Management of OLAF: a problem for the new EC anti-fraud commissioner?
In 2009, according to a Eurobarometer survey, 78% of Europeans felt that corruption is a major problem in their country. Another survey in 2008, demonstrated that 59% of the European respondents had never heard of OLAF and 20% who had awareness of OLAF would not trust them to tackle the issue of fraud in their country. Instead, these respondents were inclined to say that they trust their national police forces and their custom services more than the European counterparts. These 2008 figures show a lack of faith in European methods to tackle fraud.
Problems with European methods to tackle fraud and corruption seem to still exist. Currently, members of the Budgetary Control Committee, within the European Parliament, have recently started to criticize Algirdas Šemeta, the new EU Commissioner for anti fraud for two specific decisions concerning the management of OLAF. These decisions include the continued support for OLAF to become independent from the Commission and instating Nicholas Ilett as the acting Director – General. The appointment of an acting Director – General was required after the death of Franz-Hermann Brüner who was the Director – General. Mr. Ilett was his deputy.
If OLAF did become an independent agency then this European anti – fraud office will not have access to the process of internal communication that it currently possesses with the Commission and would also mean that investigations into the Commission would be made more difficult. There would be no direct link to the Commission present.
With regards to the issue acting Director – General, the main controversy is that Ilett was appointed without first obtaining the consent of the Parliament and the Council of Ministers. Some believe, in retrospect, that the standard appointment procedure should have been applied. In addition, it has always been required that the appointed Director – General has to be independent from OLAF itself so that no conflict of interest present when their exercise of duties is concerned. It is thought that this requirement will not be upheld with appointment of Ilett since he previously worked within OLAF. Many fear that there would be occasions where Parliament and the Council would be denied a say if for some reason the Director – General, due to his personal views which were developed whilst being part of OLAF, refused to open investigations. This would then go against the European judicial process and against the functioning of OLAF. For example, if Ilett who was part of OLAF previously did not want to investigate into a department of OLAF, then he would be going against procedure. This is because a Director General has a duty to investigate into all that is necessary regardless of his personal views. Therefore, it is foreseen that if a Director – General wants to perform his duties properly; he has to be independent from OLAF itself.
All these problems including the Commission spending the last 15 months blocking initiatives that could improve the fight against fraud mean that the Commission still has a long way to go in terms of successfully reducing fraud and corruption.
Citizens' perceptions of fraud and the fight against fraud in the EU - Analytical report
Attitudes of Europeans towards Corruption - Summary report
European Voice Article - MEPs attack Šemeta over management of OLAF
European Voice article - Commission's approach to tackling fraud is wrong