BETA
Home MEPs Dossiers Committees Subjects Blog About Dumps
download json
This is a historical view (2020/01/19)

Changes: 2021/12/18events.docs.url, events, docs.docs.url, 2020/01/19docs.body, events.docs.url, docs.docs.url

View current state | View Changes for this date



2015/2699(RSP) Resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014

Progress: Procedure completed

Legal Basis:
RoP 136-p1

Events

2015/11/05
   Commission response to text adopted in plenary
Documents
SP(2015)529
2015/06/10
   EP - Results of vote in Parliament
Documents
Results of vote in Parliament
2015/06/10
   EP - Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
Details

The European Parliament adopted by 448 votes to 197, with 53 abstentions, a resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014.

The resolution was tabled by the EPP, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups.

Opening investigations : Parliament stressed that in its Annual Activity Report 2014, the OLAF Supervisory Committee (SC) noted that at the time of the reorganisation of OLAF (1 February 2012), 423 cases were opened on the same day by a single decision of the Director-General of OLAF (OLAF DG). On the basis of its analysis, the SC concluded that (i) OLAF did not conduct any appropriate assessment of the incoming information for any of the cases analysed by the SC, (ii) for the vast majority of cases there was not even a trace of any assessment activity, and (iii) the OLAF DG opened all the cases in question without establishing beforehand the existence of a sufficiently serious suspicion that there had been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union – which was in contradiction with the legal requirement for opening an OLAF investigation in force at that time.

Under these circumstances, Parliament strongly emphasised OLAF’s responsibility to comply with the legal requirements for opening an investigation . It recalled that, as regards the 423 cases opened on the same day, only 8.4 % of those that were closed resulted in recommendations, and it called on the SC to follow up compliance with the legal requirements on a regular basis.

Duration of investigations : Members pointed out that the SC concluded that the reporting on the duration of investigations by OLAF had not provided a comprehensive view of its investigative performance. While OLAF stated in its annual report that ‘investigations are being completed in less time’, the SC concluded that the improvement in the results of OLAF investigations was due to the introduction of new calculation methods . Members recalled also that Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 reinforced the SC’s role in monitoring the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Notwithstanding OLAF’s formal compliance with its obligation to report regularly to the SC on investigations lasting more than 12 months , the SC concluded, in its Opinion No 4/2014 that the information provided to it had been insufficient to enable it to properly and effectively monitor the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Accordingly, Parliament urged OLAF to comply with the legal requirements to enable the SC to fulfil one of its core functions with regard to supervising the duration of OLAF’s investigations.

Working Arrangements : the resolution noted that the SC had stated that the core of the problem with regard to the effectiveness of its supervisory role was not poor implementation of the Working Arrangements, but a fundamental difference of views between the SC and the OLAF DG in their perceptions of the SC’s role . Parliament urged the Commission to facilitate negotiations between OLAF and the SC by drawing up an action plan by 31 December 2015 with a view to amending the Working Arrangements to create a working environment in which the SC could fulfil its mandate. It took the view that the amended Working Arrangements should clarify the SC’s role to all the parties concerned.

SC recommendations : Parliament pointed out that, in the first half of the SC’s mandate, the SC issued 50 recommendations to OLAF, of which only eight were fully implemented, six were partially implemented, one was pending and 20 were not implemented, and in 15 cases the SC was not able to verify implementation owing to insufficient substantive information. It referred to its resolution of 29 April 2015 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, and urged OLAF, without undue delay, to provide justification for the cases in which it had not implemented the SC’s recommendations.

OLAF’s independence : the SC had constantly pointed out its inability to supervise OLAF’s independence on account of the lack of access to necessary information. Parliament deplored the fact that the SC was not able to implement its mandate fully, and asked the Commission to take measures to improve the SC’s ability to supervise OLAF’s independence, its investigative function, the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations, without, however, putting OLAF’s independence at risk.

Allocation of resources : Parliament noted that out of 134 investigators at the end of 2014, 13 (10 %) were assigned to the tobacco and counterfeit unit, and 44 (33 %) to the units for agricultural and structural funds, which accounted for 86 % of the financial interests at stake (EUR 1.9 billion). It recommended, therefore, that OLAF reconsider the allocation of its resources.

