Ombudsman asks for investigation into financing of European Parliament buildings

The European Ombudsman, P. Nikiforos Diamandouros, has issued two recommendations to the European Parliament (EP) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) concerning the financing of EP buildings. This follows complaints from a journalist. Both cases concern whether the external financing of the Willy Brandt, József Antall and Altiero Spinelli buildings in Brussels should have been subject to a public tender procedure. Furthermore, the Ombudsman asks the EP to deal with the complainant's request for access to documents related to the financing of two of the buildings. The Ombudsman has asked the EP and OLAF to submit detailed opinions by 31 October 2009.

The EP should deal with the request for access to documents

In November 2006, the complainant asked the EP for access to a number of documents relating to the financing of the Willy Brandt and József Antall buildings. The EP stated that it 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.

In his recommendation, the Ombudsman firstly called on the EP to clarify its statements concerning the legal framework for the financing of the two buildings. Furthermore, he asked the EP 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 explanations for not doing so.

OLAF should reconsider its investigation concerning public tender procedure

In 2002, the complainant alerted the European Commission to certain alleged irregularities related to the financing of Parliament's Altiero Spinelli building. The EP had 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 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. There was, therefore, no need for an in-depth investigation. The Ombudsman was not convinced. 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 Community. He called on OLAF to reconsider the result of its investigation and, in the light of this reconsideration, if necessary, examine the impact of this case on the Community's financial interests.