PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Europaudvalget 2012-13
KOM (2013) 0532 Bilag 1
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 17.7.2013

COM(2013) 533 final

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN

PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL

COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Improving OLAF's governance and reinforcing procedural safeguards in investigations:

A step-by-step approach to accompany the establishment of the European Public

Prosecutor's Office

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT,

THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

Improving OLAF's governance and reinforcing procedural safeguards in investigations: A

step-by-step approach to accompany the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's

Office

1. Introduction:

The European Anti-Fraud Office was set up on 28 April 1999 by a Commission Decision to

enhance the effectiveness of action to combat fraud and other illegal activities detrimental to the

Community's interests. Council Regulation (EC) n° 1073/1999, Council Regulation (EURATOM)

n°1074/1999 and the Inter-institutional Agreement of 25 May 1999 stipulate how OLAF should

carry out investigations.

The Inter-institutional Agreement between the European Parliament, the Council and the

Commission legally guarantees that internal investigations can be carried out under equivalent

conditions in the three institutions and in all the other Community bodies, offices and agencies.

OLAF’s external investigative powers are mainly those that were conferred upon the Commission

under Regulations (EC, Euratom) Nos 2988/95 (protection of the European Communities' financial

interests) and 2185/96 (on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order

to protect the European Communities’ financial interests). OLAF also works on the basis of

Regulation (EC) 515/97 on mutual administrative assistance.

Since the creation of OLAF, the protection of the financial interests of the Union has been

strengthened. Experience gained over time showed that the governance of OLAF needed to be

reinforced. Two legislative proposals were put forward by the Commission, the first in 2004 and the

second in 2006. Both proposals were designed to reinforce the procedural guarantees applicable in

OLAF investigations, as the regulatory framework of 1999 was almost silent on this issue.

2. The revised OLAF Regulation

On the basis of the Commission’s proposal of March 2011, and after intensive negotiations, a

compromise on the revised OLAF Regulation was approved (unanimously) on 25 February 2013

by the Council and on 3 July 2013 by the European Parliament

The revised regulation is designed to strengthen the governance of OLAF, reinforcing procedural

rights in internal and external investigations and OLAF's exchange of information both with the

institutions and with the Member States’ authorities.

3. Envisaged measures in order to further consolidate the legal framework

The establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office will bring about a substantial change

in the way investigations concerning fraud and other illegal activities affecting the financial

interests of the European Union are carried out in the Union.

In future, each time suspicions about criminal conduct falling within the remit of the European

Public Prosecutor’s Office arise, the ensuing investigations will be conducted by the European

Public Prosecutor’s Office as a

judicial

body, rather than – as today – by OLAF which carries out

Position no 2/2013 of the Council at first reading adopted on 25/02/2013, OJ C 89 E/27.03.2013.

P7_TA(2013)0308.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

administrative

investigations. This change will of course entail a substantial reinforcement of the

procedural guarantees for the persons concerned by the investigations.

Under the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation, whenever the European

Public Prosecutor’s Office opens an investigation all the reinforced procedural guarantees typical of

judicial investigations will apply. Thus where it intends to carry out investigations vis-à-vis a

member of staff of an EU institution, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will have to request

the institution to lift the immunity of the individual(s) to be investigated in accordance with

Protocol N° 7 of the Treaties (see also Article 19 of the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s

Office Regulation). These provisions would also apply to members of the Institutions, including the

immunity of Members of the European Parliament and of Members of the Commission.

Furthermore, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office will carry out its investigative measures in

compliance with Article 26 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office proposal and the detailed

rules of the national criminal law governing the respective measure. For a series of most intrusive

investigative measures as proposed in Article 26 (such as searches and seizures, interceptions of

telecommunications, covert investigations), there will be an EU level harmonised requirement for

the European Public Prosecutor’s Office to obtain a prior judicial authorisation to undertake the

intrusive measure. The investigative measures taken by the European Public Prosecutor’s Office

may be submitted to judicial review by the competent national judge in accordance with the

national rules of criminal procedure (see Article 36 of the proposed European Public Prosecutor’s

Office Regulation). National law may provide for direct judicial protection against an investigative

act, thus allowing swift control of its legality during the investigative phase before a case is brought

to trial.

A consequence of the future establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is that

OLAF's role in relation to possible criminal conduct affecting the EU's financial interests in internal

matters (i.e., in the EU institutions, bodies and agencies of the Union) will be reduced. Once the

European Public Prosecutor’s Office is established OLAF will, in these cases, only provide

preliminary evaluation of allegations reported to it. It will no longer conduct investigations but may

provide assistance to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office on its request (as it already does

today to national prosecutors). This change will facilitate a speedier investigation process and will

help to avoid duplications of administrative and criminal investigations into the same facts. In this

way, the chances of a successful prosecution will be increased.

It is clear that this fundamental shift of approach from

administrative

judicial

investigations will

necessarily entail also a number of changes in the OLAF Regulation. These should come into force

concurrently with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation. The Commission will table

legislative proposals to that effect in due course. In the meantime, the Commission considers it

appropriate to envisage further systemic improvements of the OLAF Regulation, which would

come in addition to those achieved with the current reform. These are inspired by the procedural

safeguards proposed in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation which can be

transposed,

mutatis mutandis,

into OLAF's administrative investigations. Specifically, two key

elements should be considered, namely:

•

creating the office of a "Controller

of procedural safeguards"

to perform a legal review

of investigative measures, and

providing for

enhanced procedural safeguards

where OLAF intends to carry out acts

similar to searches and seizures in EU institutions, bodies, offices and agencies.

The office of a

"Controller of procedural safeguards"

would be administratively attached to the

Commission. The office of the Controller would be expressly endowed with guarantees of complete

independence vis-à-vis OLAF, the Commission and the other EU institutions by the revised OLAF

Regulation. The Controller of procedural safeguards should be appointed by the Commission

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

following a procedure involving the Supervisory Committee, for a term of five years; he/she should

have a judicial background and possess senior legal expertise in the fields of fundamental rights and

criminal law. He/she should be tasked exclusively with the monitoring of compliance with the

procedural guarantees applicable to OLAF investigations and of prompt handling of investigations

to avoid undue delay. He/she should be able to intervene on his/her own motion or upon a

complaint by any person concerned by an investigation. The Controller would be obliged to hear

such complaints in a swift but adversarial procedure. His/her conclusions would not be formally

binding upon the Director-General of OLAF, but OLAF could decide not to follow his/her findings

only by means of a motivated note to be attached to the final report sent to the competent judicial

authorities. The Director-General of OLAF would have a general right to consult the Controller of

procedural safeguards on any matter related to the respect of procedural guarantees and, in

particular, in certain instances where a person concerned must not be informed. The Controller of

procedural safeguards should have the staff necessary for the swift performance of his/her duties.

This new office would not replace the current system of judicial control over OLAF's investigative

action. It would however usefully complement it: individuals concerned by OLAF investigations

would benefit from a new right of recourse, meaning that procedural irregularities allegedly

committed by OLAF would less frequently come to scrutiny by a national judge at the trial stage or

by the General Court in an action for damages. The Controller would monitor compliance in all

investigations carried out independently by OLAF whatever their nature (internal/external,

affectation of the Union’s financial interests or not).

The function of the Controller of procedural safeguards should be clearly distinguished from that of

the OLAF Supervisory Committee, which should continue to exercise its functions as defined in the

currently revised OLAF Regulation. These include monitoring systemic developments regarding

respect of certain conditions (such as procedural rights and reasonable deadlines for handling cases)

without interfering in investigations in progress. To this end, the Controller of procedural

safeguards should periodically give an overview to the Supervisory Committee about his activities.

Second, new

enhanced procedural safeguards

would be introduced for the most intrusive

investigative measures that OLAF is empowered to take in internal investigations, i.e. the power to

inspect offices and to take copies of documents or content of any data medium and take custody of

such documents or data – a power similar to that of "searches and seizures". This is the only

existing power of OLAF that is functionally comparable to the intrusive judicial investigative

measures provided for in Article 26 of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation.

Conversely, OLAF has none of the other intrusive powers of European Public Prosecutor’s Office;

for example it has no power whatsoever to intercept telecommunications.

In developing these enhanced procedural requirements, the Regulation would reflect the objective

difference existing between

staff

of the EU and

members

of its institutions, i.e. members of

European Parliament, the President of the European Council, members of the Commission, Judges

and Advocates-General of the EU courts, members of the Court of Auditors and of the decision-

making bodies of the European Investment Bank and of the European Central Bank. This is justified

given the special responsibilities of these members and their special mode of election or

appointment under the Treaties, which distinguishes them from the staff whose rights and

obligations derive from the Staff Regulations.

Where OLAF intends to make use of its power to inspect offices of

staff

and to take copies of

documents or content of any data medium, it should be obliged to seek the prior opinion of the

Controller of procedural safeguards. Where the Controller has doubts about the proportionality of

the intended measure, OLAF could carry it out only after having stated detailed reasons in a

motivated note to be attached to its final report.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Where OLAF intends to make use of its power to inspect offices of a

member of an EU institution

and to take copies of documents or content of any data medium, it would need to obtain a prior

quasi-judicial authorisation. The role of granting such authorisations to OLAF, on request from its

Director-General, should be entrusted to a person possessing the ability required for appointment to

judicial office, ideally a former judge of the EU Courts. The person should be appointed in a special

inter-institutional procedure for a term set in the Regulation, and work part-time. S/he should be

assisted by the Controller of procedural safeguards and his/her staff.

Conclusion

In sum, the Commission considers that a step-by step approach is the best way to further strengthen

OLAF's governance and enhance procedural safeguards in its investigations.

The Commission welcomes the fact that, as a first step, the revised OLAF Regulation will now

enter into force.

As a second step, the Commission would consider it appropriate to envisage further systemic

improvements of the OLAF Regulation, which are inspired by those procedural safeguards in the

Commission's proposal on establishment of a European Public Prosecutor’s Office that can be

transposed to OLAF's administrative investigations and enacted even before the European Public

Prosecutor’s Office is established. Two such key improvements would be the strengthening of legal

review of investigative measures through the new office of an independent Controller of procedural

safeguards, and enhanced procedural safeguards for acts similar to searches and seizures carried out

by OLAF in the institutions. The Commission will also propose the necessary changes to the OLAF

Regulation resulting from the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office. These

should come into force concurrently with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office Regulation. This

will mean a system change, moving from administrative to judicial investigations, and bring about

substantial changes to the way investigations on fraud and other criminal activities affecting the

EU's financial interests are conducted. It will entail a substantial reinforcement of applicable

procedural safeguards.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

LEGISLATIVE FINANCIAL STATEMENT

FRAMEWORK OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

Title of the proposal/initiative

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the

European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions

“Improving OLAF's governance and reinforcing procedural safeguards in investigations

A step-by-step approach to accompany the establishment of the European Public

Prosecutor's Office”

Policy area(s) concerned in the ABM/ABB structure

Policy area: 24.01. Administrative expenditure of policy area Fight against fraud

Nature of the proposal/initiative

The proposal/initiative relates to

a new action

The proposal/initiative relates to

a new action following a pilot project/preparatory action

X The proposal/initiative relates to

the extension of an existing action

The proposal/initiative relates to

an action redirected towards a new action

Objective(s)

The Commission's multiannual strategic objective(s) targeted by the proposal/initiative

Fight against fraud-Article 325 TFEU

Specific objective(s) and ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

Specific objective No. 7.1.a

ABM/ABB activity(ies) concerned

24.01. Administrative expenditure of policy area Fight against fraud

ABM: activity-based management – ABB: activity-based budgeting.

As referred to in Article 54(2)(a) or (b) of the Financial Regulation.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Expected result(s) and impact

Specify the effects which the proposal/initiative should have on the beneficiaries/groups targeted.

The establishment of a “Controller of procedural safeguards” is expected to lead to:

- Enhanced protection of the procedural rights of persons concerned by OLAF

investigations.

- Increased transparency in internal and external investigations

- Improved monitoring of compliance with the procedural requirements for investigations

- Possibility of intervention on complaint by any person concerned by an OLAF

investigation before the “Controller of procedural safeguards”.

Indicators of results and impact

Specify the indicators for monitoring implementation of the proposal/initiative.

- Prompt handling of complaints without undue delay.

- Organisation of a swift adversarial procedure, independent from OLAF

Grounds for the proposal/initiative

Requirement(s) to be met in the short or long term

The establishment of the “Controller of procedural safeguards” should enhance the respect

of procedural rights of persons concerned by OLAF internal and external investigations

and raise OLAF’s accountability.

Added value of EU involvement

The added value of the “Controller of procedural safeguards” will consist in its ability to

monitor the compliance with the procedural rights provided by the OLAF regulation and to

promptly handle complaints by persons concerned without undue delay. The controller will

ensure that the procedural rights of persons concerned are fully complied with by OLAF.

Lessons learned from similar experiences in the past

The

revised OLAF Regulation

which should enter into force in October 2013 provides

for a set of procedural rights for the persons concerned by OLAF’s internal and external

investigations, as well as for the witnesses.

The Commission has previously introduced in its previous proposal to amend Regulation

No. 1073/1999 on investigations conducted by OLAF- COM (2006)244 final- the concept

of a “Review adviser” and in its 2011 amended proposal – COM (2011)135- the concept a

of “review procedure”. Both proposed functions were designed to ensure a swift control of

the compliance with procedural rights of persons concerned by OLAF investigations.

However, both proposals were not acceptable to the legislator because of difficulties to

reconcile a high degree of independence from OLAF with the need for cost-efficiency and

cost-neutrality.

The Commission suggests now the office of a "Controller of procedural safeguards" would

be administratively attached to the Commission. The office of the Controller would be

expressly endowed with

guarantees of complete independence vis-à-vis OLAF, the

Commission and the other EU institutions

by the revised OLAF Regulation. The

Controller of procedural safeguards should be appointed by the Commission following a

procedure involving the Supervisory Committee, for a term of five years; he/she should

have a judicial background and possess senior legal expertise in the fields of fundamental

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

rights and criminal law. He/she should be tasked exclusively with the monitoring of

compliance with the procedural guarantees applicable to OLAF investigations and of

prompt handling of investigations to avoid undue delay. He/she should be able to intervene

on his/her own motion or upon a complaint by any person concerned by an investigation.

This function should be separated from the mission of the Supervisory Committee of

OLAF which will continue to supervise functions of monitoring systemic shortcomings

and support the independence of OLAF.

Compatibility and possible synergy with other appropriate instruments

The revised OLAF Regulation:

On the basis of the Commission’s proposal of March

2011, and after intensive negotiations, a compromise on the revised OLAF Regulation was

approved (unanimously) on 25 February 2013 by the Council and on 3 July 2013 by the

European Parliament.

The revised regulation is designed to strengthen the governance of OLAF, reinforcing

procedural rights in internal and external investigations and OLAF's exchange of

information both with the institutions and with the Member States’ authorities.

The Office of the Controller completes the revised Regulation with an independent

handling of complaints concerning the rights provided in the revised Regulation.

The Regulation on the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The

establishment of the European Public Prosecutor's Office will bring about a substantial

change in the way investigations concerning fraud and other illegal activities affecting the

financial interests of the European Union are carried out in the Union.

In future, each time suspicions about criminal conduct falling within the remit of the

European Public Prosecutor’s Office arise, the ensuing investigations will be conducted by

the European Public Prosecutor’s Office as a prosecutorial body, rather than – as today –

by OLAF which carries out administrative investigations. This change will of course entail

a substantial reinforcement of the procedural guarantees for the persons concerned by the

investigations.

The reinforcement of procedural guarantees of persons concerned by OLAF investigations

through the establishment of a Controller of procedural safeguards represents a preparatory

step in the direction of establishing the EPPO.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Duration and financial impact

Proposal/initiative of

limited duration

Proposal/initiative in effect from [DD/MM]YYYY to [DD/MM]YYYY

Financial impact from YYYY to YYYY

X Proposal/initiative of

unlimited duration

Implementation with a start-up period from 2015 to 2016,

followed by full-scale operation.

Management mode(s) planned

Direct management

by the Commission

Shared management

with the Member States

Indirect management

by entrusting budget implementation tasks to:

international organisations and their agencies (to be specified);

the EIB and the European Investment Fund;

bodies referred to in Articles 208 and 209;

public law bodies;

bodies governed by private law with a public service mission to the extent that they

provide adequate financial guarantees;

bodies governed by the private law of a Member State that are entrusted with the

implementation of a public-private partnership and that provide adequate financial

guarantees;

persons entrusted with the implementation of specific actions in the CFSP pursuant to

Title V of the TEU, and identified in the relevant basic act.

Comments

[…]

Details of management modes and references to the Financial Regulation may be found on the BudgWeb site:

http://www.cc.cec/budg/man/budgmanag/budgmanag_en.html

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Monitoring and reporting rules

Specify frequency and conditions.

The “Controller of procedural safeguards” should periodically give an overview of its

activities to the Supervisory Committee of OLAF.

Management and control system

Risk(s) identified

Processing of personal data in complaints by persons concerned by OLAF investigations.

Control method(s) envisaged

Ex- post controls by the European Court of Auditors

Measures to prevent fraud and irregularities

Specify existing or envisaged prevention and protection measures.

Adoption of rules for the prevention and management of conflicts of interest in respect of its

staff members.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

ESTIMATED FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE PROPOSAL/INITIATIVE

Heading(s) of the multiannual financial framework and expenditure budget line(s) affected

Existing budget lines

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Budget line

Heading of

multiannual

financial

framework

Type of

expenditure

Diff./non-

diff.

(6)

Contribution

from

EFTA

countries

from

candidate

countries

within the meaning

of Article 21(2)(b)

of the Financial

Regulation

Number

Heading 5 – Administrative expenditure

from third

countries

XX.YY

DIFF

European Commission

New budget lines requested

In order of multiannual financial framework headings and budget lines.

Budget line

Heading of

multiannual

financial

framework

Type of

expenditure

Diff./non-

diff.

from

EFTA

countries

Contribution

from

candidate

countries

from third

countries

within the meaning

of Article 21(2)(b)

of the Financial

Regulation

Number

[Heading …...….]

[XX.YY.YY.YY]

YES/N

YES/NO

Diff. = Differentiated appropriations / Non-Diff. = Non-differentiated appropriations.

EFTA: European Free Trade Association.

Candidate countries and, where applicable, potential candidate countries from the Western Balkans.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Estimated impact on expenditure

Summary of estimated impact on expenditure

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Heading of multiannual financial

framework

Number

[Heading……………...…………………………………………………………

…….]

[Body]:

<…….>

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

Payments

Commitments

(1)

(2)

(1a)

(2a)

(3a)

(3b)

=1+1a

=2+2a

Year

N+1

Year

N+2

Year

N+3

Enter as many years as

necessary to show the duration

of the impact (see point 1.6)

TOTAL

Title 1:

Title 2:

Title 3:

TOTAL appropriations

for [body]

<…….>

Payments

+(3b)

Year N is the year in which implementation of the proposal/initiative starts.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Heading of multiannual financial

framework

"Administrative expenditure"

EUR million (to three decimal places)

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

TOTAL

Controller of procedural safeguard

Human resources

Other administrative expenditure

TOTAL

Appropriations

0.262

0.012

0.274

0.524

0.025

0.549

0.524

0.025

0.549

0.524

0.025

0.549

0.524

0.025

0.549

0.524

0.025

0.549

2.882

0.137

3.019

TOTAL appropriations

for HEADING 5

of the multiannual financial framework

(Total commitments =

Total payments)

0.274

0.549

3.019

EUR million (to three decimal places)

2015

2016

0.549

2017

0.549

2018

0.549

2019

0.549

2020

0.549

TOTAL

3.019

TOTAL appropriations

under HEADINGS 1 to 5

of the multiannual financial framework

Commitments

Payments

0.274

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Estimated impact on [body]'s appropriations

The proposal/initiative does not require the use of operational appropriations

The proposal/initiative requires the use of operational appropriations, as explained below:

Commitment appropriations in EUR million (to three decimal places)

2016

Indicate

objectives and

outputs

Type

Avera

cost

Cost

2017

2018

2019

OUTPUTS

2020

TOTAL

Cost

total

Total

cost

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE NO 1

...

- Output

Subtotal for specific objective No 1

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE NO 2 ...

- Output

Subtotal for specific objective No 2

Outputs are products and services to be supplied (e.g.: number of student exchanges financed, number of km of roads built, etc.).

As described in point 1.4.2. ‘Specific objective(s)…’

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

TOTAL COST

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Estimated impact on [body]'s human resources

Summary

The proposal/initiative does not require the use of appropriations of an

administrative nature

The proposal/initiative requires the use of appropriations of an administrative

nature, as explained below:

EUR million (to three decimal places)

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

TOTAL

Officials (AD grades)

0.196

0.066

0.393

0.131

0.393

0.131

0.393

0.131

0.393

0.131

0.393

0.131

2.161

0.721

Officials

grades)

Contract staff

(AST

Temporary staff

Seconded National

Experts

TOTAL

0.262

0.524

2.882

Human resources

Controller of procedural

safeguard

Establishment plan posts

(in headcounts)

- Of which AD

- Of which AST

Total staff

2015

1,5

0,5

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

During the first year in the start-up phase recruitment will grow progressively, hence 50% of the staff will be

needed in 2016.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Estimated requirements of human resources for the parent DG

The proposal/initiative does not require the use of human resources.

The proposal/initiative requires the use of human resources, as explained below:

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Establishment plan posts (officials and temporary staff)

XX YY Staff EC

XX 01 01 02 (Delegations)

XX 01 05 01 (Indirect research)

10 01 05 01 (Direct research)

External staff (in Full Time Equivalent: FTE)

XX 01 02 01 (CA, SNE, INT from the

‘global envelope’)

XX 01 02 02 (CA, LA, SNE, INT and

JED in the delegations)

- at

Headquarters

- in

delegations

XX 01 05 02 (CA, SNE, INT - Indirect

research)

10 01 05 02 (CA, SNE, INT- Direct

research)

Other budget lines (specify)

TOTAL

is the policy area or budget title concerned.

The human resources required will be met by staff from the DG who are already assigned to

management of the action and/or have been redeployed within the DG, together if necessary

with any additional allocation which may be granted to the managing DG under the annual

allocation procedure and in the light of budgetary constraints.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Description of tasks to be carried out:

Officials and temporary

agents

Monitoring of compliance with the procedural guarantees applicable to OLAF investigations and of

prompt handling of investigations to avoid undue delay.

Handling of complaints in a swift and adversarial procedure.

Description of the calculation of cost for FTE equivalent should be included in the Annex,

section 3.

Compatibility with the current multiannual financial framework

Proposal/initiative is compatible the current multiannual financial framework.

Proposal/initiative will entail reprogramming of the relevant heading in the

multiannual financial framework.

Proposal/initiative requires application of the flexibility instrument or revision of

the multiannual financial framework

Third-party contributions

The proposal/initiative does not provide for co-financing by third parties.

The proposal/initiative provides for the co-financing estimated below:

Appropriations in EUR million (to 3 decimal places)

Year

Specify the co-financing

body

TOTAL

appropriations

cofinanced

Year

N+1

Year

N+2

Year

N+3

Enter as many years as necessary

to show the duration of the

impact (see point 1.6)

Total

Estimated impact on revenue

Proposal/initiative has no financial impact on revenue.

Proposal/initiative has the following financial impact:

on own resources

on miscellaneous revenue

EUR million (to three decimal places)

Impact of the proposal/initiative

Budget revenue line:

Appropriation

s available for

the current

financial year

Year

N+1

Year

N+2

Year

N+3

Enter as many years as necessary to show

the duration of the impact (see point 1.6)

See points 19 and 24 of the Interinstitutional Agreement for the period 2007-2013.

As regards traditional own resources (customs duties, sugar levies), the amounts indicated must be net

amounts, i.e. gross amounts after deduction of 25% for collection costs.

PDF to HTML - Convert PDF files to HTML files

Article ………….

For miscellaneous ‘assigned’ revenue, specify the budget expenditure line(s) affected.

[…]

Specify the method for calculating the impact on revenue.

[…]