Controversy over leaked summary of OLAF Supervisory Committee document
The summary of the evaluation report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee on OLAF’s investigations into the Dalli case that Corporate Europe Observatory published on this website on Tuesday 23 April comes from a reliable, yet anonymous source. The summary was written by a whistleblower who had access to the evaluation report. The summary has also been circulating among MEPs and journalists.
In a remarkable statement on its website, OLAF now writes that the 41 paragraph summary is part of “attempts to mislead and manipulate public opinion”. OLAF’s short statement does not go into the contents of the summary. There is therefore no reason to believe that the summary does not adequately reflect the content of the (still confidential) Supervisory Committee on OLAF’s investigations into the Dalli case. Quite the contrary: the content of the summary is fully compatible with the annual report of the Supervisory Committee, which also contains very serious criticism of OLAF's investigation into the Dalli case (Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee, January 2012 – January 2013, see pages 12, 37 and 42).
Let’s put matters in perspective. MEPs in the Budget Control Committee have in vain been asking OLAF to provide them with a copy of the Supervisory Committee’s evaluation report of OLAF’s investigations into the Dalli case.
Corporate Europe Observatory has also asked for disclosure of the Supervisory Committee’s evaluation report of OLAF’s handling of the Dalli case, using our right-to-know under EU Regulation 1049/2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents. OLAF refused access to the evaluation report, invoking the ongoing court case in Malta as a reason. Corporate Europe Observatory does not accept this refusal of access and has filed a confirmatory appeal, which is still pending.
The controversy over the veracity of the leaked summary is an extra argument in favour of OLAF disclosing the evaluation report. If they had done so before, there would have been no controversy right now and it would be crystal clear if the Supervisory Committee found serious irregularities or not.
This article continues after the banner
Comments
1. Is Mr Kessler entitled to perform investigative work and is this executive task provided in his employment contract?
2. When Mr Kessler performs executive tasks directly in the field (like Mr Dali interrogation) what happens with his specific task of controlling if the investigation took place with a due observance of the applicable rules?
3. In the case of Mr Dali Investigation, Mr Kessler controlled and endorsed his own investigative work. From a theoretic point of view, which is the legal framework for such exceeding of functions? Abuse of functions/Misuse of functions/Abuse of Public Office/Lack of segregation of duties? (Article 19 of United Nations Convention Against Corruption).
4. In how many other OLAF investigations, Mr Kessler acted as Investigator, performing executive tasks? Did he involve himself also at European Commission investigation http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/imported/police-raid-commission-of… ; European Environment Agency, Fundamental Rights Agency, EFESA?
5. Is Mr Kessler`s job description a disclosable document? Could he share it with the public or assure the EU public that he used his functions in accordance to law?