Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-05-16-Speech-2-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000516.4.2-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, the fight against fraud and protecting the financial interests of the Community are among the top priorities of the new Commission. The fight against fraud includes activities such as preventing, uncovering and prosecuting customs and subsidy fraud or tax evasion, as well, of course, as uncovering and prosecuting irregularities within the institutions of the European Union. But I am most pleased that numerous contributions to the debate have stated that we need to make a distinction between financial irregularity and fraud. When we talk of the Court of Auditors’ report, this covers the whole spectrum of financial irregularities. We are talking here of the UCLAF or OLAF report on fraud, i.e. deliberate damage to the financial interests of the European Union.
I should like to comment briefly on the complaints filed by the Commission against the European Central Bank and the European Investment Bank. The aim is to implement precisely what was introduced into the OLAF regulation by the European Parliament, namely that OLAF is responsible for fighting fraud in all the institutions of the European Community. Unfortunately, neither bank has made a move over recent weeks. They too have probably been waiting for the outcome of the litigation pending as the result of the proceedings instituted by a number of members against the amendment of the European Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. I think that the summary procedures of the Court of First Instance have in fact made it clear that what is at issue is not the legal bases for OLAF – in this respect neither bank can withdraw or hide behind this – the issue is, of course, the need to safeguard the independence of the institutions. Not that this was ever disputed for the European Central Bank. Of course, the other issue is that it needs to be made clear that the immunity of members is a democratic achievement and cannot be interfered with under any circumstances.
I should like to thank you for calling for account to be taken of the principles of the rule of law in all procedures, including the work of OLAF. I think that the new director of OLAF defends this view very vigorously, including in a personal capacity.
We shall have the opportunity of debating other reports on the subject of fighting fraud this year. The OLAF Supervisory Committee, which monitors the independence of OLAF, will soon submit its report, which we shall also have the opportunity to debate. I should point out that the Commission is currently working on a fundamental strategy paper on the fight against fraud. This too will certainly lead to further intensive and fruitful debate.
I should like to thank the rapporteur, Mr Bösch, for his report and, above all, I should also like to thank the House for supporting the introduction and the work of OLAF so unwaveringly.
The report before you, which is the subject of Mr Bösch’s report, is the last report drawn up by UCLAF on the fight against fraud in 1998. Although UCLAF only had 120 employees at the time, this annual report illustrates the considerable success of their work, in my view. There were 5,318 cases of suspicion of irregularity or fraud investigated by UCLAF in 1998, in cooperation with the Member States, and around 20% of these cases were classed as fraud following the investigation.
I should also point out in connection with the question as to why the findings in the Court of Auditors’ report are different, that it has been ascertained that the number of irregularities is falling in the area of agricultural policy, while it is clearly highlighted here that regulations as to which cases of fraud or suspicion must be reported to the Commission differ from one Member State to another, and this explains the difference between the two reports.
Mr Blak stated in his speech that the citizens of the European Union are sick and tired of fraud. Unfortunately, I must point out that duty- or tax-free cigarettes still sell like hot cakes and tax evasion is often regarded as a national pastime. In this respect, we face a situation in which we must acknowledge that we cannot completely eradicate fraud which damages the European Union's financial interests. We must of course do everything within our power to fight customs offences and offences in connection with subsidies and taxation which damage the Community’s financial interests.
I should like briefly to go into the individual proposals in the Bösch report which now come within a wider context; this applies, for example, to the proposal on disciplinary procedures or the chamber at the European Court of Auditors. The Commission explained in its statements on Parliament’s demands in connection with the 1998 discharge procedure that it did not think that the right way forward was to call in a chamber of the Court of Auditors or the Court of Justice to issue orders in disciplinary proceedings against employees on the grounds of irregularities in connection with the budget, because the European Treaties had granted each of these bodies its own specific remit. It is precisely the European Court of Justice to which employees can take recourse if they wish to appeal against a judgement in disciplinary proceedings. As a result, such a move cannot be reconciled with the present Treaties. The Commission therefore decided to take up the proposals contained in last year’s independent experts’ report, which are extremely comprehensive and relate to overall financial management, fraud prevention and disciplinary procedures. The Commission explained that it also shared Parliament’s view that confidence in the objectivity of disciplinary proceedings would be enhanced by involving an outside agency. It explained this in its White Paper tabled on 1 March and will also make detailed proposals on reforming disciplinary law in the paper on the overall future disciplinary procedure to be published by the Commission in October. Naturally we shall include Parliament’s considerations in the overall procedure and in our proposals during discussions.
It was rightly pointed out in numerous debates and in the report that good cooperation and the involvement of the Member States are essential if the fight against fraud to the detriment of the financial interests of the European Community is to be efficient. Article 280 of the Amsterdam Treaty also makes this clear. The complaint was also rightly voiced that the corresponding agreement between the Member States has only been ratified by a few Member States. I should like to thank all the speakers who wrote home calling for the necessary steps to be taken at long last. OLAF, the European Anti-Fraud Office, is itself working intensively with the Member States and, in certain areas, with other countries, in order to conclude cooperation agreements. Since the UCLAF report was filed, the European Anti-Fraud Office OLAF has succeeded, for example, in concluding an agreement with the Anti-Mafia in Italy, the aim being to achieve good cooperation at all levels and with all organisations dedicated to fighting fraud. A conference on this subject is to be held in Ancona at the end of the week.
The Commission welcomes the fact that some enlargement countries are already taking steps to set up and activate structures similar to those set up by the European Anti-Fraud Office. In Poland, for example, it has been decided to set up a Polish OLAF.
I should like briefly to go into the subject of “What happens next in the legislative area?” and point out that the Commission has proposed for the Intergovernmental Conference, which is responsible for revising the Treaties, that the present system for protecting the financial interests be supplemented by a legal basis creating a European Public Prosecutor and allowing provisions on the criminal prosecution of cross-border fraud to be adopted.
The Member States have indicated that they will not amend the Treaty in this area. However, the Commission does not intend to give up on this and we are continuing to refine this proposal and will ensure that it is on the agenda of the Intergovernmental Conference."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples