its secretariat, shall be entered under a specific budget line within the section of the general budget of the European Union relating to the Commission and shall be set out in detail in an Annex to that section. The establishment plan of the Office, including the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee, shall be annexed to the establishment plan of the Commission.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office was established by Regulation 1073/99 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 1 . Article 15(1) of the new OLAF Regulation 883/2013 of 11 September 2013 2 states that it tasks should be to "regularly monitor the implementation by the Office of its investigative function, in order to reinforce the Office's independence in the proper exercise of the competences conferred upon it by this Regulation" and, in particular, to "monitor developments concerning the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations in the light of the information supplied by the Director General .. ". In its work, the Supervisory Committee is supported by a secretariat. Currently, this secretariat is provided by the OLAF, in accordance with Article 15(8) of the OLAF Regulation which states that the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee "shall be provided by the Office, in close consultation with the Supervisory Committee". Article 18 of the Regulation places the budgetary appropriations for the Supervisory Committee and its secretariat within the budget line of the Office and provides that the establishment plan of the Office includes that of the Supervisory Committee and of its secretariat. However, in the recent past some concerns have been voiced about possible conflicts of interest and calls have been made for a strengthened legal independence as regards the management of the Committee's budget and secretariat. Thus, in its Annual Activity Reports of 2013 and 2014 3 , the Supervisory Committee underlined the importance of its independent and effective functioning which requires an independent and adequately staffed secretariat. It stressed that the exercise of the Appointing Authority powers by OLAF's Director-General, including decisions on promotions and transfers, could potentially lead to conflicts of interest. It called for its budget and that of its secretariat to be specified in a separate line of the OLAF budget. The European Parliament called several times on the Commission to take measures to reinforce the independent functioning of OLAF's Supervisory Committee secretariat, such as in its report on the discharge procedure for 2013 4 or in its resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee's annual report 2014 5 . The issue has also been addressed in the Exchange of Views with the institutions established by Article 16 of the OLAF Regulation. During the exchange held on 28 September 2015, representatives from the European Parliament stressed again the need to strengthen the independent functioning of the Supervisory Committee's secretariat. On 18 December 2015, the Commission adopted an amendment to its Decision 1999/352 6 in order to move the responsibility for the implementation of the budgetary appropriations for the Members from the Director-General of OLAF to the Commission. The Commission subsequently delegated this responsibility to the Director of its Payments Office (PMO). This decision applied as from 1 January 2016. The objective of this decision was to avoid the appearance that the Members of the Supervisory Committee might not be in a position to ensure their mandate properly. This decision could, however, not achieve a full legal separation of the Committee's secretariat and budget from the Office. In order to separate the management of the Committee's secretariat from the management of the Office and to avoid any impression that OLAF can impair the functioning of the support to the Committee's Members, it is necessary to modify Regulation 883/2013 to foresee that the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee will be provided directly by the Commission. This modification will not affect the independence and operational functioning of the Supervisory Committee and of its Secretariat, who will continue to benefit from the same rights and be subject to the same obligations as before. In particular, OLAF's Data Protection Officer (DPO) will continue to cover the processing of data by the secretariat and the secretariat's staff will continue to be subject to the same confidentiality rules. Article 19 of Regulation 883/2013 provides that the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an evaluation report on the application of the Regulation by 2 October 2017, which shall also state whether the Regulation needs to be amended. Given the importance of a proper functioning of the Supervisory Committee and the need to avoid the impression that this functioning could be impaired by its institutional framework it seems important to adapt the Regulation on this point – and strictly on this point - as soon as possible and in any case before the overall evaluation of the Regulation takes place. Once the revised Regulation will enter into force, another technical amendment will have to be made to the OLAF Decision in order to bring it formally in line with the new legal framework.
Revised version (Article 18 Financing):
The total appropriations for the Office shall be entered under a specific budget line within the section of the general budget of the European Union relating to the Commission and shall be set out in detail in an Annex to that section. The appropriations for the Supervisory Committee and its secretariat shall be entered into the section of the general budget of the European Union relating to the Commission. The establishment plan of the Office shall be annexed to the establishment plan of the Commission. The establishment plan of the Commission shall include the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee.
Article 19 Evaluation report
By 2 October 2017, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and the Council an evaluation report on the application of this Regulation. That report shall be accompanied by an opinion of the Supervisory Committee and shall state whether there is a need to amend this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Commission is pursuing an ambitious legislative agenda to strengthen the protection of the Union's financial interests. In July 2017, the Parliament and the Council adopted the Directive on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law. In October 2017, the Council adopted the Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office (EPPO). The establishment of the EPPO is a key Commission priority in the areas of criminal justice and the fight against fraud to the Union budget. The EPPO will change the EU institutional anti-fraud landscape significantly. It will have the power to conduct criminal investigations and prosecute before the courts of the participating Member States. It is expected to bring a more consistent and effective prosecution policy for crimes affecting the Union budget, leading to more prosecutions, convictions and a higher level of recovery. As a consequence of the adoption of the EPPO Regulation, Regulation No 883/2013 governing investigations by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) needs to be adapted. OLAF was set up in 1999 with the task, in particular, of conducting administrative investigations in the area of the protection of the Union's financial interests. Within its administrative mandate, OLAF investigates administrative irregularities as well as criminal behaviour. It plays a significant role in the fight against fraud, corruption and other illegal activities through its investigations aimed at enabling financial recoveries, disciplinary and administrative action, as well as indictments and prosecutions. OLAF has used its investigative expertise in a constantly developing context of fraud to the Union budget. It has handled increasing numbers of investigations, leading to increasing numbers of recommendations and amounts recommended for recovery. In the area of fraud, the creation of the EPPO will be a substantial improvement to the current situation. Today, OLAF carries out administrative investigations using administrative powers which are limited compared to criminal investigations. When it encounters possible criminal offences, it can only address a recommendation to national judicial authorities, but with no guarantees as to whether a criminal investigation will be opened. In future, in the Member States participating in the EPPO, it will report such suspected offences to the EPPO, and collaborate with it in the context of its investigations. Provisions to regulate the relationship between the EPPO and OLAF already exist in the EPPO Regulation. They are based on the principles of close cooperation, exchange of information, complementarity and non-duplication. These rules need to be mirrored and complemented in Regulation No 883/2013. The adaptation of the OLAF legal framework by the time the EPPO becomes operational is therefore the main driver for the amendment of Regulation No 883/2013. To ensure a smooth transition into the new framework, the amended Regulation should enter into force before the EPPO becomes operational (envisaged for the end of 2020). The EPPO and OLAF are both, within their respective remits, entrusted with the mandate to protect the Union's financial interests. While the EPPO will conduct criminal investigations aimed at investigating, prosecuting and bringing to judgment the perpetrators of, and accomplices to, offences affecting the financial interests of the Union, OLAF will continue conducting administrative investigations with a particular emphasis on facilitating administrative recovery and preventing further harm to the EU finances through administrative measures. Thus, the focus of activity of the future EPPO and of OLAF is distinct, although they converge towards a common goal. OLAF will also continue its investigations, in the same way as today, in the Member States not participating in the EPPO at this stage. In these Member States, the national authorities as well as OLAF should contribute to creating the conditions to ensure an effective and equivalent level of protection of the Union’s financial interests in the whole EU. In such circumstances, it is essential that the legal framework for OLAF is fit-for-purpose to allow it to fulfil its role with regard to the EPPO, the Member States and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. The Commission evaluation of Regulation No 883/2013 concluded that the Regulation allowed OLAF to continue delivering concrete results in the protection of the Union budget. The 2013 changes brought clear improvements, as regards the conduct of investigations, cooperation with partners and the rights of persons concerned. At the same time, the evaluation highlighted shortcomings which impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations. These findings relate to a wide range of areas including OLAF’s investigative tools, the enforcement of OLAF powers, uniform conditions in the conduct of internal investigations, the conduct of digital forensic operations, divergences in the follow-up to OLAF recommendations, the duties of cooperation by Member States and Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, or the overall coherence of the legal framework. However, addressing all evaluation findings is outside the scope of this proposal, as the revised Regulation should be in force by the time the EPPO becomes operational. The proposal therefore contains a limited number of targeted changes, based on the most unambiguous evaluation findings. These are essential changes necessary in the short term to strengthen the framework for OLAF investigations, in order to maintain a strong and fully-functioning OLAF that complements the EPPO's criminal law approach with administrative investigations, but which do not entail a change to its mandate or powers. The focus is on areas where, today, the lack of clarity of certain provisions in the current Regulation results in obstacles which hinder OLAF’s effective operations, regarding, notably, on-the-spot-checks and inspections or access to bank account information. The amendments proposed aim to clarify and reduce ambiguity in the current provisions for the economic operators concerned, for the Member States, and for OLAF, thus enhancing legal certainty. They would allow OLAF to operate in an effective and more coherent manner in all its investigations. This is directly related to the objectives of a strong protection of the budget across the Union coupled with appropriate procedural safeguards for economic operators subject to investigation. The overall objective of the proposal is to strengthen the protection of the Union's financial interests. This will be achieved by three specific objectives to: – adapt the operation of OLAF to the establishment of the EPPO; – enhance the effectiveness of OLAF’s investigative function; – clarify and simplify selected provisions of Regulation No 883/2013. The Commission evaluation report already indicated that the proposal containing these targeted changes could be followed by a more far-reaching process to modernise the OLAF framework, which in its core aspects dates from the creation of OLAF in 1999. This would be the opportunity to consider other more fundamental changes in the context of 21st century fraud areas and trends, and it should take account of the experience gained in the cooperation between the EPPO and OLAF. It would also allow considering other evaluation findings, as well as aspects of the legal framework where further reflection and discussion may be needed.
Revised version (Article 19 Evaluation report and possible revision):
1. No later than five years after the date determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 120(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an evaluation report on the application and impact of this Regulation, in particular as regards the effectiveness and efficiency of the cooperation between the Office and the EPPO. That report shall be accompanied by an opinion of the Supervisory Committee. 2. No later than two years after the submission of the evaluation report pursuant to the first paragraph, the Commission shall, where appropriate, submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council to modernise the Office’s framework, including additional or more detailed rules on the setting up of the Office, its functions or the procedures applicable to its activities, with particular regard to its cooperation with the EPPO, cross-border investigations and investigations in Member States not participating in the EPPO.
Article 20 Repeal
Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 and Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 are hereby repealed. References to the repealed Regulations shall be construed as references to this Regulation and shall be read in accordance with the correlation table set out in Annex II.
Article 21 Entry into force and transitional provisions
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day of the month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . 2. Article 15(3) shall apply to the duration of the term of office of the members of the Supervisory Committee in office at the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Immediately after the entry into force of this Regulation, the President of the European Parliament shall choose by lot, from amongst the members of the Supervisory Committee, two members whose duties are to end, by way of derogation from the first sentence of Article 15(3), upon expiry of the first 36 months of their term of office. Two new members shall be appointed automatically for a term of office of five years to replace the outgoing members, on the basis and in the order of the list set out in Article 1(2) of Decision 2012/45/EU, Euratom of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 23 January 2012 appointing the members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) ( 13 ) . Those new members shall be the first two persons whose names appear in that list. 3. The third sentence of Article 17(1) shall apply to the duration of the term of office of the Director-General in office at the date of entry into force of this Regulation.
Amendment rationale: CONTEXT OF THE PROPOSAL Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office was established by Regulation 1073/99 of 25 May 1999 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 1 . Article 15(1) of the new OLAF Regulation 883/2013 of 11 September 2013 2 states that it tasks should be to "regularly monitor the implementation by the Office of its investigative function, in order to reinforce the Office's independence in the proper exercise of the competences conferred upon it by this Regulation" and, in particular, to "monitor developments concerning the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations in the light of the information supplied by the Director General .. ". In its work, the Supervisory Committee is supported by a secretariat. Currently, this secretariat is provided by the OLAF, in accordance with Article 15(8) of the OLAF Regulation which states that the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee "shall be provided by the Office, in close consultation with the Supervisory Committee". Article 18 of the Regulation places the budgetary appropriations for the Supervisory Committee and its secretariat within the budget line of the Office and provides that the establishment plan of the Office includes that of the Supervisory Committee and of its secretariat. However, in the recent past some concerns have been voiced about possible conflicts of interest and calls have been made for a strengthened legal independence as regards the management of the Committee's budget and secretariat. Thus, in its Annual Activity Reports of 2013 and 2014 3 , the Supervisory Committee underlined the importance of its independent and effective functioning which requires an independent and adequately staffed secretariat. It stressed that the exercise of the Appointing Authority powers by OLAF's Director-General, including decisions on promotions and transfers, could potentially lead to conflicts of interest. It called for its budget and that of its secretariat to be specified in a separate line of the OLAF budget. The European Parliament called several times on the Commission to take measures to reinforce the independent functioning of OLAF's Supervisory Committee secretariat, such as in its report on the discharge procedure for 2013 4 or in its resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee's annual report 2014 5 . The issue has also been addressed in the Exchange of Views with the institutions established by Article 16 of the OLAF Regulation. During the exchange held on 28 September 2015, representatives from the European Parliament stressed again the need to strengthen the independent functioning of the Supervisory Committee's secretariat. On 18 December 2015, the Commission adopted an amendment to its Decision 1999/352 6 in order to move the responsibility for the implementation of the budgetary appropriations for the Members from the Director-General of OLAF to the Commission. The Commission subsequently delegated this responsibility to the Director of its Payments Office (PMO). This decision applied as from 1 January 2016. The objective of this decision was to avoid the appearance that the Members of the Supervisory Committee might not be in a position to ensure their mandate properly. This decision could, however, not achieve a full legal separation of the Committee's secretariat and budget from the Office. In order to separate the management of the Committee's secretariat from the management of the Office and to avoid any impression that OLAF can impair the functioning of the support to the Committee's Members, it is necessary to modify Regulation 883/2013 to foresee that the secretariat of the Supervisory Committee will be provided directly by the Commission. This modification will not affect the independence and operational functioning of the Supervisory Committee and of its Secretariat, who will continue to benefit from the same rights and be subject to the same obligations as before. In particular, OLAF's Data Protection Officer (DPO) will continue to cover the processing of data by the secretariat and the secretariat's staff will continue to be subject to the same confidentiality rules. Article 19 of Regulation 883/2013 provides that the Commission shall submit to the European Parliament and to the Council an evaluation report on the application of the Regulation by 2 October 2017, which shall also state whether the Regulation needs to be amended. Given the importance of a proper functioning of the Supervisory Committee and the need to avoid the impression that this functioning could be impaired by its institutional framework it seems important to adapt the Regulation on this point – and strictly on this point - as soon as possible and in any case before the overall evaluation of the Regulation takes place. Once the revised Regulation will enter into force, another technical amendment will have to be made to the OLAF Decision in order to bring it formally in line with the new legal framework.
Revised version (Article 21 Entry into force and transitional provisions):
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the first day of the month following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union . 2. Article 15(3) shall apply to the duration of the term of office of the members of the Supervisory Committee in office at the date of entry into force of this Regulation. Immediately after the entry into force of this Regulation, the President of the European Parliament shall choose by lot, from amongst the members of the Supervisory Committee, two members whose duties are to end, by way of derogation from the first sentence of Article 15(3), upon expiry of the first 36 months of their term of office. Two new members shall be appointed automatically for a term of office of five years to replace the outgoing members, on the basis and in the order of the list set out in Article 1(2) of Decision 2012/45/EU, Euratom of the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission of 23 January 2012 appointing the members of the Supervisory Committee of the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) ( 1 ). Those new members shall be the first two persons whose names appear in that list. 3. The third sentence of Article 17(1) shall apply to the duration of the term of office of the Director-General in office at the date of entry into force of this Regulation. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.