|
30.4.2021 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 158/102 |
P8_TA(2019)0383
OLAF investigations and cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor's Office ***I
European Parliament legislative resolution of 16 April 2019 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 (COM(2018)0338 — C8-0214/2018 — 2018/0170(COD))
(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)
(2021/C 158/32)
The European Parliament,
|
— |
having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2018)0338), |
|
— |
having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C8-0214/2018), |
|
— |
having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, |
|
— |
having regard to the Opinion 8/2018 of the Court of Auditors (1), |
|
— |
having regard to Rule 59 of its Rules of Procedure, |
|
— |
having regard to the report of the Committee on Budgetary Control and the opinions of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs (A8-0179/2019), |
|
1. |
Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out; |
|
2. |
Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal; |
|
3. |
Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments. |
(1) ECA Opinion No 8/2018.
P8_TC1-COD(2018)0170
Position of the European Parliament adopted at first reading on 16 April 2019 with a view to the adoption of Regulation (EU) …/… 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
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,
Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 325 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,
Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,
After transmission of the draft legislative act to the national parliaments,
Having regard to the opinion of the Court of Auditors (1),
Acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (2),
Whereas:
|
(1) |
With the adoption of Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) and Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (4), the Union has substantially strengthened the harmonised legal framework provisions regarding means available to protect the financial interests of the Union by means of criminal law. The European Public Prosecutor's Office (‘EPPO’) will have is a key priority in the field of criminal justice and anti-fraud policy, having the power to carry out criminal investigations and bring indictments related to criminal offences affecting the Union budget, as defined in Directive (EU) 2017/1371, in the participating Member States. [Am. 1] |
|
(2) |
To protect the financial interests of the Union, the European Anti-Fraud Office (‘the Office’) conducts administrative investigations into administrative irregularities as well as into criminal behaviour. At the end of its investigations, it may make judicial recommendations to the national prosecution authorities, aimed at enabling indictments and prosecutions in the Member States. In future, in the Member States participating in the EPPO, it will report suspected criminal offences to the EPPO, and will collaborate with it in the context of its investigations. [Am. 2] |
|
(3) |
Therefore, Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council (5) should be amended and correspondingly adapted following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. The provisions governing the relationship between the EPPO and the Office in Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 should be reflected and complemented by the rules in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 to ensure the highest level of protection of the financial interests of the Union through synergies between the two bodies , which means implementing the principles of close cooperation, information exchange, complementarity and avoidance of duplication. [Am. 3] |
|
(4) |
In view of their common goal to preserve the integrity of the Union budget, the Office and the EPPO should establish and maintain a close relationship based on sincere cooperation and aimed at ensuring the complementarity of their respective mandates and coordination of their action, in particular as regards the scope of the enhanced cooperation for the establishment on the EPPO. Ultimately, the relationship should contribute to ensuring that all means are used to protect the financial interests of the Union and avoiding unnecessary duplication of efforts. |
|
(5) |
Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 requires the Office, as well as all institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union and competent national authorities, to report to the EPPO without undue delay suspected criminal conduct in respect of which the EPPO may exercise its competence. Since the mandate of the Office is to carry out administrative investigations into fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interest of the Union, it is ideally placed and equipped to act as a natural partner and privileged source of information for the EPPO. [Am. 4] |
|
(6) |
Elements pointing to possible criminal conduct falling within the competence of the EPPO may, in practice, be present in initial allegations received by the Office or may emerge only in the course of an administrative investigation opened by the Office on the grounds of suspicion of administrative irregularity. In order to comply with its duty to report to the EPPO, the Office should therefore, as the case may be, report criminal conduct at any stage before or during an investigation. |
|
(7) |
Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 specifies the minimum elements that, as a rule, reports should contain. The Office may need to conduct a preliminary evaluation of allegations to ascertain these elements and collect the necessary information. The Office should conduct this evaluation expeditiously and through means which do not risk jeopardising a possible future criminal investigation. Upon completion of its evaluation, it should report to the EPPO where a suspicion of an offence within its competence is identified. |
|
(8) |
In consideration of the Office's expertise, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies of the Union should have the choice to make use of the Office to conduct such preliminary evaluation of allegations reported to them. |
|
(9) |
In conformity with Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the Office should in principle not open an administrative investigation parallel to an investigation conducted by the EPPO into the same facts. However, in certain cases, the protection of the Union’s financial interests may require that the Office carry out a complementary administrative investigation before the conclusion of criminal proceedings initiated by the EPPO with the purpose of ascertaining whether precautionary measures are necessary, or financial, disciplinary or administrative action should be taken. These complementary investigations may be appropriate, inter alia, when necessary to recover amounts due to the Union budget subject to specific time-barring rules, when the amounts at risk are very high, or where there is the need to avoid further expenditure in risk situations through administrative measures. |
|
(10) |
Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 provides that the EPPO may request such complementary investigations to the Office. In cases where the EPPO does not request it, such a complementary investigation should also be possible on the initiative of the Office, under certain specific conditions , after consultation with the EPPO . In particular, the EPPO should be able to object to the opening or continuation of an investigation by the Office, or to the performance of specific acts of investigation by it. The reasons for this objection should be based on the need to protect the effectiveness of the EPPO's investigation and should be proportionate to this aim. The Office should refrain from performing the action on which the EPPO raised an objection. If the EPPO does not object agrees to the request , the Office investigation should be conducted in close consultation with the EPPO. [Am. 6] |
|
(11) |
The Office should actively support the EPPO in its investigations. In this regard, the EPPO may request the Office to support or complement its criminal investigations through the exercise of powers under this Regulation. In these cases the Office should perform these operations within the limits of its powers and within the framework provided for in this Regulation. |
|
(12) |
To ensure effective coordination, cooperation and transparency between the Office and the EPPO, information should be exchanged between them on a continuous basis. The exchange of information in the stages prior to the opening of investigations by the Office and the EPPO is particularly relevant to ensure proper coordination between the respective actions to guarantee complementarity and avoid duplication. For this purpose, the Office and the EPPO should make use of the hit/no hit functions of their respective case management systems . The Office and the EPPO should specify the modalities and conditions of this exchange of information in their working arrangements. [Am. 7] |
|
(13) |
The Commission Report on Evaluation of the application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 (6), adopted on 2 October 2017, concluded that the 2013 changes to the legal framework brought clear improvements, as regards the conduct of investigations, cooperation with partners and the rights of persons concerned. At the same time, the evaluation has highlighted some shortcomings which impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of investigations. |
|
(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. The Commission should submit a new, comprehensive proposal no later than two years after the evaluation of both the EPPO and the Office, and of their cooperation. [Am. 8] |
|
(15) |
These changes do not affect the procedural guarantees applicable in the framework of investigations. The Office is bound to apply the procedural guarantees of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 (7) and those contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the Union. This framework requires that the Office conducts its investigations objectively, impartially and confidentially, seeking evidence for and against the person concerned, and carries out investigative acts on the basis of a written authorisation and following a legality check. The Office must ensure the respect of the rights of persons concerned by its investigations, including the presumption of innocence and the right to avoid self-incrimination. When interviewed, persons concerned have inter alia the rights to be assisted by a person of choice, to approve the record of the interview, and to use any of the official languages of the Union. Persons concerned also have the right to comment on the facts of the case before conclusions are drawn. |
|
(16) |
The Office conducts on-the-spot checks and inspections, which allow it to access premises and documentation of economic operators in the framework of its investigations into suspected fraud, corruption or other illegal conduct affecting the financial interests of the Union. These are carried out in accordance with this Regulation and with Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, which in some instances make the application of these powers subject to conditions of national law. The Commission evaluation has found that the extent to which national law should apply is not always specified, and as a result hinders the effectiveness of the Office's investigative activities. |
|
(17) |
It is therefore appropriate to clarify the instances in which national law should apply in the course of investigations by the Office, without however changing the powers available to the Office or changing the way the Regulation operates in relation to the Member States. This clarification reflects the recent ruling of the General Court in case T-48/16, Sigma Orionis SA v European Commission. |
|
(18) |
The conduct by the Office of on-the-spot checks and inspections, in situations where the economic operator concerned submits to the check, should be subject to Union law alone. This should allow it to exercise its investigative powers in an effective and coherent manner in all Member States, with a view to contributing to a high level of protection of the Union's financial interests across the Union, as required by Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). |
|
(19) |
In situations where the Office needs to rely on the assistance of the national competent authorities, particularly in cases where an economic operator opposes an on-the-spot check and inspection, Member States should ensure that the Office's action is effective, and should provide the necessary assistance in accordance with the relevant rules of national procedural law. |
|
(20) |
A duty for economic operators to cooperate with the Office should be introduced in Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013. This is in line with their obligation under Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 to grant access for the carrying out of on-the-spot checks and inspections to premises, land, means of transport or other areas, used for business purposes, and with the obligation in Article 129 (8) of the Financial Regulation that any person or entity receiving Union funds shall fully cooperate in the protection of the financial interests of the Union, including in the context of investigations by the Office. |
|
(21) |
As part of this duty of cooperation, the Office should be able to require economic operators who may have been involved in the matter under investigation, or who might hold relevant information, to supply relevant information. When complying with such requests, economic operators are not obliged to admit that they have committed an illegal activity, but they are obliged to answer factual questions and to provide documents, even if this information may be used to establish against them or against another operator the existence of an illegal activity. |
|
(22) |
Economic operators should have the possibility to use any of the official languages of the Member State where the check takes place, and the right to be assisted by a person of their choice, including by external legal counsel, during on-the-spot checks and inspections. The presence of a legal counsel should not, however, represent a legal condition for the validity of on-the-spot checks and inspections. To ensure the effectiveness of the on-the-spot checks and inspections, in particular as regards the risk of evidence disappearing, the Office should be able to access to the premises, land, means of transportation or other areas used for business purposes without waiting for the operator to consult its legal counsel. It should only accept a short reasonable delay pending consultation of the legal counsel before starting the conduct of the check. Any such delay must be kept to the strict minimum. |
|
(23) |
To ensure transparency, when carrying out on-the-spot checks and inspections the Office should provide economic operators with appropriate information on their duty to cooperate and the consequences of a refusal to do so, and the procedure applicable to the check, including the applicable procedural safeguards. |
