{"id":7804,"date":"2021-03-04T13:01:22","date_gmt":"2021-03-04T13:01:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eulawenforcement.com\/?p=7804"},"modified":"2021-11-16T17:23:49","modified_gmt":"2021-11-16T16:23:49","slug":"olaf-a-balancing-act-between-different-systems-of-control","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eulawenforcement.com\/?p=7804","title":{"rendered":"OLAF \u2013 A balancing act between different systems of control"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Tessa, Sophie, Martina & Desislava<\/i><\/span><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Complex multi-level structures governed by different jurisdictions require sophisticated systems of control<\/a>. The Office Europ\u00e9en de Lutte Antifraude (OLAF) is a prime example of such a structure, especially if we consider the plethora of regulations, decisions and national legislation that set its boundaries during its investigations of fraud related to EU expenditures, EU revenues and EU staff<\/a>. OLAF can carry out interviews, production orders and on-the spot checks, either at EU institutions or bodies\u2019 premises or at business premises. These are intrusive powers of investigations of OLAF, which interfere with individuals\u2019 fundamental rights (e.g. right to privacy, right to liberty), and demand the existence of various mechanisms to ensure control<\/a>. Fundamental rights\u2019 standards need to be guaranteed to individuals, while also legal protection through judicial control is to be afforded. This becomes even more important when considering that conclusive reports of OLAF\u2019s inspections serve then as the basis for follow-up action either at the EU or Member States\u2019 level.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, it is important to keep in mind that providing for control in any possible way may also hinder independence and effectiveness. We believe that in the end it all comes down to ensuring a balance of different control mechanisms which can remedy each other\u2019s shortcomings. The case of OLAF will show that, for example, de facto<\/em> control may compensate for a lack of de jure<\/em> control, while new safeguards on procedural and fundamental rights even have the potential to counterbalance for missing judicial accountability. However, finding the right balance of control mechanisms remains a walk on the tightrope.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n