The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has criticised the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) for not respecting the principle of the presumption of innocence in an investigation. This follows a complaint from a British consultant, who argued that letters which OLAF had sent to his former and current employers implied that he was responsible for serious irregularities in the framework of EU funded projects in which he was involved. According to him, this seriously damaged his reputation.
OLAF replied that the letters only requested information and did not cast any suspicion on the complainant. The Ombudsman, however, concluded that OLAF had indeed used incriminating language in its letters. He took the view that OLAF failed to respect the principles of fairness, proportionality and the presumption of innocence.
The case
In April 2006, a British consultant, who worked for different firms on EU funded projects, lodged a complaint against OLAF with the Ombudsman. He stated that letters OLAF had sent to his former and current employers asking for information accused him of serious irregularities when working as a team leader on EU funded projects. He stated that OLAF damaged his reputation and limited his chances of continuing his work in this field. Moreover, he complained that OLAF failed to inform him about the inquiry against him.
OLAF explained that it had received anonymous allegations against the complainant regarding possible irregularities in the framework of EU funded projects in which he was involved. OLAF opened a formal investigation and sent out letters to obtain more information. OLAF insisted that its inquiry had fully respected the principle of fairness.
The Ombudsman acknowledged that, in order to carry out its investigations, OLAF needs to request information from third parties. He took the view, however, that, when making such requests, OLAF, like any other public authority, is obliged to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. The Ombudsman noted that the letters stated that OLAF already possessed evidence that the complainant had committed serious irregularities. This wording was neither necessary nor proportionate. In the Ombudsman's view, OLAF did not respect the principles of fairness and impartiality and, most importantly, the principle of the presumption of innocence. He asked OLAF to inform all parties involved about the outcome of its investigation.
OLAF replied that the letters only requested information and did not cast any suspicion on the complainant. The Ombudsman, however, concluded that OLAF had indeed used incriminating language in its letters. He took the view that OLAF failed to respect the principles of fairness, proportionality and the presumption of innocence.
The case
In April 2006, a British consultant, who worked for different firms on EU funded projects, lodged a complaint against OLAF with the Ombudsman. He stated that letters OLAF had sent to his former and current employers asking for information accused him of serious irregularities when working as a team leader on EU funded projects. He stated that OLAF damaged his reputation and limited his chances of continuing his work in this field. Moreover, he complained that OLAF failed to inform him about the inquiry against him.
OLAF explained that it had received anonymous allegations against the complainant regarding possible irregularities in the framework of EU funded projects in which he was involved. OLAF opened a formal investigation and sent out letters to obtain more information. OLAF insisted that its inquiry had fully respected the principle of fairness.
The Ombudsman acknowledged that, in order to carry out its investigations, OLAF needs to request information from third parties. He took the view, however, that, when making such requests, OLAF, like any other public authority, is obliged to respect the principle of the presumption of innocence. The Ombudsman noted that the letters stated that OLAF already possessed evidence that the complainant had committed serious irregularities. This wording was neither necessary nor proportionate. In the Ombudsman's view, OLAF did not respect the principles of fairness and impartiality and, most importantly, the principle of the presumption of innocence. He asked OLAF to inform all parties involved about the outcome of its investigation.
No comments:
Post a Comment