Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fighting fraud in the EU: a note on icebergs and evidence

  • Article
  • Published:
ERA Forum Aims and scope

Abstract

Debate about a European Public Prosecutor’s Office still lacks a sound evidential basis. Reliable information about (1) the extent of fraud against the EU’s financial interests, and (2) the extent of cross-border elements in fraud against those interests, is not readily available. Given this evidence gap, attention should focus on improving data collection and capturing casework experience. Eurojust has an important role to play in this process.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Follow-up of recommendations to the Commission report on the protection of the EU’s financial interests - fight against fraud, 2010 SWD (2012) 228 p. 3.

  2. Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee January 2011–November 2011 at para. 3.5.3.

  3. Activity Report of the OLAF Supervisory Committee January 2012–January 2013 at para. 3.1.2.

  4. Staff Regulations of Officials of the European Communities, Annex IX, Sect. 6, Art. 24.

  5. OLAF press release 3/2012.

  6. The Fight against Fraud on the EU’s Finances, HL Paper 158, April 2013.

  7. Protection of the European Union’s financial interests: Fight Against Fraud Annual Report 2011 p. 2, COM(2012) 408 final.

  8. Ibid pp. 4–5.

  9. The Fight against Fraud on the EU’s Finances, Oral and Written Evidence, Final p. 191.

  10. Ibid. p. 40.

  11. If it is low. The cost of UK fraud in 2011 was estimated to be £73 billion and its GDP £1.44 trillion.

  12. Case C-539/09, Commission v Germany judgement of 15 November 2011 (not yet reported).

  13. Article 2, Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the fight against fraud to the Union’s financial interests by means of criminal law, COM(2012) 363 final.

  14. The Fight against Fraud on the EU’s Finances, Oral and Written Evidence, Final p. 56.

  15. The Fight against Fraud on the EU’s Finances, Oral and Written Evidence, Final p. 51.

  16. The European Budget at a glance, European Commission 2010, p. 11.

  17. National Fraud Authority, Annual Fraud Indicator, 2012 p. 4.

  18. Case T48/05 Franchet and Byk v Commission [2008] II-01585, II-A-2-00191 para. 168 et seq.

  19. Activity Report of OLAF Supervisory Committee June 2009–December 2010 (2011/C 188/01) at para. 3.1.4.

  20. The Supervisory Committee Activity Report for January 2012 to January 2013 at para. 3.1.3 footnote 33 records an average of 40 such cases per year, which differs from the figure cited above. It also records a significant increase to 83 cases for the 2012–2013 reporting period.

  21. The Fight against Fraud on the EU’s Finances, Oral and Written Evidence, Final, evidence of OLAF’s Director General at p. 129.

  22. Eurojust Decision as amended, Article 13.6 (a) (vi).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Birmingham, UK

    Aled Williams

Authors
  1. Aled Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aled Williams.

Additional information

This article is based on a presentation given at the conference Organised Crime in the EU: Cases, Trends and Tools organised by ERA on 31 January 2013–1 February 2013 in Trier.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Williams, A. Fighting fraud in the EU: a note on icebergs and evidence. ERA Forum 14, 227–234 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0302-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-013-0302-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation