Search

In this dissertation I examine whether OLAF’s composite enforcement procedures can result in violations of the person concerned’s fundamental rights and, if so, how the OLAF and national frameworks must be adjusted to prevent such violations? OLAF is the European Union’s anti-fraud office. OLAF’s mission is to fight fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity that affects the financial interests of the Union. To that end, OLAF carries out administrative investigations, where it gathers evidence itself, and coordination cases, where OLAF coordinates the Member States’ investigations. OLAF’s investigation and coordination cases are conceived of as mere derivatives of other more traditional forms of law enforcement cooperation in which authorities enter into obligations to cooperate with one another, but each acts to fulfill these obligations within its own separately identifiable legal order on the basis of its own law. This system, in its most conventional form, is founded on the notion of territorial sovereignty. If we extend the logic of this approach from enforcement (the ‘sword’) to fundamental rights (the ‘shield’), issues in relation to the latter – and the accompanying responsibility to prevent and/or remedy them – can arise only in individual (sovereign) legal orders. The way in which we appreciate OLAF, as an evolved cognate of traditional forms of law enforcement cooperation, therefore directly dictates which, and the way in which, fundamental rights issues enter into the equation. In this dissertation I pitch a new contrasting way of looking at OLAF: so-called ‘composite enforcement procedures’. In these types of procedures, responsibilities for the entirety of enforcement are attributed to the inextricably linked European Union and Member State legal orders. If we stare at OLAF through this new looking glass, which I think we should do, other fundamental rights issues can step into the fore that would otherwise go unnoticed. These are issues that come about not in single legal orders, but rather exist in between or among the EU and the Member States. The goal this dissertation sets out to achieve then is to find out whether such fundamental rights problems indeed exist and, naturally, how they can be resolved. I do so by considering the ‘person concerned’: the natural or legal person who is the subject of an OLAF investigation or coordination case. At the end of this dissertation I assess whether, and if so how, the fundamental rights problems identified for OLAF also manifest themselves in criminal cases under the lead of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

In this dissertation I examine whether OLAF’s composite enforcement procedures can result in violations of the person concerned’s fundamental rights and, if so, how the OLAF and national frameworks must be adjusted to prevent such violations? OLAF is the European Union’s anti-fraud office. OLAF’s mission is to fight fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity that affects the financial interests of the Union. To that end, OLAF carries out administrative investigations, where it gathers evidence itself, and coordination cases, where OLAF coordinates the Member States’ investigations. OLAF’s investigation and coordination cases are conceived of as mere derivatives of other more traditional forms of law enforcement cooperation in which authorities enter into obligations to cooperate with one another, but each acts to fulfill these obligations within its own separately identifiable legal order on the basis of its own law. This system, in its most conventional form, is founded on the notion of territorial sovereignty. If we extend the logic of this approach from enforcement (the ‘sword’) to fundamental rights (the ‘shield’), issues in relation to the latter – and the accompanying responsibility to prevent and/or remedy them – can arise only in individual (sovereign) legal orders. The way in which we appreciate OLAF, as an evolved cognate of traditional forms of law enforcement cooperation, therefore directly dictates which, and the way in which, fundamental rights issues enter into the equation. In this dissertation I pitch a new contrasting way of looking at OLAF: so-called ‘composite enforcement procedures’. In these types of procedures, responsibilities for the entirety of enforcement are attributed to the inextricably linked European Union and Member State legal orders. If we stare at OLAF through this new looking glass, which I think we should do, other fundamental rights issues can step into the fore that would otherwise go unnoticed. These are issues that come about not in single legal orders, but rather exist in between or among the EU and the Member States. The goal this dissertation sets out to achieve then is to find out whether such fundamental rights problems indeed exist and, naturally, how they can be resolved. I do so by considering the ‘person concerned’: the natural or legal person who is the subject of an OLAF investigation or coordination case. At the end of this dissertation I assess whether, and if so how, the fundamental rights problems identified for OLAF also manifest themselves in criminal cases under the lead of the European Public Prosecutor's Office.

The article argues that both administrative and criminal tools are necessary for the protection of EU financial interests and that the mechanisms of cooperation between OLAF and the EPPO are suitable to foster a functioning collaboration. However, criticisms still emerge, both on the functioning of OLAF, and as regards operational activities of the EPPO and its cooperation with national prosecutors. Guarantees for private parties involved in administrative and criminal investigations cannot be ignored, and several shortcomings in the system of judicial protection need to be addressed. Effectiveness of the system and protection of guarantees should not be considered separate, especially in the context of the challenges that Next Generation EU (NGEU) raises for the protection of EU financial interests. Guarantees such as legal certainty and independence of the judiciary, are basic tenets of the rule of law, which, as set out in the Conditionality Regulation and further clarified by the ECJ, is in itself a condition for effectively protecting EU financial interests. European Anti-Fraud Office, OLAF, European Public Prosecutor Office, EPPO, protection of EU financial interests, institutional cooperation, EU criminal law, legal certainty, judicial protection

This paper gives a reasonable explanation about corruption and its causes, the role of Uzbekistan in the ranking of international anti-corruption organizations, cooperation in the fight against corruption in the international arena, measures to prevent corruption and the laws adopted, the mechanism of their implementation are described in detail.