Documents
T8-0226/2015
2015/06/10
   EP - End of procedure in Parliament
2015/06/09
   EP - Debate in Parliament
Documents
Debate in Parliament
2015/06/03
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
B8-0539/2015
2015/06/03
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
B8-0540/2015
2015/06/03
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
B8-0541/2015
2015/06/03
   EP - Motion for a resolution
Documents
B8-0542/2015
2015/06/03
   Joint motion for resolution
Documents
RC-B8-0539/2015
2015/06/01
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
B8-0553/2015
2015/06/01
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
B8-0554/2015
2015/06/01
   EP - Oral question/interpellation by Parliament
Documents
B8-0555/2015

Documents

Activities

Votes

RC-B8-0539/2015 - Résolution #

2015/06/10 Outcome: +: 448, -: 197, 0: 53
FR DE GB PL ES NL HU CZ EL BE AT SE IE HR DK BG FI LV SI LT EE PT LU SK CY RO MT IT
Total
71
91
73
44
47
22
20
21
19
21
17
20
10
11
11
14
11
7
7
10
6
19
5
12
6
31
6
65
icon: PPE PPE
208

France PPE

19

Germany PPE

34

Poland PPE

21

Spain PPE

17

Netherlands PPE

4

Hungary PPE

11

Czechia PPE

7

Greece PPE

Abstain (1)

Georgios KYRTSOS
4

Belgium PPE

4

Austria PPE

5

Sweden PPE

4

Ireland PPE

4

Croatia PPE

5

Denmark PPE

For (1)

Bendt BENDTSEN
1

Bulgaria PPE

6

Finland PPE

3

Latvia PPE

4

Slovenia PPE

5

Lithuania PPE

2

Estonia PPE

For (1)

Tunne KELAM
1

Portugal PPE

7

Luxembourg PPE

2

Slovakia PPE

6

Cyprus PPE

2

Romania PPE

13

Malta PPE

3

Italy PPE

14
icon: ALDE ALDE
61

France ALDE

7

Germany ALDE

3

United Kingdom ALDE

1

Spain ALDE

6

Netherlands ALDE

7

Czechia ALDE

4

Belgium ALDE

6

Austria ALDE

For (1)

Angelika MLINAR
1

Sweden ALDE

3

Ireland ALDE

For (1)

Marian HARKIN
1

Croatia ALDE

2

Denmark ALDE

3

Bulgaria ALDE

3

Finland ALDE

2

Lithuania ALDE

3

Estonia ALDE

3

Portugal ALDE

2

Luxembourg ALDE

For (1)

Charles GOERENS
1

Romania ALDE

3
icon: Verts/ALE Verts/ALE
47

France Verts/ALE

5

Germany Verts/ALE

11

United Kingdom Verts/ALE

6

Spain Verts/ALE

4

Netherlands Verts/ALE

2

Hungary Verts/ALE

2

Belgium Verts/ALE

2

Austria Verts/ALE

3

Sweden Verts/ALE

4

Croatia Verts/ALE

For (1)

Davor ŠKRLEC
1

Denmark Verts/ALE

For (1)

Margrete AUKEN
1

Finland Verts/ALE

For (1)

Heidi HAUTALA
1

Latvia Verts/ALE

1

Slovenia Verts/ALE

For (1)

Igor ŠOLTES
1

Lithuania Verts/ALE

For (1)

Bronis ROPĖ
1

Estonia Verts/ALE

For (1)

Indrek TARAND
1

Luxembourg Verts/ALE

For (1)

Claude TURMES
1
icon: NI NI
46

France NI

22

Germany NI

2

United Kingdom NI

For (1)

Diane DODDS
1

Poland NI

3

Netherlands NI

2

Hungary NI

3

Greece NI

4

Belgium NI

For (1)

Gerolf ANNEMANS
1

Austria NI

4

Italy NI

4
icon: GUE/NGL GUE/NGL
47

France GUE/NGL

4

Germany GUE/NGL

8

United Kingdom GUE/NGL

1

Spain GUE/NGL

9

Netherlands GUE/NGL

2

Czechia GUE/NGL

3

Greece GUE/NGL

6

Sweden GUE/NGL

For (1)

Malin BJÖRK
1

Ireland GUE/NGL

Abstain (1)

Luke Ming FLANAGAN
4

Denmark GUE/NGL

For (1)

Rina Ronja KARI
1

Finland GUE/NGL

For (1)

Merja KYLLÖNEN
1

Portugal GUE/NGL

2

Cyprus GUE/NGL

2

Italy GUE/NGL

3
icon: ECR ECR
64

Germany ECR

8

United Kingdom ECR

21

Poland ECR

14

Netherlands ECR

2

Czechia ECR

2

Greece ECR

For (1)

Notis MARIAS
1

Belgium ECR

4

Croatia ECR

For (1)

Ruža TOMAŠIĆ
1

Denmark ECR

3

Bulgaria ECR

Abstain (1)

Angel DZHAMBAZKI
1

Finland ECR

2

Latvia ECR

For (1)

Roberts ZĪLE
1

Lithuania ECR

Abstain (1)

Waldemar TOMASZEWSKI
1

Slovakia ECR

Against (1)

Branislav ŠKRIPEK
2

Italy ECR

For (1)

Raffaele FITTO
1
icon: EFDD EFDD
43

France EFDD

1

United Kingdom EFDD

22

Poland EFDD

1

Czechia EFDD

For (1)

Petr MACH
1

Sweden EFDD

2

Lithuania EFDD

Abstain (1)

Rolandas PAKSAS
1

Italy EFDD

15
icon: S&D S&D
181

France S&D

13

Germany S&D

25

United Kingdom S&D

21

Poland S&D

5

Spain S&D

11

Netherlands S&D

3

Hungary S&D

4

Czechia S&D

4

Greece S&D

Abstain (1)

Nikos ANDROULAKIS
4

Belgium S&D

4

Austria S&D

4

Sweden S&D

6

Ireland S&D

Against (1)

Nessa CHILDERS
1

Croatia S&D

2

Denmark S&D

2

Bulgaria S&D

4

Finland S&D

2

Latvia S&D

Against (1)

Andrejs MAMIKINS
1

Slovenia S&D

Against (1)

Tanja FAJON
1

Lithuania S&D

2

Estonia S&D

Against (1)

Marju LAURISTIN
1

Portugal S&D

8

Luxembourg S&D

Against (1)

Mady DELVAUX
1

Slovakia S&D

4

Cyprus S&D

2

Romania S&D

15

Malta S&D

3

Italy S&D

Abstain (1)

Flavio ZANONATO
28

History

(these mark the time of scraping, not the official date of the change)

