221/1999 (Agence Europe)
On Thursday, the Parliament finally managed to obtain the majority required (absolute majority of its members) to amend its Regulation in order to be able to apply the interinstitutional agreement of 25 May on internal inquiries carried out by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The debate and the vote in plenary were held after strong protest, mainly from Olivier Dupuis and Gianfranco Dell'Alba, for the emergency procedure requested, and granted, for discussion of the report on this subject by Giorgio Napolitano (Democratici di sinistra), Chair of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs. The EP therefore approved by 406 votes in favour (far more than the 314 required), 61 against and 21 abstentions, the inclusion of a new Article in its Regulation stipulating that the common system foreseen in the interinstitutional agreement of 25 May "comprising the necessary measures to facilitate the smooth unfolding of inquiries carried out by the Office, is applicable within Parliament".
The text of the interinstitutional agreement is already applied by the Commission and by the Council, and was published in the Official Journal on 31 May, stated Giorgio Napolitano during the debate. He recalled that the constitutional committee had amended certain aspects of its initial report, at the initiative of the "main political group" in Parliament (the EPP Group), which had expressed reserve during the previous plenary session). These amendments attribute a "particular role" to the president of the Parliament, to whom eventual information on MEPs should be addressed, stressed Mr Napolitano, who added that an amendment by the German Christian Democrats, Mr Nassauer and Mr Brok, introduces the right of MEPs not to give evidence. This later strengthens the guarantees which are already clearly included in the Protocol on privileges and immunities, noted Mr Napolitano, who specified that he was, for his part, opposed to amendments tending to "alter the interinstitutional agreement: in this case, it would
have been necessary to ask the Parliament president to solicit renegotiation of the agreement.
Mr Mendez de Vigo (EPP, Spain) felt a reasonable solution had been found to this tricky problem, and Austrian Social Democrat Mr Bösch, rapporteur on OLAF, expressed himself along the same lines, while noting that the "protection" enjoyed by MEPs is more than that allowed for European Commissioners. The fact that, in matters involving MEPs, officials must address the Parliament president directly rather than OLAF, means, he believed, there are risks of "intimidation" of officials concerning the controversial question of "whistle-blowers". If we approve this report, which is very important for restoring public trust, only MEPs would be "above the law", exclaimed British Labour member Mr Corbett (with or without the report, the MEPs will never be above the law, replied German Christian Democrat Mr Brok). The Liberal Group may also approve this "fair regime", declared Mr Duff. On the other hand, Austrian Green member Mr Voggenhuber, though taking a stance in favour of an effective fight against fraud, was highl
y critical of the "obligation to denounce" and the opening of procedures against MEPs following simple "assumptions", in the vague conditions which, in his view, open the road to every kind of abuse.
The decision adopted by the Parliament on the conditions and arrangements for the internal OLAF inquiries specifies in its article on "the information obligation" that any Parliament official or agent who acquires the knowledge of elements allowing him to suspect the existence of possible cases of fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity, or serious facts pointing to a failure to comply with the obligations of officials and agents, should inform his heads of service or director general without delay, or, if it is a question of failure to comply with the similar obligations of MEPs, the president of the European Parliament should be informed".
