Fraudeonderzoek kan ook europarlementariër treffen

Mag een europarlementariër onderworpen worden aan een fraudeonderzoek indien daar aanleiding toe is? GroenLinks vindt van wel, evenals een meerderheid van het Europees Parlement. 71 europarlementariërs waren het hier echter niet mee eens en gingen bij het Europese Hof van Justitie in beroep. Die stelde hen vandaag, 26 februari 2002, gelukkig in het ongelijk.

integrale tekst persbericht Hof

Op 25 mei 1999 besloot het Europees Parlement in meerderheid dat de Europese anti-fraudedienst OLAF leden van het Europees Parlement mag onderwerpen aan een fraudeonderzoek. GroenLinks was en is voorstander van dit besluit. Het besluit stond in een breder kader fraude binnen de instituties van de Europese Unie tegen te gaan en te voorkomen. Zo namen ook de Europese Commissie en de Europese Raad dergelijke maatregelen. Onder aanvoering van de Duitse europarlementariër Willie Rothley ging een groep europarlementariërs echter in beroep tegen het besluit bij het Europese Hof van Justitie en vroegen om nietigverklaring van het besluit.

Onschendbaarheid

Rothley’s argument is dat het besluit de onschendbaarheid van de parlementariër aantast. Het Europese Hof van Justitie vindt echter dat de bestaande immuniteitsregeling voldoende bescherming tegen aantasting van die onschendbaarheid biedt. Zij verklaarde de klacht vandaag, 26 februari 2002, dan ook niet ontvankelijk. GroenLinks europarlementariër Kathalijne Buitenweg is blij met deze uitspraak. “Indien er aanleiding tot onderzoek is, moeten ook europarlementariërs daaraan onderworpen kunnen worden. De onschendbaarheid van de leden van het Europees Parlement is al in de verdragen geregeld en biedt voldoende bescherming tegen ongeoorloofde inbreuk op hun onafhankelijkheid”, aldus Buitenweg.

Traineren

Buitenweg ziet nog een andere aanleiding voor het verzoek van Rothley c.s.: vertraging. Rothley bereidt namelijk het statuut voor de leden voor, dat één gelijkgestemde regeling voor alle europarlementariërs uit de verschillende lidstaten ten doel heeft. Buitenweg: “Rothley heeft er echter een handje van om deze besluitvorming van het statuut te traineren. Hij wilde in het statuut opnemen dat een europarlementariër niet door een organisatie als de Europese anti-fraudedienst OLAF gedwongen kan worden tot medewerking. Rothley hoopte dat het Europese Hof van Justitie hem daarin gelijk zou geven.” Nu het Hof de nietigverklaring heeft afgewezen is dat voorstel van de baan. Buitenweg: “We kunnen de onderhandelingen van het statuut nu snel afronden zodat het nog vóór de volgende Europese verkiezingen van 2004 in werking kan treden."

EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE

Press and Information Division

PRESS RELEASE No 17/02

26 February 2002

Judgment in Case T-17/00

Willi Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament v European Parliament

MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CANNOT OBTAIN ANNULMENT OF THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT MAKING THEM SUBJECT TO THE INVESTIGATORY POWER OF THE EUROPEAN ANTI- FRAUD OFFICE

The Court of First Instance dismisses their action as inadmissible

On 28 April 1999 the Commission adopted the decision establishing the European Anti-Fraud Office ("the Office"). The Office has the task of conducting administrative investigations in order to combat fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity adversely affecting the Community's financial interests.

On 25 May 1999 the European Parliament and the Council adopted a regulation concerning investigations conducted by the Office. It provides, inter alia, that the Office may carry out investigations within the European institutions, the latter being informed when agents of the Office conduct an investigation on their premises or when they consult a document or request information held by those institutions.

An interinstitutional agreement concluded between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission provides that each institution is to adopt common rules consisting of the implementing measures required to ensure the smooth operation of the investigations carried out by the Office within their institution.

On 1 June 1999 that agreement and the regulation concerning investigations entered into force.

On 18 November 1999 the Parliament adopted a decision on the amendments to its Rules of Procedure authorising application of the rules provided for by the interinstitutional agreement.

Willi Rothley and 70 other Members of the European Parliament challenge the legality of that decision, claiming that the Court of First Instance of the European Communities should annul it.

They also requested suspension of the operation of that measure and/or of any other provisional measure which might protect the Members of the Parliament. By order of 2 May 2000 the President of the Court of First Instance suspended the decision of the European Parliament in part and, pending judgment on the substance of the case, ordered the European Parliament to grantagents of the Office access to the offices of the applicants only with the consent of the latter (see Press Release No 32/00).

In the main proceedings, the applicants claimed that the Court should annul the contested measure in so far as it concerned the Members of the European Parliament. The Parliament contended that the Court should dismiss the action as inadmissible or, in the alternative, as unfounded. The Parliament is supported by the Council, the Commission, the Netherlands and France.

The Court dismisses the action as inadmissible.

Article 230 EC provides, inter alia, that any natural person may, under certain conditions, institute proceedings against a decision which is of direct and individual concern to him.

The Court establishes whether the contested measure is a "decision" within the meaning of Article 230 EC or a legislative act of general application.

According to the case-law of the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, an act cannot be considered as constituting a decision if it is applicable to objectively determined situations and produces its legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract.

The Court of First Instance observes that the contested measure has a general purpose, which is to lay down the conditions upon which the Parliament will cooperate with the Office in order to facilitate the smooth operation of investigations within that institution. In keeping with that object, the measure contemplates the situation of the Members and stipulates special provisions for them where, in particular, they are implicated in an investigation conducted by the Office or where they have acquired knowledge of facts which give rise to a presumption of the existence of possible cases of fraud or of serious situations relating to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a failure to comply with obligations liable to result in disciplinary or, where appropriate, criminal proceedings. The contested measure applies without distinction to the Members of the Parliament in office at the time of its entry into force and to any other person subsequently coming to perform the same duties. The Court finds that it applies without temporal limitation to objectively determined situations and has legal effects with respect to categories of persons envisaged in the abstract.

The Court concludes that the contested measure, although it is called a "decision", is a measure of general application.

The Court considers, nevertheless, the question of whether there are circumstances in the instant case which make it possible to distinguish the applicants individually by reason of certain attributes which are peculiar to them or by reason of circumstances in which they are differentiated from all other persons.

The Court finds that the contested measure affects the applicants in a similar way to any other Member of the Parliament, present or future.

The applicants have argued that the contested measure prejudices both their independence and the immunity conferred upon them by the Protocol on Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities. However, the Court notes that that Protocol contains no provision explicitly governing internal investigations in the Parliament and that the contested measure provides that 'Rules governing Members' parliamentary immunity and the right to refuse to testify remain unchanged.'

The Court states that the risk cannot a priori be excluded that the Office, in conducting an investigation, might perform an act prejudicial to the immunity enjoyed by every Member of the Parliament. However, even if such an event were to occur, any Member of the Parliament confronted with an act of that nature, which he considered damaging to him, could then avail himself of the judicial protection and the legal remedies provided for by the Treaty.

Since the applicants are not "individually" concerned by the contested measure, the action is dismissed as inadmissible.

Note: an appeal limited to questions of law may be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities against the decision of the Court of First Instance within two months of notification of that decision.

Unofficial document for media use only; not binding on the Court of Justice.

Available in English, French and German.

For the full text of the judgments, please consult our Internet page

Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.www.curia.eu.int at approximately 3pm today.

For further information please contact Fionnuala Connolly:

Tel: (00 352) 4303 3355; Fax: (00 352) 4303 2731

Pictures of the hearing are available on "Europe by Satellite"

European Commission, Press and Information Service, L-2920 Luxembourg

Tel: (00 352) 4301 35177; Fax: (00 352) 4301 35249,

or B-1049 Brussels, Tel: (00 32) 2 2964106, Fax: (00 32) 2 2965956, or (00 32) 2 301280