BETA


2013/2132(INI) Annual report 2012 on the protection of the EU's financial interests - fight against fraud

Progress: Procedure completed

RoleCommitteeRapporteurShadows
Lead CONT AYALA SENDER Inés (icon: S&D S&D) MACOVEI Monica (icon: PPE PPE), MULDER Jan (icon: ALDE ALDE), STAES Bart (icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE), ANDREASEN Marta (icon: ECR ECR), VANHECKE Frank (icon: EFD EFD)
Committee Opinion DEVE
Lead committee dossier:
Legal Basis:
RoP 54

Events

2014/09/25
   EC - Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
2014/04/03
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
2014/04/03
   EP - Decision by Parliament
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 453 votes to 24, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on the Annual Report 2012 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests – Fight against fraud.

According to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

The scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union. In order to give greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending , the report makes the following recommendations:

Strengthening the European Union’s anti-fraud machinery : in 2012, there was virtually no change in 2012, compared with 2011, in the number of fraudulent irregularities , with 1 231 cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent, while their financial impact decreased slightly to a total of EUR 392 million. The incidence of fraud was highest in the areas of cohesion policy and agriculture – especially as regards rural development and fisheries – which remain the two sectors of greatest concern, suffering an estimated financial impact from fraud of EUR 279 million and EUR 143 million respectively.

The number of cases of non-fraudulent irregularity reported to the Commission in 2012 increased by approximately 6% compared with 2011, with an associated financial impact of approximately EUR 29 billion (more than double the corresponding figure for 2011 and affecting in particular cohesion policy and direct expenditure). The considerable increase in 2012, to a value of EUR 3.7 billion, in corrective measures adopted by the Commission vis-à-vis Member States was stressed.

Members stressed the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively. They proposed looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities.

The resolution welcomed the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy , and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It called on the Council not to finalise negotiations in a rush and to avoid a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure, in order to develop a robust European legal framework.

The Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, is asked to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year.

Parliament called on Member States to follow-up on the Commission’s recommendations made in 2011 and 2012 in particular on reported fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities, the recovery of amounts improperly paid, the monitoring of the results of criminal investigations and the improvement of national fraud statistics.

Revenue : while own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, they continue to make up 20% of it. The proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers.

Parliament stressed that the Commission and Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion , for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission. Special attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection , evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring.

Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) : according to the enforcement agencies, increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed.

The Commission is asked to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves.

VAT : according to a study published in 2013, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1.5% of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery.

The resolution stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously, as well as the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe. Member States should reform their national tax systems , making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection.

Irregularities reported as fraudulent : i t is noted that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission. The Commission is asked to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF.

Parliament recalled that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties. They called for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report. Members regretted, however, the lack of information on the amounts to be recovered and the recovery rates related to cohesion policy for the financial year 2012. In addition, the Member States are asked to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States.

OLAF : while welcoming the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures, Parliament underlined the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure. In its view, future investigation policy priorities (IPPs) should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs. OLAF is called on to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs.

Taking note of the OLAF 2012 annual report, Parliament called for: (i) closer analysis of the sources of the information received at the case selection stage; (ii) exhaustive information on the nature of follow-up to OLAF recommendations; (iii) further information on the number of on-the-spot checks that were carried out in each of the Member States and the number of investigations. Parliament recognised that the increase in the amount of information coming from the public sector may be a positive sign of improved cooperation with Member States.

In general, Members asked for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes. They emphasised, in this connection, particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations.

New-look European anti-fraud policy and programmes : Parliament welcomed all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties. The introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement is also a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption.

In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission indicated that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually. Members welcomed all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level.

As regards the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office , the resolution stressed the need to establish a consistent, complementary system for protecting the Union’s financial interests. It urged the Commission to provide a clear EU-level definition of the roles of the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust and OLAF, delimiting their respective remits.

Documents
2014/04/03
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2014/04/02
   EP - Debate in Parliament
2014/03/20
   EP - Committee report tabled for plenary
Details

The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted an own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) on the Annual Report 2012 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests – Fight against fraud.

According to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

The scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union. In order to give greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending , the report makes the following recommendations:

Strengthening the European Union’s anti-fraud machinery : Members stressed the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively. They proposed looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities.

The report welcomed the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy , and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It called on the Council not to finalise negotiations in a rush and to avoid a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure, in order to develop a robust European legal framework.

The Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, is asked to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year. Members called for clear distinctions to be made between cases of fraud, cases of error and cases of irregularity in the 2013 Annual Report.

Revenue : while own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, they continue to make up 20% of it. The proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers.

Members stressed that the Commission and Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion , for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission. Special attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection , evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring.

Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) : according to the enforcement agencies, increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed. Members believe believes that there is a lack of physical controls of goods being transported under the EMCS and that additional investment in controls may result in an increase in collected taxes, and an increase in prevented tax evasion.

The Commission is asked to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves.

VAT : according to a study published in 2013, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1.5% of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery.

The report stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously, as well as the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe. Member States should reform their national tax systems , making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection.

Irregularities reported as fraudulent : the number of cases of fraudulent irregularity and their impact reported in 2012 were virtually the same as those of the previous year. It is noted that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; furthermore, that another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission. The Commission is asked to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF.

Members recalled that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties. They called for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report. In addition, the Member States are asked to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States.

OLAF : while welcoming the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures, Members underlined the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure. In their view, future investigation policy priorities (IPPs) should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs. OLAF is called on to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs.

In general, Members asked for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes. They emphasised, in this connection, particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations.

New-look European anti-fraud policy and programmes : Members welcomed all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties. The introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement is also a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption.

In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission indicated that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually. Members welcomed all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level.

Documents
2014/03/17
   EP - Vote in committee
2014/02/25
   EP - Amendments tabled in committee
Documents
2014/02/07
   EP - Committee draft report
Documents
2013/08/27
   EP - AYALA SENDER Inés (S&D) appointed as rapporteur in CONT
2013/07/04
   EP - Committee referral announced in Parliament

Documents

Activities

Votes

A7-0195/2014 - Inés Ayala Sender - Résolution #

2014/04/03 Outcome: +: 453, 0: 52, -: 24
DE FR IT ES PL GB RO SE PT BE AT HU BG SK NL DK CZ FI HR LT IE EL LV SI EE LU MT CY
Total
70
49
46
35
37
51
17
17
17
18
16
13
14
12
22
11
17
8
9
7
6
7
7
6
5
4
4
3
icon: PPE PPE
176

Belgium PPE

3

Denmark PPE

For (1)

1

Czechia PPE

2

Ireland PPE

For (1)

1

Greece PPE

1

Estonia PPE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg PPE

2

Malta PPE

For (1)

1
2
icon: S&D S&D
140

Hungary S&D

3

Bulgaria S&D

Against (1)

3

Netherlands S&D

2

Finland S&D

2

Lithuania S&D

1

Slovenia S&D

2

Estonia S&D

For (1)

1
icon: ALDE ALDE
59

Sweden ALDE

Abstain (1)

4

Denmark ALDE

For (1)

1

Finland ALDE

For (1)

1

Ireland ALDE

3
2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

1
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

3
3

Portugal Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Belgium Verts/ALE

3

Austria Verts/ALE

1

Netherlands Verts/ALE

3

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

1
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
25

France GUE/NGL

Against (1)

2

Spain GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

1

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Sweden GUE/NGL

1

Portugal GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

3

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Czechia GUE/NGL

2

Ireland GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Greece GUE/NGL

1

Latvia GUE/NGL

For (1)

1

Cyprus GUE/NGL

1
icon: ECR ECR
43

Italy ECR

1

Belgium ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Croatia ECR

Abstain (1)

1

Latvia ECR

Abstain (1)

1
icon: EFD EFD
18

Poland EFD

3

Slovakia EFD

For (1)

1

Netherlands EFD

Abstain (1)

1

Denmark EFD

1

Finland EFD

For (1)

1

Lithuania EFD

For (1)

1

Greece EFD

1
icon: NI NI
20

France NI

2

United Kingdom NI

Abstain (1)

4

Belgium NI

Against (1)

1

Hungary NI

1

Bulgaria NI

1

Ireland NI

For (1)

1
AmendmentsDossier
76 2013/2132(INI)
2014/02/25 CONT 76 amendments...
source: PE-526.047

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
events/3/docs
  • url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CRE-7-2014-04-02-TOC_EN.html title: Debate in Parliament
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
docs/0/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE521.833
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-PR-521833_EN.html
docs/1/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE526.047
New
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/CONT-AM-526047_EN.html
events/0/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament
events/1/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee
events/2
date
2014-03-20T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2014-0195_EN.html title: A7-0195/2014
summary
events/2
date
2014-03-20T00:00:00
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2014-0195_EN.html title: A7-0195/2014
summary
events/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140402&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
events/5
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2014-0338_EN.html title: T7-0338/2014
summary
events/5
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2014-0338_EN.html title: T7-0338/2014
summary
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/Other legal basis
Rules of Procedure EP 159
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 54
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2013-08-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
docs/2/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0195&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-7-2014-0195_EN.html
events/4
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0338 title: T7-0338/2014
summary
events/4
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
type
Results of vote in Parliament
body
EP
docs
url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=24430&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
events/5
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
body
EP
docs
url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0338 title: T7-0338/2014
summary
events/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0338
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-7-2014-0338_EN.html
activities
  • date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: ALDE name: MULDER Jan group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: VANHECKE Frank responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
  • date: 2014-03-17T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: ALDE name: MULDER Jan group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: VANHECKE Frank responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
  • date: 2014-03-20T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0195&language=EN type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0195/2014 body: EP type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
  • date: 2014-04-02T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140402&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-04-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0338 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0338/2014 body: EP type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
commission
  • body: EC dg: European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
committees/0
type
Responsible Committee
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Budgetary Control
committee
CONT
date
2013-08-27T00:00:00
rapporteur
name: AYALA SENDER Inés group: Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats abbr: S&D
shadows
committees/0
body
EP
shadows
responsible
True
committee
CONT
date
2013-08-27T00:00:00
committee_full
Budgetary Control
rapporteur
group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
committees/1
type
Committee Opinion
body
EP
associated
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
opinion
False
committees/1
body
EP
responsible
False
committee_full
Development
committee
DEVE
docs
  • date: 2014-02-07T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE521.833 title: PE521.833 type: Committee draft report body: EP
  • date: 2014-02-25T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&mode=XML&language=EN&reference=PE526.047 title: PE526.047 type: Amendments tabled in committee body: EP
  • date: 2014-09-25T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=24430&j=0&l=en title: SP(2014)469 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
events
  • date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2014-03-17T00:00:00 type: Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading body: EP
  • date: 2014-03-20T00:00:00 type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0195&language=EN title: A7-0195/2014 summary: The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted an own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) on the Annual Report 2012 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests – Fight against fraud. According to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen. The scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union. In order to give greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending , the report makes the following recommendations: Strengthening the European Union’s anti-fraud machinery : Members stressed the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively. They proposed looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities. The report welcomed the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy , and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It called on the Council not to finalise negotiations in a rush and to avoid a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure, in order to develop a robust European legal framework. The Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, is asked to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year. Members called for clear distinctions to be made between cases of fraud, cases of error and cases of irregularity in the 2013 Annual Report. Revenue : while own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, they continue to make up 20% of it. The proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers. Members stressed that the Commission and Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion , for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission. Special attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection , evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring. Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) : according to the enforcement agencies, increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed. Members believe believes that there is a lack of physical controls of goods being transported under the EMCS and that additional investment in controls may result in an increase in collected taxes, and an increase in prevented tax evasion. The Commission is asked to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves. VAT : according to a study published in 2013, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1.5% of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery. The report stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously, as well as the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe. Member States should reform their national tax systems , making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection. Irregularities reported as fraudulent : the number of cases of fraudulent irregularity and their impact reported in 2012 were virtually the same as those of the previous year. It is noted that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; furthermore, that another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission. The Commission is asked to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF. Members recalled that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties. They called for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report. In addition, the Member States are asked to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States. OLAF : while welcoming the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures, Members underlined the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure. In their view, future investigation policy priorities (IPPs) should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs. OLAF is called on to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs. In general, Members asked for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes. They emphasised, in this connection, particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations. New-look European anti-fraud policy and programmes : Members welcomed all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties. The introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement is also a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption. In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission indicated that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually. Members welcomed all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level.
  • date: 2014-04-02T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140402&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2014-04-03T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0338 title: T7-0338/2014 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 453 votes to 24, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on the Annual Report 2012 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests – Fight against fraud. According to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen. The scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union. In order to give greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending , the report makes the following recommendations: Strengthening the European Union’s anti-fraud machinery : in 2012, there was virtually no change in 2012, compared with 2011, in the number of fraudulent irregularities , with 1 231 cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent, while their financial impact decreased slightly to a total of EUR 392 million. The incidence of fraud was highest in the areas of cohesion policy and agriculture – especially as regards rural development and fisheries – which remain the two sectors of greatest concern, suffering an estimated financial impact from fraud of EUR 279 million and EUR 143 million respectively. The number of cases of non-fraudulent irregularity reported to the Commission in 2012 increased by approximately 6% compared with 2011, with an associated financial impact of approximately EUR 29 billion (more than double the corresponding figure for 2011 and affecting in particular cohesion policy and direct expenditure). The considerable increase in 2012, to a value of EUR 3.7 billion, in corrective measures adopted by the Commission vis-à-vis Member States was stressed. Members stressed the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively. They proposed looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities. The resolution welcomed the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy , and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It called on the Council not to finalise negotiations in a rush and to avoid a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure, in order to develop a robust European legal framework. The Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, is asked to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year. Parliament called on Member States to follow-up on the Commission’s recommendations made in 2011 and 2012 in particular on reported fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities, the recovery of amounts improperly paid, the monitoring of the results of criminal investigations and the improvement of national fraud statistics. Revenue : while own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, they continue to make up 20% of it. The proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers. Parliament stressed that the Commission and Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion , for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission. Special attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection , evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring. Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) : according to the enforcement agencies, increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed. The Commission is asked to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves. VAT : according to a study published in 2013, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1.5% of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery. The resolution stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously, as well as the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe. Member States should reform their national tax systems , making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection. Irregularities reported as fraudulent : i t is noted that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission. The Commission is asked to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF. Parliament recalled that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties. They called for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report. Members regretted, however, the lack of information on the amounts to be recovered and the recovery rates related to cohesion policy for the financial year 2012. In addition, the Member States are asked to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States. OLAF : while welcoming the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures, Parliament underlined the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure. In its view, future investigation policy priorities (IPPs) should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs. OLAF is called on to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs. Taking note of the OLAF 2012 annual report, Parliament called for: (i) closer analysis of the sources of the information received at the case selection stage; (ii) exhaustive information on the nature of follow-up to OLAF recommendations; (iii) further information on the number of on-the-spot checks that were carried out in each of the Member States and the number of investigations. Parliament recognised that the increase in the amount of information coming from the public sector may be a positive sign of improved cooperation with Member States. In general, Members asked for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes. They emphasised, in this connection, particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations. New-look European anti-fraud policy and programmes : Parliament welcomed all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties. The introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement is also a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption. In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission indicated that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually. Members welcomed all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level. As regards the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office , the resolution stressed the need to establish a consistent, complementary system for protecting the Union’s financial interests. It urged the Commission to provide a clear EU-level definition of the roles of the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust and OLAF, delimiting their respective remits.
  • date: 2014-04-03T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/olaf/ title: European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure/Modified legal basis
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
New
Rules of Procedure EP 150
procedure/dossier_of_the_committee
Old
CONT/7/13187
New
  • CONT/7/13187
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 052
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
procedure/subject
Old
  • 8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
New
8.70.04
Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
activities/0/committees
  • body: EP shadows: group: PPE name: MACOVEI Monica group: ALDE name: MULDER Jan group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: VANHECKE Frank responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
activities/0/date
Old
2014-04-02T00:00:00
New
2013-07-04T00:00:00
activities/0/type
Old
Debate in Parliament
New
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
activities/1/committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de182da0fb8127435bdbb40
New
4f1ac616b819f25efd00001b
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/0/group
Old
EPP
New
PPE
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/0/mepref
Old
4de186f10fb8127435bdc11c
New
4f1ad952b819f207b300000e
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/0/name
Old
MACOVEI Monica Luisa
New
MACOVEI Monica
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/1/mepref
Old
4de186b20fb8127435bdc0c1
New
4f1ac452b819f25896000005
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4de188650fb8127435bdc331
New
4f1adb8fb819f207b30000cf
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/3/mepref
Old
4de182e40fb8127435bdbb4b
New
4f1ac5e7b819f25efd00000a
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
4de1888a0fb8127435bdc36a
New
4f1adb84b819f207b30000cb
activities/1/committees/0/shadows/5/mepref
Old
4de189170fb8127435bdc41f
New
4f1adc48b819f207b300010e
activities/1/date
Old
2013-07-04T00:00:00
New
2014-03-17T00:00:00
activities/1/type
Old
Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
New
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
activities/2/docs/0/text
  • The Committee on Budgetary Control adopted an own-initiative report by Inés AYALA SENDER (S&D, ES) on the Annual Report 2012 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests – Fight against fraud.

    According to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

    The scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union. In order to give greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending, the report makes the following recommendations:

    Strengthening the European Union’s anti-fraud machinery: Members stressed the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively. They proposed looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities.

    The report welcomed the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy, and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It called on the Council not to finalise negotiations in a rush and to avoid a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure, in order to develop a robust European legal framework.

    The Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, is asked to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year. Members called for clear distinctions to be made between cases of fraud, cases of error and cases of irregularity in the 2013 Annual Report.

    Revenue: while own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, they continue to make up 20% of it. The proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers.

    Members stressed that the Commission and Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion, for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission. Special attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection, evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring.

    Excise Movement Control System (EMCS): according to the enforcement agencies, increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed. Members believe believes that there is a lack of physical controls of goods being transported under the EMCS and that additional investment in controls may result in an increase in collected taxes, and an increase in prevented tax evasion.

    The Commission is asked to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves.

    VAT: according to a study published in 2013, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1.5% of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery.

    The report stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously, as well as the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe. Member States should reform their national tax systems, making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection.

    Irregularities reported as fraudulent: the number of cases of fraudulent irregularity and their impact reported in 2012 were virtually the same as those of the previous year. It is noted that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; furthermore, that another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission. The Commission is asked to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF.

    Members recalled that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties. They called for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report. In addition, the Member States are asked to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States.

    OLAF: while welcoming the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures, Members underlined the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure. In their view, future investigation policy priorities (IPPs) should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs. OLAF is called on to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs.

    In general, Members asked for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes. They emphasised, in this connection, particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations.

    New-look European anti-fraud policy and programmes: Members welcomed all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties. The introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement is also a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption.

    In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission indicated that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually. Members welcomed all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level.

activities/3/committees
  • body: EP shadows: group: EPP name: MACOVEI Monica Luisa group: ALDE name: MULDER Jan group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart group: ECR name: ANDREASEN Marta group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo group: EFD name: VANHECKE Frank responsible: True committee: CONT date: 2013-08-27T00:00:00 committee_full: Budgetary Control rapporteur: group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
activities/3/date
Old
2014-03-17T00:00:00
New
2014-04-02T00:00:00
activities/3/docs
  • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20140402&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
activities/3/type
Old
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/4/docs/0/text
  • The European Parliament adopted by 453 votes to 24, with 52 abstentions, a resolution on the Annual Report 2012 on the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests – Fight against fraud.

    According to Commission estimates, EUR 1 000 000 000 000 of potential tax revenue is lost to tax fraud, tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning in the EU every year, representing an approximate annual cost of EUR 2 000 for every European citizen.

    The scale of fraud and tax avoidance in any form and of corruption in the EU undermines citizens’ trust and confidence in the Union. In order to give greater guarantees of integrity and transparency with regard to public spending, the report makes the following recommendations:

    Strengthening the European Union’s anti-fraud machinery: in 2012, there was virtually no change in 2012, compared with 2011, in the number of fraudulent irregularities, with 1 231 cases of irregularity reported as fraudulent, while their financial impact decreased slightly to a total of EUR 392 million. The incidence of fraud was highest in the areas of cohesion policy and agriculture – especially as regards rural development and fisheries – which remain the two sectors of greatest concern, suffering an estimated financial impact from fraud of EUR 279 million and EUR 143 million respectively.

    The number of cases of non-fraudulent irregularity reported to the Commission in 2012 increased by approximately 6% compared with 2011, with an associated financial impact of approximately EUR 29 billion (more than double the corresponding figure for 2011 and affecting in particular cohesion policy and direct expenditure). The considerable increase in 2012, to a value of EUR 3.7 billion, in corrective measures adopted by the Commission vis-à-vis Member States was stressed.

    Members stressed the need to strengthen the cooperation and coordination between the Commission and the Member States in order to ensure that the Union’s financial interests are protected effectively. They proposed looking into the possibility of establishing a team of European customs officials specialised in combating fraud to work alongside national customs authorities.

    The resolution welcomed the main initiatives taken by the Commission, at Parliament’s request, to shape a new EU legislative landscape for anti-fraud policy, and in particular the proposal for a directive on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, as well as the proposal for a Council regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. It called on the Council not to finalise negotiations in a rush and to avoid a premature transition to the enhanced cooperation procedure, in order to develop a robust European legal framework.

    The Commission, at the time of initiating the procedure for submission of the annual PIF report, is asked to submit to Parliament a report on the monitoring and implementation of the recommendations adopted by Parliament following the PIF report of the previous year.

    Parliament called on Member States to follow-up on the Commission’s recommendations made in 2011 and 2012 in particular on reported fraudulent and non-fraudulent irregularities, the recovery of amounts improperly paid, the monitoring of the results of criminal investigations and the improvement of national fraud statistics.

    Revenue: while own resources are no longer the main source of EU budget revenue, they continue to make up 20% of it. The proper collection of VAT and customs duties has direct repercussions not only on Member States’ economies and the Union budget, but also on European taxpayers.

    Parliament stressed that the Commission and Member States should continue to give absolute priority to combating fraud and tax evasion, for which it is necessary to develop a strategy for strengthened and multidimensional cooperation and coordination between Member States themselves and with the Commission. Special attention should be paid to the development of mechanisms for prevention and early detection, evaluation of results, improved revenue collection and more effective customs transit monitoring.

    Excise Movement Control System (EMCS): according to the enforcement agencies, increased abuse of the Excise Movement Control System (EMCS) by criminal groups has been observed.

    The Commission is asked to take initiative in tightening the access rights of the EMCS to include a comprehensive history of compliance before trading so that it is possible to grant business actors the status of ‘empowered economic operator’ (‘trusted business actors’) so that only these actors could operate under EMCS directly by themselves.

    VAT: according to a study published in 2013, EUR 193 000 000 000 in VAT revenue (1.5% of GDP) was lost in 2011 through non-compliance or non-recovery.

    The resolution stresses the importance of implementing new strategies and making more efficient use of existing EU structures in order to combat VAT fraud more vigorously, as well as the need to simplify the VAT system for companies throughout Europe. Member States should reform their national tax systems, making them simpler, fairer and more effective so as to facilitate compliance, prevent, deter and sanction tax fraud and evasion, and boost the efficiency of tax collection.

    Irregularities reported as fraudulent: it is noted that it takes on average two years and seven months from the start of a fraudulent practice until the moment it is detected; another seven or eight months lapse before the irregularity is reported to the Commission. The Commission is asked to draw up Europe-wide guidelines for the reporting of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF.

    Parliament recalled that the staff of the European institutions are required, without delay and without any risk of their responsibility being called into question as a result, to notify OLAF of any fraud which has come to their attention in the fulfilment of their duties. They called for corruption with an impact on the financial interests of the EU to be considered as fraud for the purposes of Article 325(5) TFEU and to be included in the Commission’s annual report. Members regretted, however, the lack of information on the amounts to be recovered and the recovery rates related to cohesion policy for the financial year 2012. In addition, the Member States are asked to cooperate with and provide full and reliable information to the Commission regarding the beneficiaries of the EU funds managed by Member States.

    OLAF: while welcoming the initial effects of the reorganisation and restructuring of OLAF’s investigative procedures, Parliament underlined the risk of a lack of consistency in the overall investigation selection procedure. In its view, future investigation policy priorities (IPPs) should always be subject to a thorough evaluation based on concrete needs, measurable indicators and lessons learnt from past IPPs. OLAF is called on to provide detailed information on the way in which it decides on IPPs.

    Taking note of the OLAF 2012 annual report, Parliament called for: (i) closer analysis of the sources of the information received at the case selection stage; (ii) exhaustive information on the nature of follow-up to OLAF recommendations; (iii) further information on the number of on-the-spot checks that were carried out in each of the Member States and the number of investigations. Parliament recognised that the increase in the amount of information coming from the public sector may be a positive sign of improved cooperation with Member States.

    In general, Members asked for an improvement in OLAF’s governance through the continual revision and consolidation of its core investigative processes. They emphasised, in this connection, particular importance to monitoring the observance of procedural safeguards and the fundamental rights of persons affected by investigations.

    New-look European anti-fraud policy and programmes: Parliament welcomed all of the Commission initiatives to fight fraud in a generally more effective manner, with innovative actions to be taken as regards penalties. The introduction of anti-fraud clauses in international agreements, administrative cooperation agreements and in the field of public procurement is also a further significant step in terms of defending the Union’s financial interests and combating corruption.

    In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report by the Commission indicated that corruption affects all Member States in very different ways and costs the EU economy around EUR 120 billion annually. Members welcomed all of the suggestions for intensifying exchanges of current good practice and identifying relevant new measures to be taken at EU level.

    As regards the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, the resolution stressed the need to establish a consistent, complementary system for protecting the Union’s financial interests. It urged the Commission to provide a clear EU-level definition of the roles of the future European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Eurojust and OLAF, delimiting their respective remits.

activities/4/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P7-TA-2014-0338
committees/0/rapporteur/0/mepref
Old
4de182da0fb8127435bdbb40
New
4f1ac616b819f25efd00001b
committees/0/shadows/0/group
Old
EPP
New
PPE
committees/0/shadows/0/mepref
Old
4de186f10fb8127435bdc11c
New
4f1ad952b819f207b300000e
committees/0/shadows/0/name
Old
MACOVEI Monica Luisa
New
MACOVEI Monica
committees/0/shadows/1/mepref
Old
4de186b20fb8127435bdc0c1
New
4f1ac452b819f25896000005
committees/0/shadows/2/mepref
Old
4de188650fb8127435bdc331
New
4f1adb8fb819f207b30000cf
committees/0/shadows/3/mepref
Old
4de182e40fb8127435bdbb4b
New
4f1ac5e7b819f25efd00000a
committees/0/shadows/4/mepref
Old
4de1888a0fb8127435bdc36a
New
4f1adb84b819f207b30000cb
committees/0/shadows/5/mepref
Old
4de189170fb8127435bdc41f
New
4f1adc48b819f207b300010e
procedure/Modified legal basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 150
procedure/legal_basis/0
Old
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048
New
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 052
activities/4
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
docs
type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T7-0338/2014
body
EP
type
Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
New
Procedure completed
activities/4
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote scheduled
activities/3/type
Old
Debate scheduled
New
Debate in Parliament
activities/4/type
Old
Vote in plenary scheduled
New
Vote scheduled
activities/3/type
Old
Debate in plenary scheduled
New
Debate scheduled
activities/2/docs/0/url
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&mode=XML&reference=A7-2014-0195&language=EN
activities/2
date
2014-03-20T00:00:00
docs
type: Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading title: A7-0195/2014
body
EP
type
Committee report tabled for plenary, single reading
procedure/stage_reached
Old
Awaiting committee decision
New
Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
activities/1
date
2014-03-17T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in committee, 1st reading/single reading
committees
activities/1/type
Old
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
New
Debate in plenary scheduled
activities/2
date
2014-04-03T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Vote in plenary scheduled
activities/1/date
Old
2014-03-10T00:00:00
New
2014-04-02T00:00:00
activities/1/date
Old
2014-04-02T00:00:00
New
2014-03-10T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/3
group
ECR
name
ANDREASEN Marta
committees/0/shadows/3
group
ECR
name
ANDREASEN Marta
activities/1/date
Old
2014-02-27T00:00:00
New
2014-04-02T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/0
group
EPP
name
MACOVEI Monica Luisa
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/1
group
ALDE
name
MULDER Jan
committees/0/shadows/0
group
EPP
name
MACOVEI Monica Luisa
committees/0/shadows/1
group
ALDE
name
MULDER Jan
activities/0/committees/0/shadows/2
group
EFD
name
VANHECKE Frank
committees/0/shadows/2
group
EFD
name
VANHECKE Frank
activities/1
date
2014-02-27T00:00:00
body
EP
type
Indicative plenary sitting date, 1st reading/single reading
activities/0/committees/0/date
2013-08-27T00:00:00
activities/0/committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
activities/0/committees/0/shadows
  • group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart
  • group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
committees/0/date
2013-08-27T00:00:00
committees/0/rapporteur
  • group: S&D name: AYALA SENDER Inés
committees/0/shadows
  • group: Verts/ALE name: STAES Bart
  • group: GUE/NGL name: SØNDERGAARD Søren Bo
activities
  • date: 2013-07-04T00:00:00 body: EP type: Committee referral announced in Parliament, 1st reading/single reading committees: body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
committees
  • body: EP responsible: True committee_full: Budgetary Control committee: CONT
  • body: EP responsible: False committee_full: Development committee: DEVE
links
other
  • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/olaf/ title: European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) commissioner: ŠEMETA Algirdas
procedure
dossier_of_the_committee
CONT/7/13187
reference
2013/2132(INI)
title
Annual report 2012 on the protection of the EU's financial interests - fight against fraud
legal_basis
Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 048
stage_reached
Awaiting committee decision
subtype
Annual report
type
INI - Own-initiative procedure
subject
8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud