By Martin Banks - 17th September 2009
Such a narrow understanding of Olaf's mandate could have the effect that it would not be able to fully live up to its task of fighting fraud
Nikiforos Diamandouros
Olaf, the EU anti-fraud agency, has been asked to rethink its decision not to probe alleged irregularities in the financing of parliamentary buildings.
The Strasbourg-based European ombudsman Nikiforos Diamandouros has made two recommendations to parliament and Olaf concerning the financing of the Willy Brandt, József Antall and Altiero Spinelli buildings in Brussels and whether they should have been subject to a public tender procedure.
The Greek official has also asked parliament to deal with a complainant's request for access to documents related to the financing of two of the buildings.
The ombudsman has asked parliament and Olaf to submit detailed opinions by the end of next month.
The case dates back to November 2006 when the complainant, a journalist, asked parliament for access to a number of documents relating to the financing of the Willy Brandt and József Antall buildings.
Previously, the parliamentary authorities had told the ombudsman that they could not grant access, arguing that some of the requested documents were held by the private developer of the buildings.
Other documents, such as a report prepared by a consulting firm, could not be disclosed because they contained confidential commercial information, it said.
In his recommendation, the ombudsman has now called on parliament to clarify its statements concerning the legal framework for the financing of the two buildings.
He also asked the institution to give access to the report of the consulting firm, the call for tender and the list of banks contacted by the developer, or to give "convincing explainations for not doing so."
Parliament agreed to pay a company for services relating to the financing of the building's acquisition without publishing a call for tender concerning these services.
Olaf opened an investigation and closed the case in 2006, without recommending any further follow up.
In May 2007, the complainant turned to the ombudsman, alleging that Olaf's had failed to examine properly whether a call for tender should have been published.
Olaf stated that no clear-cut irregularity had been established which could give rise to disciplinary or criminal proceedings and there was no need for an in-depth investigation.
The ombudsman was not convinced, saying, "Such a narrow understanding of Olaf's mandate could have the effect that it would not be able to fully live up to its task of fighting fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the EU."
He has called on Olaf to reconsider the result of its investigation.
Have your say...
Please enter your comments below.