|
(24) |
In internal investigations and, where necessary, in external investigations the Office has access to any relevant information held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies. It is necessary, as suggested by the Commission evaluation, to clarify that this access should be possible irrespective of the type of medium on which this information or data is stored, in order to reflect evolving technological progress. [Am. 9] |
|
(25) |
For a more coherent framework for the investigations of the Office, the rules applicable to internal and external investigations should be further aligned, in order to address certain inconsistencies identified by the Commission evaluation, where divergent rules are not justified. This should be the case, for instance, to provide that reports and recommendations drawn up following an external investigation may be sent to the institution, body, office or agency concerned for it to take appropriate action, as is the case in internal investigations. Where possible in acordance with its mandate, the Office should support the institution, body, office or agency concerned in the follow-up to its recommendations. To further ensure cooperation between the Office and institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, the Office should inform, where necessary, the Union institution, body, office or agency concerned when it decides not to open an external investigation, for instance when a Union institution, body, office or agency was the source of the initial information. |
|
(26) |
The Office should dispose of the necessary means to follow the money trail in order to uncover the modus operandi typical of many fraudulent conducts. Today, it is able to obtain banking information relevant for its investigative activity held by credit institutions in a number of Member States, through cooperation with and assistance by the national authorities. To ensure an effective approach throughout the Union, the Regulation should specify the duty of competent national authorities to provide information on bank and payments accounts to the Office, as part of their general duty to assist it. This cooperation should, as a rule, take place through the Financial Intelligence Units in the Member States. When giving this assistance to the Office, the national authorities should act in compliance with the relevant provisions of procedural law provided for in the national legislation of the Member State concerned. |
|
(26a) |
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. [Am. 10] |
|
(26b) |
This Regulation shall establish a complaints mechanism for the Office 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 cover in particular 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. [Am. 11] |
|
(27) |
The early transmission of information by the Office for the purpose of adopting precautionary measures is an essential tool for the protection of the Union's financial interests. In order to ensure close cooperation in this regard between the Office and the institutions, offices, bodies and agencies of the Union, it is appropriate that the latter have the possibility to consult at any time the Office with a view to deciding on any appropriate precautionary measures, including measures for the safeguarding of evidence. |
|
(28) |
Reports drawn up by the Office constitute today admissible evidence in administrative or judicial proceedings in the same way and under the same conditions as administrative reports drawn up by national administrative inspectors. The Commission evaluation found that in some Member States this rule does not sufficiently ensure the effectiveness of the Office’s activities. To increase the effectiveness and the consistent use of reports of the Office, the Regulation should provide for the admissibility of such reports in judicial proceedings of a non-criminal nature before national courts, as well as in administrative proceedings in the Member States. The rule providing for equivalence with the reports of national administrative inspectors should continue to apply in the case of national judicial proceedings of a criminal nature. The Regulation should also provide for the admissibility of the reports drawn up by the Office in administrative and judicial proceedings at Union level. |
|
(29) |
The mandate of the Office includes the protection of revenues to the Union budget arising from VAT own resources. In this field, the Office should be able to support and complement the activities of the Member States through investigations conducted in accordance with its mandate, the coordination of national competent authorities in complex, transnational cases, and the support and assistance to Member States and to the EPPO. To this end, the Office should be able to exchange information through the Eurofisc network established by Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 (9) , bearing in mind the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10) in order to promote and facilitate cooperation in the fight against VAT fraud. [Am. 12] |
|
(30) |
The anti-fraud coordination services of the Member States were introduced by Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 to facilitate an effective cooperation and exchange of information, including information of an operational nature, between the office and the Member States. The evaluation concluded they have positively contributed to the work of the Office. It also identified the need to further clarify their role in order to ensure that the Office is provided with the necessary assistance to ensure that its investigations are effective, while leaving the organisation and powers of the anti-fraud coordination services to each Member State. In this regard, the anti-fraud coordination services should be able to provide, obtain or coordinate the necessary assistance to the Office to carry out its tasks effectively, before, during or at the end of an external or internal investigation. |
|
(31) |
The duty of the Office to provide the Member States with assistance in order to coordinate their action for the protection of the financial interests of the Union is a key element of its mandate to support cross-border cooperation among the Member States. More detailed rules should be laid down in order to facilitate the coordinating activities of the Office and its cooperation in this context with Member States' authorities, third countries and international organisations. These rules should be without prejudice to the exercise by the Office of powers conferred on the Commission in specific provisions governing mutual assistance between Member States' administrative authorities and cooperation between those authorities and the Commission, in particular to Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 (11). |
|
(32) |
Furthermore, it should be possible for the Office to request the assistance of the anti-fraud coordination services in the context of coordination activities, as well as for the anti-fraud coordination services to cooperate among themselves, in order to further reinforce the available mechanisms for cooperation in the fight against fraud. |
|
(32a) |
The competent authorities of the Member States shall give the necessary assistance to the Office to fulfil their tasks. When the Office makes judicial recommendations to the national prosecution authorities of a Member State and no follow-up is made, the Member State should justify its decision to the Office. Once a year, the Office should draw up a report in order to give an account of the assistance provided by the Member States and on the follow-up of the judicial recommendations. [Am. 13] |
|
(32b) |
In order to supplement the procedural rules on the conduct of investigations set out in this Regulation, the Office should lay down the procedural code for investigations to be followed by the staff of the Office. Therefore, the power to adopt acts in accordance with Article 290 TFEU should be delegated to the Commission concerning the establishment of such a procedural code, without prejudice to the Office's independence in the exercise of its competences. Those delegated acts should cover, in particular, the practices to be observed in implementing the mandate and statute of the Office; detailed rules governing investigation procedures as well as the investigation acts permitted; the legitimate rights of the persons concerned; procedural guarantees; provisions relating to data protection and policies on communication and access to documents; provisions on the legality check and the means of redress open to the persons concerned; relations with the EPPO. It is of particular importance that the Office carry out appropriate consultations during its preparatory work, including at expert level. The Commission should ensure a simultaneous, timely and appropriate transmission of relevant documents to the European Parliament and to the Council. [Am. 14] |
|
(32c) |
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 should evaluate the application of this Regulation and in particular the efficiency of the cooperation between the Office and the EPPO. [Am. 15] |
|
(33) |
Since the objective of this Regulation to strengthen the protection of the financial interests of the Union by adapting the operation of the Office to the establishment of the EPPO and by enhancing the effectiveness of the investigations by the Office cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States, but can rather be better achieved at Union level through the adoption of rules governing the relationship between two Union offices and increasing the effectiveness in the conduct of investigations by the Office across the Union, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to step up the fight against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. |
|
(34) |
This Regulation does not modify the powers and responsibilities of the Member States to take measures to combat fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. |
|
(35) |
The European Data Protection Supervisor was consulted in accordance with Article 28(2) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (12) and delivered an opinion on … (13). |
|
(36) |
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 should therefore be amended accordingly, |
HAVE ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:
Article 1
Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 is amended as follows:
|
(-1) |
in Article 1, the introductory part of paragraph 1 is replaced by the following: ‘1. In order to step up the fight against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity or irregularity affecting the financial interests of the European Union and of the European Atomic Energy Community (hereinafter referred to collectively, when the context so requires, as “the Union”), the European Anti-Fraud Office established by Decision 1999/352/EC, ECSC, Euratom (“the Office”) shall exercise the powers of investigation conferred on the Commission by:’ [Am. 16] |
|
(-1a) |
in Article 1, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following: ‘2. The Office shall provide the Member States with assistance from the Commission in organising close and regular cooperation between their competent authorities in order to coordinate their action aimed at protecting the financial interests of the Union against fraud. The Office shall contribute to the design and development of methods of preventing and combating fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity or irregularity affecting the financial interests of the Union. The Office shall promote and coordinate, with and among the Member States, the sharing of operational experience and best procedural practices in the field of the protection of the financial interests of the Union, and shall support joint anti-fraud actions undertaken by Member States on a voluntary basis.’ [Am. 17] |
|
(-1b) |
in Article 1, point d of paragraph 3 is replaced by the following:
|
|
(-1c) |
in Article 1, point da is added to paragraph 3:
|
|
(-1d) |
in Article 1, paragraph 4 is replaced by the following: ‘4. Within the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies established by, or on the basis of, the Treaties (“institutions, bodies, offices and agencies”), and without prejudice to Article 12d, the Office shall conduct administrative investigations for the purpose of fighting fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity or irregularity affecting the financial interests of the Union. To that end, it shall investigate serious matters relating to the discharge of professional duties constituting a dereliction of the obligations of officials and other servants of the Union liable to result in disciplinary or, as the case may be, criminal proceedings, or an equivalent failure to discharge obligations on the part of members of institutions and bodies, heads of offices and agencies or staff members of institutions, bodies, offices or agencies not subject to the Staff Regulations (hereinafter collectively referred to as “officials, other servants, members of institutions or bodies, heads of offices or agencies, or staff members”).’ [Am. 20] |
|
(1) |
in Article 1, the following paragraph is inserted: ‘4a. The Office shall establish and maintain a close relationship with the European Public Prosecutor's Office (“the EPPO”) established in enhanced cooperation by Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 (14). This relationship shall be based on mutual cooperation , complementarity, avoidance of duplication and on information exchange. It shall aim in particular to ensure that all available means are used to protect the Union’s financial interests through the complementarity of their respective mandates and the support provided by the Office to the EPPO. [Am. 21] Cooperation between the Office and the EPPO shall be governed by Articles 12c to 12f’. |
|
(1a) |
in Article 1, paragraph 5 is replaced by the following: ‘5. For the application of this Regulation, competent authorities of the Member States and institutions, bodies, offices or agencies may establish administrative arrangements with the Office. Those administrative arrangements may concern, in particular, the transmission of information, the conduct and the follow-up of investigations.’ [Am. 22] |
|
(1b) |
in Article 2, point (2) is replaced by the following: ‘(2) “irregularity” shall mean “irregularity” as defined in Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, including infringements affecting revenue from value-added tax;’ [Am. 23] |
|
(1c) |
in Article 2, point (3) is replaced by the following: ‘(3) “fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity or irregularity affecting the financial interests of the Union” shall have the meaning applied to those words in the relevant Union acts;’ [Am. 24] |
|
(2) |
in Article 2, point (4) is replaced by the following: ‘(4) “administrative investigations” (“investigations”) shall mean any inspection, check or other measure undertaken by the Office in accordance with Articles 3 and 4, with a view to achieving the objectives set out in Article 1 and to establishing, where necessary, the irregular nature of the activities under investigation; those investigations shall not affect the powers of the EPPO or of the competent authorities of the Member States to initiate criminal proceedings.’; |
|
(2a) |
in Article 2, point (5) is replaced by the following: ‘(5) “person concerned” shall mean any person or economic operator suspected of having committed fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity or irregularity affecting the financial interests of the Union and who is therefore subject to investigation by the Office;’ [Am. 25] |
|
(2b) |
in Article 2, the following point is inserted: ‘(7a) “member of an institution” means a member of the European Parliament, a member of the European Council, a representative of a Member State at ministerial level in the Council, a member of the European Commission, a member of the Court of Justice of the European Union, a member of the Governing Council of the European Central Bank or a member of the Court of Auditors, as appropriate.’ [Am. 26] |
|
(2c) |
in Article 2, the following point is inserted: ‘(7b) “the same facts” means that material facts are identical, with material facts being understood in the sense of the existence of a set of concrete circumstances which are inextricably linked together and which in their totality may establish elements of a delict investigation which is in competence of the Office or the EPPO.’ [Am. 27] |
|
(3) |
Article 3 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 3 External investigations On-the-spot checks and inspections in the Member States and third countries [Am. 28] 1. Within the scope defined in Article 1 and points (1) and (3) of Article 2, the Office shall carry out on-the-spot checks and inspections in the Member States and, in accordance with the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements and any other legal instrument in force, in third countries and on the premises of international organisations. [Am. 29] 2. On-the-spot checks and inspections shall be conducted in accordance with this Regulation and, to the extent that a matter is not covered by this Regulation, with Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96. 3. Economic operators shall cooperate with the Office in the course of its investigations. The Office may request oral information, including through interviews, and written information from economic operators in accordance with point (b) of Article 4(2) . [Am. 30] 4. The Office shall conduct on-the-spot checks and inspections upon production of a written authorisation, as provided for in Article 7(2) of this Regulation and Article 6(1) of Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/1996. It shall inform the economic operator concerned of the procedure applicable to the check, including the applicable procedural safeguards, and the duty to cooperate of the economic operator concerned. 5. In the exercise of these powers, the Office shall comply with the procedural guarantees provided for in this Regulation and in Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96. In the conduct of an on-the-spot check and inspection, the economic operator concerned shall have the right not to make self-incriminating statements and to be assisted by a person of choice. When making statements during the on the spot checks, the economic operator shall be provided with the possibility to use any of the official languages of the Member State where he is located. The right to be assisted by a person of choice shall not prevent access by the Office to the premises of the economic operator, and shall not unduly delay the start of the check. 6. At the request of the Office, the competent authority of the Member State concerned shall , without undue delay, provide the staff of the Office with the assistance needed in order to carry out their tasks effectively, as specified in the written authorisation referred to in Article 7(2). [Am. 31] The Member State concerned shall ensure, in accordance with Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96, that the staff of the Office are allowed access to all information, and documents and data relating to the matter under investigation which prove necessary in order for the on-the-spot checks and inspection to be carried out effectively and efficiently, and that they are able to assume custody of documents or data to ensure that there is no danger of their disappearance. Where privately owned devices are used for work purposes, those devices shall be subject to investigations by the Office only if the Office has good grounds to suspect that their content may be relevant for the investigation. [Am. 32] 7. Where the economic operator concerned submits to an on-the-spot check and inspection authorised pursuant to this Regulation, Article 2(4) of Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2988/95 and the third subparagraph of Article 6(1) and Article 7(1) of Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 shall not apply, insofar as those provisions require compliance with national law and may restrict access to information and documentation by the Office to the conditions applying to national administrative inspectors. Where the staff of the Office finds that an economic operator resists an on-the-spot check or inspection authorised pursuant to this Regulation, the Member State concerned shall afford them the necessary assistance of law enforcement authorities so as to enable the Office to conduct its on-the-spot check or inspection effectively and without undue delay. When providing assistance in accordance with this paragraph or with paragraph 6, the competent national authorities shall act in conformity with national procedural rules applicable to the competent national authority concerned. If that assistance requires authorisation from a judicial authority in accordance with national law, such authorisation shall be applied for. 7a. Where it is demonstrated that a Member State does not comply with its duty to cooperate pursuant to paragraphs 6 and 7, the Union shall have the right to recover the amount related to the on-the-spot-check or inspection in question. [Am. 33] 8. As part of its investigative function, the Office shall carry out the checks and inspections provided for in Article 9(1) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95 and in the sectoral rules referred to in Article 9(2) of that Regulation in the Member States and, in accordance with the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements and any other legal instrument in force, in third countries and on the premises of international organisations. 9. During an external investigation, the Office may have access to any relevant information and data, irrespective of the medium on which it is stored, held by the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, connected with the matter under investigation, where necessary in order to establish whether there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union. For that purpose Article 4(2) and (4) shall apply. [Am. 34] 10. Without prejudice to Article 12c(1), where, before a decision has been taken whether or not to open an external investigation, the Office handles information which suggests that there has been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union, it may inform the competent authorities of the Member States concerned and, where necessary, the institutions, bodies, offices and agencies concerned. Without prejudice to the sectoral rules referred to in Article 9(2) of Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2988/95, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall ensure that appropriate action is taken, in which the Office may take part, in compliance with national law. Upon request, the competent authorities of the Member States concerned shall inform the Office of the action taken and of their findings on the basis of information as referred to in the first subparagraph of this paragraph.’; [Am. 35] |
|
(4) |
Article 4 is amended as follows:
|
|
(5) |
Article 5 is amended as follows:
|
|
(6) |
Article 7 is amended as follows:
|
|
(7) |
Article 8 is amended as follows:
|
|
(8) |
Article 9 is amended as follows:
|
|
(8a) |
Article 9a is inserted: ‘Article 9a Controller of procedural guarantees 1. A Controller of procedural guarantees (“the Controller”) shall be appointed by the Commission, in accordance with the procedure specified in paragraph 2, for a non-renewable term of five years. On expiry of his term, he shall remain in office until he is replaced. 2. Following a call for applications in the Official Journal of the European Union, the Commission shall draw up a list of suitably qualified candidates for the positions of the Controller. After consultation with the European Parliament and the Council, the Commission shall appoint the Controller. 3. The Controller shall have the necessary qualifications and experience in the field of procedural rights and guarantees. 4. The Controller shall exercise his functions in complete independence and shall neither seek nor take instructions from anyone in the performance of his duties. 5. The Controller shall monitor the Office's compliance with procedural rights and guarantees. He shall be responsible of handling the complaint received by the Office. 6. The Controller shall report on the exercise of this function on an annual basis, to the European Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the Supervisory Committee and the Office. He shall not refer to individual cases under investigation and shall ensure the confidentiality of investigations even after their closure.’ [Am. 76] |
|
(8b) |
Article 9b is inserted: ‘Article 9b Complaints mechanism 1. The Office shall, in cooperation with the Controller, 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 without delay, but at the latest within two months 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 Controller’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.’ [Am. 77] |
|
(9) |
Article 10 is amended as follows:
|
|
(10) |
Article 11 is amended as follows:
|
|
(10a) |
After Article 11, a new article is inserted: ‘Article 11a Action before the General Court Any person concerned may bring an action against the Commission for annulment of the investigation report transmitted to the national authorities or to the institutions under Article 11(3) on the grounds of lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties, including violation of the Charter, or misuse of powers.’ [Am. 94] |
|
(11) |
Article 12 is amended as follows:
|
|
(12) |
the following Articles are inserted: ‘Article 12a Anti-fraud coordination services in the Member States 1. Member States shall, for the purposes of this Regulation, designate a service (“the anti-fraud coordination service”) to facilitate effective cooperation and exchange of information, including information of an operational nature, with the Office. Where appropriate, in accordance with national law, the anti-fraud coordination service may be regarded as a competent authority for the purposes of this Regulation. 2. Upon request of the Office, before a decision has been taken as to whether or not to open an investigation, as well as during or after an investigation, the anti-fraud coordination services shall provide, obtain or coordinate the necessary assistance for the Office to carry out its tasks effectively. That assistance shall include in particular the assistance from the national competent authorities provided in accordance with Article 3(6) and (7), Article 7(3) and Article 8(2) and (3). 3. The Office may request the assistance of the anti-fraud coordination services when conducting coordination activities in accordance with Article 12b, including, where appropriate, horizontal cooperation and exchange of information between anti-fraud coordination services. Article 12b Coordination activities 1. Pursuant to Article 1(2), the Office may organise and facilitate cooperation between the competent authorities of the Member States, institutions, bodies, offices and agencies, as well as, in accordance with the cooperation and mutual assistance agreements and any other legal instrument in force, third countries' authorities and international organisations. To this end, the participating authorities and the Office may collect, analyse and exchange information, including operational information. The staff of the Office may accompany competent authorities carrying out investigative activities upon request of those authorities. Article 6, Article 7(6) and (7), Article 8(3) and Article 10 shall apply. 2. The Office may draw up a report on the coordination activities conducted and transmit it, where appropriate, to the competent national authorities and institutions, bodies, offices and agencies concerned. 3. This Article shall apply without prejudice to the exercise by the Office of powers conferred on the Commission in specific provisions governing mutual assistance between Member States' administrative authorities and cooperation between those authorities and the Commission. 3a. The obligations of mutual administrative assistance pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 (18) and Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 (19) shall also apply to coordination activities relating to the European Structural and Investment Funds in accordance with this Article. [Am. 99] 4. The Office may participate in joint investigation teams established in accordance with applicable Union law and exchange in this framework operational information acquired pursuant to this Regulation. Article 12c Reporting to the EPPO of any criminal conduct on which it could exercise its competence 1. The Office shall report to the EPPO without undue delay any criminal conduct in respect of which the EPPO could exercise its competence in accordance with Article 22 and Article 25(2) and (3) Chapter IV of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939. The report shall be sent at any stage as early as possible before or during an investigation of the Office. [Am. 100] 2. The report shall contain, as a minimum, a description of the facts and information known by the office , including an assessment of the damage caused or likely to be caused , where the Office has such information, the possible legal qualification and any available information about potential victims, suspects and any other involved persons. Together with the report, the Office shall transmit to the EPPO any other relevant information on the case in its possession. [Am. 101] 3. The Office shall not be bound to report to the EPPO manifestly unsubstantiated allegations. In cases where the information received by the Office does not include the elements set out in paragraph 2, and there is no investigation of the Office ongoing, the Office may conduct a preliminary evaluation of the allegations. The evaluation shall be carried out expeditiously without delay , and in any case within two months of receipt of the information. In the course of this evaluation, Article 6 and Article 8(2) shall apply. The Office shall refrain from performing any measures that may jeopardise any possible future investigations of the EPPO. [Am. 102] Following this preliminary evaluation, the Office shall report to the EPPO if the conditions set out in paragraph 1 are met. 4. Where the conduct referred to in paragraph 1 comes to light during an investigation by the Office, and the EPPO opens an investigation following the report, the Office shall not continue its investigation into the same facts other than in accordance with Articles 12e or 12f. For the purpose of applying the first subparagraph, the Office shall verify in accordance with Article 12 g(2) via the EPPO's case management system whether the EPPO is conducting an investigation. The Office may request further information from the EPPO. The EPPO shall reply to such a request within 10 working days. 5. The institutions, bodies, offices and agencies may request the Office to conduct a preliminary evaluation of allegations reported to them. For the purposes of those requests, paragraph 3 paragraphs 1 to 4 shall apply mutatis mutandis . The Office shall inform the institution, body, office or agency concerned of the results of the preliminary evaluation, unless providing such information could jeopardise an investigation conducted by the Office or the EPPO. [Am. 103] 6. Where, following the report to the EPPO in accordance with this Article, the Office closes its investigation, Article 9(4) and Article 11 shall not apply. Article 12d Non-duplication of investigations 1. The Director-General shall not open an investigation in accordance with Article 5 , and shall discontinue an ongoing investigation, if the EPPO is conducting an investigation into the same facts, other than in accordance with Articles 12e or 12f. The Director-General shall inform the EPPO about each decision on not opening or discontinuation taken on such grounds. [Am. 104] For the purpose of applying the first subparagraph, the Office shall verify in accordance with Article 12 g(2) via the EPPO's case management system whether the EPPO is conducting an investigation. The Office may request further information from the EPPO. The EPPO shall reply to such a request within 10 working days. This deadline may be extended in exceptional cases subject to modalities to be set out in the working arrangements referred to in Article 12 g(1). [Am. 105] Where the Office closes its investigation in accordance with the first subparagraph, Article 9(4) and Article 11 shall not apply. [Am. 106] 1a. Upon request by the EPPO, the Office shall refrain from performing certain acts or measures which could jeopardise an investigation or prosecution conducted by the EPPO. The EPPO shall notify the Office without undue delay when the grounds for such a request cease to apply. [Am. 107] 1b. Where the EPPO closes or discontinues an investigation on which it had received information from the Director-General pursuant to paragraph 1 and which is relevant to the exercise of the Office's mandate, it shall inform the Office without undue delay and may make recommendations regarding follow-up administrative investigations. [Am. 108] Article 12e The Office's support to the EPPO 1. In the course of an investigation by the EPPO, and at the request of the EPPO in accordance with Article 101(3) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939, the Office shall, in conformity with its mandate, support or complement the EPPO's activity in particular by:
2. A request pursuant to paragraph 1, a request shall be transmitted in writing and shall specify at least:
Where necessary, the Office may request additional information. [Am. 109] 2a. In order to protect the admissibility of evidence as well as fundamental rights and procedural guarantees, where the Office performs supporting or complementary measures at the request of the EPPO pursuant to this Article, the EPPO may instruct the Office to apply higher standards of fundamental rights, procedural guarantees and data protection than provided for in this Regulation. In doing so, it shall specify in detail the formal requirements and procedures to be applied. In the absence of any such specific instructions by the EPPO, Chapter VI (procedural safeguards) and Chapter VIII (data protection) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 shall apply mutatis mutandis to measures performed by the Office pursuant to this Article. [Am. 110] Article 12f Complementary investigations 1. In duly justified cases where the EPPO is conducting an investigation, where the Director-General considers that an investigation should be opened or continued in accordance with the mandate of the Office with a view to facilitating the adoption of precautionary measures or of financial, disciplinary or administrative action, the Office shall inform the EPPO in writing, specifying the nature and purpose of the investigation , and seeking the EPPO’s written consent to the opening of a complementary investigation. [Am. 111] Within 30 20 working days after receipt of this information the EPPO may shall either give its consent or object to the opening or continuation of an investigation or to the performance of any certain acts act pertaining to the investigation, where necessary to avoid jeopardising its own investigation or prosecution, and for as long as these grounds persist. The In duly justified situations, the EPPO may extend the deadline by an additional 10 working days. It shall inform the Office thereof. In the event that the EPPO objects, the Office shall not open a complementary investigation. In that case, the EPPO shall notify to the Office without undue delay when the grounds for the objection cease to apply. [Am. 112] In the event that the EPPO does not object within the time period of the previous subparagraph gives its consent , the Office may open or continue an investigation, and it shall conduct it in close consultation with the EPPO. [Am. 113] If the EPPO does not reply within the deadline in the second subparagraph, the Office may enter into consultations with the EPPO so as to take a decision within 10 days. [Am. 114] The Office shall suspend or discontinue its investigation, or refrain from performing certain acts pertaining to the investigation, if the EPPO subsequently objects to it, on the same grounds as referred to in the second subparagraph. 2. Where the EPPO informs the Office that it is not conducting an investigation in reply to a request for information submitted in accordance with Article 12d and subsequently opens an investigation into the same facts, it shall inform the Office without delay. If, following receipt of this information, the Director-General considers that the investigation opened by the Office should be continued with a view to facilitating the adoption of precautionary measures or of financial, disciplinary or administrative action, paragraph (1) shall apply. Article 12 g Working arrangements and exchange of information with the EPPO 1. Where necessary to facilitate the cooperation with the EPPO as set out in Article 1(4a), the Office shall agree with the EPPO on administrative arrangements. Such working arrangements may establish practical details for the exchange of information, including personal data, operational, strategic or technical information and classified information , as well as the setting up of information technology platforms, including a common approach to upgrades and compatibility of software. They shall include detailed arrangements on the continuous exchange of information during the receipt and verification of allegations for the purpose of determining competences over investigations conducted by both offices. They shall also include arrangements on the transfer of evidence between the Office and the EPPO, as well as arrangements on the division of expenses. Prior to the adoption of the working arrangements with the EPPO, the Director-General shall send the draft to the European Data Protection Supervisor, the Supervisory Committee and the European Parliament for information. The European Data Protection Supervisor and the Supervisory Committee shall deliver their opinions without delay. [Am. 115] 2. The Office shall have indirect access to information in the EPPO's case management system on the basis of a hit/no hit system. Whenever a match is found between data entered into the case management system by the Office and data held by the EPPO, the fact that there is a match shall be communicated to both the EPPO and the Office. The Office shall take appropriate measures to enable the EPPO to have access to information in its case management system on the basis of a hit/no-hit system. Each indirect access to information in the EPPO’s case management system by the Office shall be carried out only in so far as necessary for the performance of the Office’s functions as defined under this Regulation and shall be duly justified and validated via an internal procedure set up by the Office. The Office shall keep a log of all instances of access to the EPPO’s case management system. [Am. 116] 2a. The Director-General of the Office and the European Chief Public Prosecutor shall meet at least once per year to discuss matters of common interest. ’; [Am. 117] |
|
(12a) |
Article 15 is amended as follows:
|
|
(13) |
Article 16 is amended as follows:
|
|
(14) |
Article 17 is amended as follows:
|
|
(14a) |
Article 19 is replaced by the following: ‘Article 19 Evaluation report and revision 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 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. No later than two years after the submission of the evaluation report pursuant to the first subparagraph, the Commission shall submit a legislative proposal to the European Parliament and 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 co-operation with the EPPO, cross-border investigations and investigations in Member States not participating in the EPPO.’ [Am. 139] |
|
(14b) |
A new Article 19a is inserted: ‘Article 19a Exercise of the delegation 1. The power to adopt delegated acts is conferred on the Commission subject to the conditions laid down in this Article. 2. The power to adopt delegated acts referred to in Article 17(8) shall be conferred on the Commission for a period of four years from … (date of entry into force of this Regulation). The Commission shall draw up a report in respect of the delegation of power not later than nine months before the end of the four-year period. The delegation of power shall be tacitly extended for periods of an identical duration, unless the European Parliament or the Council opposes such extension not later than three months before the end of each period. 3. The delegation of power referred to in Article 17(8) may be revoked at any time by the European Parliament or by the Council. A decision to revoke shall put an end to the delegation of the power specified in that decision. It shall take effect the day following the publication of the decision in the Official Journal of the European Union or at a later date specified therein. It shall not affect the validity of any delegated acts already in force. 4. As soon as it adopts a delegated act, the Commission shall notify it simultaneously to the European Parliament and to the Council. 5. A delegated act adopted pursuant to Article 17(8) shall enter into force only if no objection has been expressed either by the European Parliament or the Council within a period of two months of notification of that act to the European Parliament and the Council or if, before the expiry of that period, the European Parliament and the Council have both informed the Commission that they will not object. That period shall be extended by two months at the initiative of the European Parliament or of the Council.’ [Am. 140] |
Article 2
1. This Regulation shall enter into force on the twentieth day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.
2. Articles 12c to 12f referred to in point 12 in Article 1 shall apply from the date determined in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 120(2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1939.
This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
Done at
For the European Parliament
The President
For the Council
The President
(2) Position of the European Parliament of 16 April 2019.
(3) Directive (EU) 2017/1371 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 July 2017 on the fight against fraud to the Union's financial interests by means of criminal law (OJ L 198, 28.7.2017, p. 29).
(4) Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (‘the EPPO’) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1).
(5) Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999 (OJ L 248, 18.9.2013, p. 1).
(6) COM(2017)0589. The report was accompanied by an evaluation Staff Working Document, SWD(2017)0332, and an Opinion of the Office's Supervisory Committee, Opinion 2/2017.
(7) Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities, OJ L 292, 15.11.1996, p. 2
(8) Article 129 will be inserted in Regulation (EU) 2018/XX of the European Parliament and the Council (new Financial Regulation), on which a political agreement has been reached and which is expected to be adopted in the coming months.
(9) Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax, OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1.
(10) Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data by the Union institutions, bodies, offices and agencies and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 and Decision No 1247/2002/EC (OJ L 295, 21.11.2018, p. 39).
(11) Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters, OJ L 82, 22.3.1997, p. 1.
(12) Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2000 on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data by the Community institutions and bodies and on the free movement of such data (OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1).
(13) OJ C ….
(14) Council Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 of 12 October 2017 implementing enhanced cooperation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the EPPO”) (OJ L 283, 31.10.2017, p. 1).
(15) Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money laundering or terrorist financing, amending Regulation (EU) No 648/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council, and repealing Directive 2005/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Directive 2006/70/EC (OJ L 141, 5.6.2015, p. 73).
(16) Article 32a(3) will be inserted in Directive (EU) 2015/849 by Directive (EU) 2018/XX of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive (EU) 2015/849, on which a political agreement has been reached on 19 December 2017 and which is expected to be adopted in the coming months.
(17) Council Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 of 7 October 2010 on administrative cooperation and combating fraud in the field of value added tax (OJ L 268, 12.10.2010, p. 1).
(18) Council Regulation (EC) No 515/97 of 13 March 1997 on mutual assistance between the administrative authorities of the Member States and cooperation between the latter and the Commission to ensure the correct application of the law on customs and agricultural matters (OJ L 082, 22.3.1997, p. 1).
(19) Regulation (EU) No 608/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 concerning customs enforcement of intellectual property rights and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003 (OJ L 181, 29.6.2013, p. 15).