Activities of Wolf KLINZ related to 2018/0170(COD)
Shadow reports (1)
REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor's Office and the effectiveness of OLAF investigations PDF (523 KB) DOC (232 KB)
Amendments (14)
Amendment 109 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 14
Recital 14
(14) It is necessary to address the most unambiguous findings of the Commission evaluation through the amendment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013. These are essential changes necessary in the short term to strengthen the framework for the Office's investigations, in order to maintain a strong and fully-functioning Office that complements the EPPO's criminal law approach with administrative investigations, but which do not entail a change to the mandate or powers. They primarily concern areas where, today, the lack of clarity of the Regulation hinders the effective conduct of investigations by the Office, such as the conduct of on-the spot checks, the possibility of access to bank account information, or the admissibility as evidence of the case reports drawn up by the Office. In the medium-term, a more comprehensive amendment of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 would be necessary to modernise the framework of the Office and address further shortcomings identified by the Commission in its evaluation. The Commission should submit a new, comprehensive proposal no later than two years after the evaluation of both the EPPO and the Office, and their cooperation.
Amendment 113 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 a (new)
Recital 26 a (new)
(26 a) In order to pay attention to the protection and respect of procedural rights and guarantees, the Office should create an internal function in the form of the controller of procedural guarantees, and provide him or her with adequate resources. The controller of procedural guarantees should have access to all information necessary to fulfil his or her duties.
Amendment 114 #
Proposal for a regulation
Recital 26 b (new)
Recital 26 b (new)
(26 b) Complaints mechanism for the Office should be established in cooperation with the Controller of procedural guarantees, to safeguard the respect for procedural rights and guarantees in all the activities of the Office. This should be an administrative mechanism whereby the Controller should be responsible for handling complaints received by the Office in accordance with the right to good administration. The mechanism should be effective, ensuring that complaints are properly followed up. In order to increase transparency and accountability, the Office should report on the complaints mechanism in its annual report. It should particularly cover the number of complaints it has received, the types of procedural rights and guarantees violations involved, the activities concerned and, where possible, the follow-up measures taken by the Office.
Amendment 121 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 4 – point a
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point aa (new)
Article 4 – paragraph 2 – point aa (new)
(a a) the offices of Members of the European Parliament, including those of their accredited parliamentary assistants and archives, shall only be subject to criminal investigations led by EPPO or the competent national authorities in accordance with the applicable rules on immunities. The offices shall only be subject to administrative investigations led by OLAF with prior authorisation by the President of the European Parliament and by the controller of procedural guarantees. According to Article 4 of the Statute for Members, documents and electronic records held by a Member shall not be treated as a document of the institution, unless tabled in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.
Amendment 128 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 5 – point a
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Article 5 – paragraph 1
Without prejudice to Article 12d, the Director-General mayshall upon his own discretion and in line with the investigation policy priorities open an investigation when there is a sufficient suspicion, which may also be based on information provided by any third party or anonymous information, that there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity or irregularity affecting the financial interests of the Union.; The evaluation period preceding the decision shall not exceed two months. If the informant who provided the underlying information is known, he or she shall be informed of the outcome of the evaluation.
Amendment 134 #
6 a. For those cases in which the Director-General decides not to open an investigation, he or she shall indicate the reasons for that decision in the annual report to the Supervisory Committee.
Amendment 144 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 9 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Article 9 – paragraph 5 a (new)
(a a) 5a. For cases where the Office recommends a judicial follow-up, and without prejudice to the confidentiality rights of whistleblowers and informants, the person concerned shall have access to the report drawn up by the Office under Article 11 following its investigation, and to any other relevant documents, to the extent that they relate to that person and if, where applicable, neither the EPPO nor the national judicial authorities object within a period of six months. An authorisation by the competent judicial authority may also be granted before this period has expired.
Amendment 145 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 9b (new)
Article 9b (new)
(a a) Acting as a college, the Supervisory Committee shall appoint the Controller. It shall report on the exercise of this function in the annual report pursuant to Article 15(9).
Amendment 146 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a b (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 – point a b (new)
(a b) Article 9a (new): Controller of procedural guarantees 1. A Controller of procedural guarantees ('the Controller') shall be appointed by the Supervisory Committee, based on a list of suitably qualified candidates drawn up by the Director General. 2. The Controller shall have the necessary qualifications and experience in the field of procedural rights and guarantees. 3.The Controller shall monitor the Office's compliance with procedural rights and guarantees. He or she shall be responsible of handling the complaint received by the Office. 4. The Controller shall be independent in the performance of his or her duties. He or she shall report directly to the Supervisory Committee. 5. The Controller shall report on the exercise of this function in the annual report pursuant to Article 15(9). This shall not refer to individual cases under investigation and shall ensure the confidentiality of investigations even after their closure.
Amendment 147 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
(8 a) Article 9b (new): Complaints mechanism 1. The Office shall, in cooperation with the Controller of procedural guarantees, take the necessary measures to set up a complaints mechanism to monitor and ensure the respect for procedural guarantees in all the activities of the Office. 2. Any person concerned by an investigation by the Office shall be entitled to lodge a complaint with the Controller regarding the Office’s compliance with the procedural guarantees set out in Article 9. The lodging of a complaint shall have no suspensive effect on the conduct of the investigation under way. 3. Complaints may be lodged at the latest one month after the complainant becomes aware of the relevant facts that constitute the alleged violation of his procedural guarantees. No complaint may be filed later than one month after the closure of the investigation. Complaints related to the notice period referred to in Article 9(2) and(4) shall be filed before the expiry of the notice period laid down in those provisions 4.Upon receipt of a complaint, the Controller shall inform the Director- General of the Office immediately and give the Office the possibility to resolve the issue raised by the complainant within 15 working days. 5. Without prejudice to Article 10 of this Regulation, the Office shall transmit to the Controller all information that may be necessary for the Controller to issue a recommendation 6. The Controller shall issue a recommendation on the complaint within one month of the Office informing the Controller of the action it has taken to remedy the issue or after expiry of the period referred to in paragraph 3. The recommendation shall be submitted to the Office and communicated to the complainant. In exceptional cases the Controller may decide to extend the period for issuing the recommendation by a further 15 days. The Controller shall inform the Director-General of the reasons for the extension by letter. In the absence of a recommendation by the Controller within the time limits set out in this paragraph, the Controller shall be deemed to have dismissed the complaint without a recommendation 7. Without interfering with the conduct of the investigation under way, the Controller shall examine the complaint in an adversarial procedure. With their consent, the Controller may ask witnesses to provide written or oral explanations he or she considers relevant to ascertaining the facts. 8. The Director-General shall follow the Controller's recommendation on the issue, save in duly justified cases in which he or she may deviate from it. If the Director-General deviates from the Controller's recommendation, he or she shall communicate to the complainant and to the Controller the main reasons for that decision, inasmuch as doing so does not affect the on-going investigation. He or she shall state the reasons for not following the Controller's recommendation in a note to be attached to the final investigation report. 9. The Director-General may request the opinion of the Controller on any matter related to the respect of procedural guarantees in the Officer’s mandate, including on the decision to defer information of the person concerned referred to in Article 9(3). The Director- General shall indicate in any such request the time limit within which the Controller is to respond. 10. Without prejudice to the time limits provided for in Article 90a of the Staff Regulations, where a complaint has been lodged with the Director-General by an official or other servant of the Union in accordance with Article 90a of the Staff Regulations and the official or other servant has lodged a complaint with the Controller related to the same issue, the Director-General shall await the recommendation of the Controller before replying to the complaint
Amendment 149 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 8 a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 9b (new)
Article 9b (new)
(8 a) Article 9b is inserted: 1. Without prejudice to the independence of the Office with respect to the discretion to conduct the investigation under way, the Director-General shall first obtain the authorisation of the Controller when the Office intends to exercise its power to inspect the professional office of a Member of the European Parliament at the premises of the European Parliament or to take copies of documents or of any data support located in this office, irrespective of the medium on which the data is stored. To this end, the Office shall transmit any relevant information necessary to assess the request for authorisation. This procedure is to be regarded as confidential and the Controller shall not disclose any information concerning it. 2. In taking his or her decision on whether or not to grant authorisation for the aforementioned investigative measures, the Controller shall carry out an objective assessment of their legality and examine whether these measures are proportionate or whether the same objective could be achieved with less intrusive investigative measures. The Controller shall reply to the request for an authorisation promptly and no later than 48 hours after receiving the request. The absence of a reply by the Controller within this time limit shall be deemed to be an authorisation. 3. In duly justified urgent cases, where a delay may be harmful to the investigations, the Office may request that the time limit referred to in paragraph 2 is shortened to 24 hours, in agreement with the Controller. The time limit may also be extended to a maximum of 72 hours at the duly motivated request of the Controller. 4. These arrangements shall fully respect the rules on immunity of Members of the European Parliament as set out in Articles 5 to 12 of the Rules of Procedure.
Amendment 188 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 19
Article 19
3 a. Review Clause In accordance with Article 119 and Article 120(2) of Regulation (EU)2017/1939, and in conjunction with the evaluation of the EPPO, the Commission shall commission an evaluation and shall submit an evaluation report on the implementation 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 and shall state whether there is a need to amend this Regulation. The Commission shall forward the evaluation report together with its conclusions to the European Parliament and to the Council and to national parliaments. The findings of the evaluation shall be made public. The Commission shall submit legislative proposals to the European Parliament and the Council if it concludes that it is necessary to have additional or more detailed rules on the working relationship between the Office and the EPPO, their functions or the procedures applicable to them.
Amendment 189 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 19 – point b (new)
Article 19 – point b (new)
3 b. During every evaluation cycle the Commission shall also consider the potential of merging the Office and the EPPO.
Amendment 190 #
Proposal for a regulation
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a a (new)
Article 1 – paragraph 1 – point 14 – point a a (new)
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013
Article 17 – paragraph 4
Article 17 – paragraph 4
(a a) (aa) paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: 4. The Director-General shall report regularly, and at least annually, 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, the problems encountered, the cases dismissed and the reasons thereof, and the Office’s follow-up to the recommendations made by the Supervisory Committee in accordance with Article 15, 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. The annual report shall also include an assessment of the degree of cooperation with the competent authorities of the Member States and the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, with particular regard to the implementation of Article 11(6a).