Autor opracowania stawia sobie za cel zbadanie usytuowania OLAF-u w systemie wielopoziomowego zarządzania UE (Multi-level Governance – MLG) wraz z określonymi interinstytucjonalnymi zależnościami i konsekwencjami takiego usytuowania, przy założeniu, że OLAF nie jest klasyczną instytucją ponadnarodową. Skoro OLAF jako agent i supervisor posiada kompetencje kontrolne nad instytucjami ponadnarodowymi, w tym nad swoim mocodawcą, jakim jest ponadnarodowa Komisja Europejska, to mało prawdopodobne jest, aby był także instytucją ponadnarodową. W badaniach wykorzystano dwa narzędzia teoretyczno-metodologiczne: Principal/Agent Theory oraz Principal/Supervisor/Agent Theory. The author of the study aims to investigate the location of OLAF in the multi-level governance system (MLG) of the European Union with specific interinstitutional consequences of such location, assuming that OLAF is not a classical supranational institution. If OLAF as an agent and supervisor has control powers over supranational institutions, including its principal, a supranational European Commission, it is unlikely that it would also be a supranational institution. Two theoretical and methodological tools were used in this research: Principal/Agent Theory and Principal/Supervisor/Agent Theory.

Even though the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) aims to Europeanise prosecution, the relationship between EU and national law is not always clear, and many areas concerning the EPPO are left to national laws to regulate. As a consequence, effective judicial protection and remedies are not secured in the EPPO Regulation. Bearing in mind that the EPPO is a European agency, fundamental rights and the rule of law must be safeguarded in its operation. The focus of this article is on three levels of effective judicial protection in the operation of the Regulation at the EU level: preliminary questions before the CJEU, EU benchmarks on the rights of the defence, and the relationship between the EPPO and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The article aims to shed light on the gaps in, but also on the potential avenues for, effective judicial protection in the context of the operation of the EPPO., Cilj je ovog članka rasvijetliti propuste, ali i postojeće mogućnosti osiguranja sudske zaštite temeljnih prava u kontekstu djelovanja Ureda europskog javnog tužitelja. Iako je Ured EJT-a europsko tijelo postupka, zaštita temeljnih ljudskih prava na razini EU-a u svezi s njegovim djelovanjem Uredbom Vijeća (EU) 2017/1939 od 12. listopada 2017. o provedbi pojačane suradnje u vezi s osnivanjem Ureda europskog javnog tužitelja nije osigurana u dovoljnoj mjeri, već je uglavnom prepuštena nacionalnim pravnim sustavima i sudovima. Ni sam odnos između nacionalnog prava i prava EU-a nije u potpunosti razjašnjen. Članak se fokusira na tri nivoa osiguranja učinkovite sudske zaštite na razini EU-a u kontekstu Uredbe. U prvom dijelu razmatra se učinkovitost sudske zaštite pred Sudom Europske unije. Ta zaštita u stvarnosti je ograničena. Jurisdikcija Suda EU-a postoji samo u sporovima vezanima za naknadu štete koju je prouzročio Ured EJT-a prema čl. 268. UFEU-a, ima ograničenu ulogu u tužbama za poništavanje akata Ureda EJT-a prema čl. 263. UFEU-a pokrivajući samo odluke Ureda EJT-a o odbacivanju slučaja te mu se mogu postaviti preliminarna pitanja u određenim slučajevima. No upravo je posljednje ključno za nacionalne sudove u osiguranju učinkovite sudske zaštite u svezi s djelovanjem Ureda EJT-a. U drugom dijelu rada razmatra se primjenjivost minimalnih standarda prava obrane u kontekstu djelovanja Ureda EJT-a. Opseg prava osumnjičenih i optuženih osoba u djelovanju Ureda EJT-a minimalistički je uređen čl. 41. Uredbe o Uredu EJT-a. Provedbu te zaštite osiguravaju akteri na nacionalnoj razini u skladu s pravom EU-a i nacionalnim pravom. Uz osiguranje prava obrane i prava na pravično suđenje u skladu s Poveljom kao minimum bilo koji osumnjičenik ili optuženik u kaznenom postupku Ureda EJT-a imat će procesna prava predviđena pravom EU-a uključujući pravo na tumačenje i prijevod, pravo na informacije, pravo na pristup odvjetniku, pravo na pravnu pomoć i pretpostavku nedužnosti te pravo na šutnju. Od iznimne je važnosti zato i adekvatna implementacija relevantnih direktiva s obzirom na to da zaštitu osiguravaju nacionalna prava, a države članice uvijek mogu osigurati i višu razinu zaštite. Treći dio rada bavi se analizom pravnog okvira primjenjivog na odnos između Ureda EJT-a i Europskog ureda za borbu protiv prijevara, OLAF-a. Uredba o Uredu EJT-a predviđa suradnju s OLAF-om. Tijekom istrage koju provodi Ured EJT-a Ured može zatražiti od OLAF-a informacije te stručnu i operativnu podršku, pomoć oko koordinacije određenih radnji nadležnih nacionalnih upravnih tijela i tijela Unije, kao i provođenje upravnih istraga. Iako Uredba o Uredu EJT-a uređuje suradnju s OLAF-om, potencijal te suradnje mnogo je širi. Autor napominje da se i u tom odnosu mora osigurati kontinuitet visoke razine zaštite prava. Zaključno autor upozorava na postojanje praznina u djelotvornoj sudskoj zaštiti u trenutačnom pravnom okviru. Ured EJT-a treba tretirati kao europsko tijelo čiji rad mora biti poduprt čvrstom zaštitom temeljnih prava i zaštitnim mjerama vladavine prava uopće.

It is important to bear in mind that not all Member States will participate in the EPPO. In the five non-participating Member States (Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Sweden), OLAF’s role will remain exactly the same as today. In the participating Member States, OLAF will continue to investigate non-fraudulent irregularities, which actually constitute 93% of all irregularities reported to the Commission. Finally, restrictions to the competence of the EPPO enshrined in the EPPO Regulation mean that also in the participating Member States and with regard to criminal offences, OLAF will maintain a residual role.

Proračun EU najvažniji je strateški dokument za financiranje Unije kao cjeline i njime se utvrđuje ukupna razina sredstava obaveza i plaćanja za kalendarsku godinu. Sastoji se od prihoda i rashoda koji su potrebni za funkcioniranje EU-a. Prihode proračuna čine vlastita sredstava u obliku tradicionalnih vlastitih sredstava (carine i poljoprivredne pristojbe), dio poreza na dodanu vrijednost, prihoda utemeljenog na BDP-u zemalja članica te ostali prihodi. Prihod na temelju BDP-a zemalja članica prvenstveno je uveden kao sustav ravnoteže, da bi s vremenom postao najveći izvor prihoda Unije. U 2017. godini iznosio je 56% svih prihoda proračuna. Tradicionalni izvori prihoda čine 15%, a prihodi po osnovi PDV-a 12% prihoda proračuna za zadnje promatranu 2017. godinu. Rashodovnom stranom proračuna pokrivaju se administrativni troškovi institucija Unije (oko 6%) i troškovi politika ( oko 94%) koji su dio Višegodišnjeg financijskog okvira. Njime se za razdoblje od najmanje 5 godina ograničavaju rashodi i definiraju maksimalni iznosi koji su na raspolaganju za svaku kategoriju potrošnje, a trenutno je važeća Financijska perspektiva 2014.- 2020. Proračun EU-a podijeljen je na 6 područja rashoda i to: Održivi rast, Pametan i uključiv rast, Sigurnost i građanstvo, Globalna Europa, Administracija i Naknade. Trenutno se najveći dio sredstava izdvaja za poticaje rasta i otvaranje radnih mjesta te smanjenje gospodarskih nejednakosti među regijama. Bez obzira na to što su rashodi proračuna usmjereni na rast, razvoj i poboljšanje života unutar Unije, uvijek postoji rizik od nepravilnosti i prijevara te je veliki broj sudionika uključenih u upravljanje rizikom od prijevara. Važno je razlikovati pojmove nepravilnosti i prijevare, gdje nepravilnost označava svako kršenje odredbi EU-a ili nacionalnog zakonodavstva koje bi moglo imati negativan utjecaj na proračun EU-a, a prijevara označava najteži oblik nepravilnosti koji je počinjen s ciljem stvaranja nezakonite dobiti. Sve nepravilnosti nisu istovremeno i prijevare, jer nepravilnost ne mora biti uvijek namjerna. Europski revizorski sud (Sud) neovisni je revizor EU-a koji ispituje zakonitosti i pravilnosti svih transakcija unutar proračuna na temelju reprezentativnog uzorke te procjenjuje „najizgledniju stopu pogreške“ za svaki naslov VFO-a. Komisija i države članice snose zajedničku odgovornost za zaštitu financijskih interesa i borbu, a ključnu ulogu ima Europski ured za borbu protiv prijevara (OLAF). Na temelju zaprimljenih informacija iz javnog i privatnog sektora, nakon faze preliminarnog ispitivanja podataka, i ukoliko postoji opravdana sumnja na prijevaru, započinje istražni proces. Po završetku istrage, OLAF šalje preporuku nacionalnim sudskim tijelima. Kroz analizu rada analizirali smo koliko uspješno sustavi kontrole proračuna EU-a izvršavaju svoje funkcije. U budućem razdoblju svakako bi trebalo raditi na povećanju suradnje institucija zaduženih za kontrolu i proširivanje ovlasti. Također, trebalo bi u većoj mjeri informirati o važnosti kontrole i preventivnih radnji, kao i izradi nacionalnih strategija za borbu protiv prijevara koje bi bile usklađene na razini EU-a. The EU budget is the most important strategic document for financing the Union as a whole, which determines the total level of commitment and payment appropriations for the calendar year. It consists of the revenue and expenditure required for the functioning of the EU. Budget revenues consist of own resources in the form of traditional own resources (customs and agricultural levies), part of value added tax, GDP-based revenue and other revenue. GDP-based revenue was first introduced as a balance system, eventually becoming the largest source of Union revenue. In 2017, it accounted for 56% of all budget revenues. Traditional sources of revenue account for 15% and VAT revenues 12% of budget revenues for the last observed year of 2017. The expenditure side of the budget covers the administrative expenditure of the Union institutions (around 6%) and the policy costs (about 94%) that are part of the MFF. It limits expenditures for a minimum of 5 years and defines the maximum amounts available for each spending category and is currently valid Financial Perspectives 2014-2020. The EU budget is divided into 6 expenditure areas, namely: Sustainable growth, Smart and Inclusive Growth, Security and Citizenship, Global Europe, Administration and Compensation. Currently, most of the funds are spent on stimulating growth and job creation and reducing economic inequalities between regions. Regardless of the fact that budget expenditures are directed to the growth, development and improvement of life within the Union, there is always a risk of irregularities and fraud and a large number of participants involved in managing the risk of fraud. It is important to distinguish between irregularities and fraud, where an irregularity signifies any violation of EU or national law that could have an adverse impact on the EU budget, and fraud signifies the most serious form of irregularity committed with a view to generating illegal profits. All irregularities are not frauds at the same time, because irregularity may not always be intentional. The European Court of Auditors (Court of Auditors) is an independent EU auditor who examines the legality and regularity of all intra-budget transactions on the basis of a representative sample and estimates the "most likely error rate" for each VFO title. The Commission and the Member States have a shared responsibility for protecting their financial interests and fighting, and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) plays a key role. On the basis of the information received from the public and private sectors, an investigation process begins after the preliminary examination phase of the data, and if there is a reasonable suspicion of fraud. Upon completion of the investigation, OLAF sends a recommendation to the national judicial authorities. Through an analysis of the work, we have analyzed how well the EU's budgetary control systems perform their functions. In the future, there should certainly be work to increase the cooperation of the institutions in charge of controlling and extending powers. Also, the importance of controls and preventive actions should be better informed, as well as the development of national anti-fraud strategies that are harmonized at EU level.

Este artigo objetiva analisar a atuação supranacional do Organismo Europeu de Luta Antifraude (OLAF) no âmbito da União Europeia, através de revisão bibliográfica e estudo do direito comunitário. Discorre-se sobre a compreensão científica da corrupção a partir das teorias que a referenciam, apontando-se os instrumentos convencionais de prevenção e enfrentamento. Em seguida, expõe-se o impacto da fraude nas finanças da União Europeia, a justificar a necessidade de fortalecimento do OLAF. Enfatiza-se a disciplina dos inquéritos e examinam-se os balanços e resultados das atividades daquela instituição.

In Disney’s box office sensation Frozen (2013), Elsa conjures powers rivaling those of Zeus, which is an echo of the shifting gender dynamics at the time of the film’s release. By independently creating offspring Olaf and Marshmallow through whirlwinds, Elsa’s parthenogenesis (virgin birth) evokes wind-driven pollination, allowing her to circumvent any male role in creation. However, Elsa’s autonomy clashes with the traditional gender hierarchy, which is reinforced by a cultural context replete with latent symbolic meanings. Examples include both carrots and carats as phallic symbols, eggs as representations of the procreative potential that is appropriated by men and devalued in women, gender bias in perceptions of magic and enchantment, and the value of the nubile nymph over the tempestuous termagant. The normalcy of male dominance likely drives the resolution of the plot, in which Elsa learns to wield power in a non-threatening manner. In addition to having implications for gender roles, Frozen also portrays a mélange of gender symbolism through Elsa’s snowmen creations, which function as an expression of the storm of controversy surrounding the subversion of binary conceptions of gender. In the end, Frozen serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers inherent in an unattached female as the ultimate potentate. This content analysis suggests that the film reflects fears surrounding the maelstrom of societal changes including expanding fertility options and the re-conceptualization of gender identity--pressing issues likely to sustain Frozen’s relevance.