2020-01-19Show (7) Changes | Timetravel
docs/3/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0539&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2015-0539_EN.html
docs/4/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0540&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2015-0540_EN.html
docs/5/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0541&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2015-0541_EN.html
docs/6/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0542&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-8-2015-0542_EN.html
docs/7/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0539&language=EN
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/RC-8-2015-0539_EN.html
docs/8/body
EC
events/2/docs/0/url
Old
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0226
New
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2015-0226_EN.html
2019-07-12Show (2) Changes | Timetravel
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 136-p1
procedure/legal_basis/0
Rules of Procedure EP 128-p1
2019-07-06Show (11) Changes | Timetravel
activities
  • date: 2015-06-09T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150609&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament body: EP type: Debate in Parliament
  • date: 2015-06-10T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25893&l=en type: Results of vote in Parliament title: Results of vote in Parliament url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0226 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0226/2015 body: EP type: Results of vote in Parliament
commission
  • body: EC dg: Budget commissioner: GEORGIEVA Kristalina
committees
    docs
    • date: 2015-06-01T00:00:00 docs: title: B8-0553/2015 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-01T00:00:00 docs: title: B8-0554/2015 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-01T00:00:00 docs: title: B8-0555/2015 type: Oral question/interpellation by Parliament body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0539&language=EN title: B8-0539/2015 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0540&language=EN title: B8-0540/2015 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0541&language=EN title: B8-0541/2015 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B8-2015-0542&language=EN title: B8-0542/2015 type: Motion for a resolution body: EP
    • date: 2015-06-03T00:00:00 docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=P8-RC-2015-0539&language=EN title: RC-B8-0539/2015 type: Joint motion for resolution
    • date: 2015-11-05T00:00:00 docs: url: /oeil/spdoc.do?i=25893&j=0&l=en title: SP(2015)529 type: Commission response to text adopted in plenary
    events
    • date: 2015-06-09T00:00:00 type: Debate in Parliament body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150609&type=CRE title: Debate in Parliament
    • date: 2015-06-10T00:00:00 type: Results of vote in Parliament body: EP docs: url: https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25893&l=en title: Results of vote in Parliament
    • date: 2015-06-10T00:00:00 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading body: EP docs: url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0226 title: T8-0226/2015 summary: The European Parliament adopted by 448 votes to 197, with 53 abstentions, a resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014. The resolution was tabled by the EPP, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups. Opening investigations : Parliament stressed that in its Annual Activity Report 2014, the OLAF Supervisory Committee (SC) noted that at the time of the reorganisation of OLAF (1 February 2012), 423 cases were opened on the same day by a single decision of the Director-General of OLAF (OLAF DG). On the basis of its analysis, the SC concluded that (i) OLAF did not conduct any appropriate assessment of the incoming information for any of the cases analysed by the SC, (ii) for the vast majority of cases there was not even a trace of any assessment activity, and (iii) the OLAF DG opened all the cases in question without establishing beforehand the existence of a sufficiently serious suspicion that there had been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union – which was in contradiction with the legal requirement for opening an OLAF investigation in force at that time. Under these circumstances, Parliament strongly emphasised OLAF’s responsibility to comply with the legal requirements for opening an investigation . It recalled that, as regards the 423 cases opened on the same day, only 8.4 % of those that were closed resulted in recommendations, and it called on the SC to follow up compliance with the legal requirements on a regular basis. Duration of investigations : Members pointed out that the SC concluded that the reporting on the duration of investigations by OLAF had not provided a comprehensive view of its investigative performance. While OLAF stated in its annual report that ‘investigations are being completed in less time’, the SC concluded that the improvement in the results of OLAF investigations was due to the introduction of new calculation methods . Members recalled also that Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 reinforced the SC’s role in monitoring the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Notwithstanding OLAF’s formal compliance with its obligation to report regularly to the SC on investigations lasting more than 12 months , the SC concluded, in its Opinion No 4/2014 that the information provided to it had been insufficient to enable it to properly and effectively monitor the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Accordingly, Parliament urged OLAF to comply with the legal requirements to enable the SC to fulfil one of its core functions with regard to supervising the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Working Arrangements : the resolution noted that the SC had stated that the core of the problem with regard to the effectiveness of its supervisory role was not poor implementation of the Working Arrangements, but a fundamental difference of views between the SC and the OLAF DG in their perceptions of the SC’s role . Parliament urged the Commission to facilitate negotiations between OLAF and the SC by drawing up an action plan by 31 December 2015 with a view to amending the Working Arrangements to create a working environment in which the SC could fulfil its mandate. It took the view that the amended Working Arrangements should clarify the SC’s role to all the parties concerned. SC recommendations : Parliament pointed out that, in the first half of the SC’s mandate, the SC issued 50 recommendations to OLAF, of which only eight were fully implemented, six were partially implemented, one was pending and 20 were not implemented, and in 15 cases the SC was not able to verify implementation owing to insufficient substantive information. It referred to its resolution of 29 April 2015 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, and urged OLAF, without undue delay, to provide justification for the cases in which it had not implemented the SC’s recommendations. OLAF’s independence : the SC had constantly pointed out its inability to supervise OLAF’s independence on account of the lack of access to necessary information. Parliament deplored the fact that the SC was not able to implement its mandate fully, and asked the Commission to take measures to improve the SC’s ability to supervise OLAF’s independence, its investigative function, the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations, without, however, putting OLAF’s independence at risk. Allocation of resources : Parliament noted that out of 134 investigators at the end of 2014, 13 (10 %) were assigned to the tobacco and counterfeit unit, and 44 (33 %) to the units for agricultural and structural funds, which accounted for 86 % of the financial interests at stake (EUR 1.9 billion). It recommended, therefore, that OLAF reconsider the allocation of its resources.
    • date: 2015-06-10T00:00:00 type: End of procedure in Parliament body: EP
    links
    other
    • body: EC dg: url: http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/budget/ title: Budget commissioner: GEORGIEVA Kristalina
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure EP 128-p1
    procedure/legal_basis/0
    Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 128-p1
    procedure/subject
    Old
    • 8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
    New
    8.70.04
    Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
    procedure/subtype
    Old
    Debate or resolution on oral questions
    New
    Debate or resolution on oral question/interpellation
    2015-11-04Show (3) Changes | Timetravel
    activities/1/docs/0
    url
    http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/sda.do?id=25893&l=en
    type
    Results of vote in Parliament
    title
    Results of vote in Parliament
    activities/1/docs/1/text

    • The European Parliament adopted by 448 votes to 197, with 53 abstentions, a resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014.

      The resolution was tabled by the EPP, Greens/EFA and GUE/NGL groups.

      Opening investigations: Parliament stressed that in its Annual Activity Report 2014, the OLAF Supervisory Committee (SC) noted that at the time of the reorganisation of OLAF (1 February 2012), 423 cases were opened on the same day by a single decision of the Director-General of OLAF (OLAF DG). On the basis of its analysis, the SC concluded that (i) OLAF did not conduct any appropriate assessment of the incoming information for any of the cases analysed by the SC, (ii) for the vast majority of cases there was not even a trace of any assessment activity, and (iii) the OLAF DG opened all the cases in question without establishing beforehand the existence of a sufficiently serious suspicion that there had been fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union – which was in contradiction with the legal requirement for opening an OLAF investigation in force at that time.

      Under these circumstances, Parliament strongly emphasised OLAF’s responsibility to comply with the legal requirements for opening an investigation. It recalled that, as regards the 423 cases opened on the same day, only 8.4 % of those that were closed resulted in recommendations, and it called on the SC to follow up compliance with the legal requirements on a regular basis.

      Duration of investigations: Members pointed out that the SC concluded that the reporting on the duration of investigations by OLAF had not provided a comprehensive view of its investigative performance. While OLAF stated in its annual report that ‘investigations are being completed in less time’, the SC concluded that the improvement in the results of OLAF investigations was due to the introduction of new calculation methods. Members recalled also that Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 reinforced the SC’s role in monitoring the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Notwithstanding OLAF’s formal compliance with its obligation to report regularly to the SC on investigations lasting more than 12 months, the SC concluded, in its Opinion No 4/2014 that the information provided to it had been insufficient to enable it to properly and effectively monitor the duration of OLAF’s investigations. Accordingly, Parliament urged OLAF to comply with the legal requirements to enable the SC to fulfil one of its core functions with regard to supervising the duration of OLAF’s investigations.

      Working Arrangements: the resolution noted that the SC had stated that the core of the problem with regard to the effectiveness of its supervisory role was not poor implementation of the Working Arrangements, but a fundamental difference of views between the SC and the OLAF DG in their perceptions of the SC’s role. Parliament urged the Commission to facilitate negotiations between OLAF and the SC by drawing up an action plan by 31 December 2015 with a view to amending the Working Arrangements to create a working environment in which the SC could fulfil its mandate. It took the view that the amended Working Arrangements should clarify the SC’s role to all the parties concerned.

      SC recommendations: Parliament pointed out that, in the first half of the SC’s mandate, the SC issued 50 recommendations to OLAF, of which only eight were fully implemented, six were partially implemented, one was pending and 20 were not implemented, and in 15 cases the SC was not able to verify implementation owing to insufficient substantive information. It referred to its resolution of 29 April 2015 on discharge in respect of the implementation of the general budget of the European Union for the financial year 2013, and urged OLAF, without undue delay, to provide justification for the cases in which it had not implemented the SC’s recommendations.

      OLAF’s independence: the SC had constantly pointed out its inability to supervise OLAF’s independence on account of the lack of access to necessary information. Parliament deplored the fact that the SC was not able to implement its mandate fully, and asked the Commission to take measures to improve the SC’s ability to supervise OLAF’s independence, its investigative function, the application of procedural guarantees and the duration of investigations, without, however, putting OLAF’s independence at risk.

      Allocation of resources: Parliament noted that out of 134 investigators at the end of 2014, 13 (10 %) were assigned to the tobacco and counterfeit unit, and 44 (33 %) to the units for agricultural and structural funds, which accounted for 86 % of the financial interests at stake (EUR 1.9 billion). It recommended, therefore, that OLAF reconsider the allocation of its resources.
    activities/1/type
    Old
    Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    New
    Results of vote in Parliament
    2015-06-12Show (5) Changes | Timetravel
    activities/0/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?secondRef=TOC&language=EN&reference=20150609&type=CRE type: Debate in Parliament title: Debate in Parliament
    activities/1/docs
    • url: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=TA&language=EN&reference=P8-TA-2015-0226 type: Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading title: T8-0226/2015
    activities/1/type
    Old
    Vote in plenary scheduled
    New
    Decision by Parliament, 1st reading/single reading
    procedure/stage_reached
    Old
    Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
    New
    Procedure completed
    procedure/title
    Old
    OLAF Supervisory Committee's annual report 2014
    New
    Resolution on the OLAF Supervisory Committee’s annual report 2014
    2015-06-11Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
    activities/0/type
    Old
    Debate in plenary scheduled
    New
    Debate in Parliament
    2015-06-09Show (1) Changes | Timetravel
    other/0
    body
    EC
    dg
    commissioner
    GEORGIEVA Kristalina
    2015-05-29Show (5) Changes
    activities
    • date: 2015-06-09T00:00:00 body: EP type: Debate in plenary scheduled
    • date: 2015-06-10T00:00:00 body: EP type: Vote in plenary scheduled
    committees
      links
      other
        procedure
        reference
        2015/2699(RSP)
        title
        OLAF Supervisory Committee's annual report 2014
        legal_basis
        Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament EP 128-p1
        stage_reached
        Awaiting Parliament 1st reading / single reading / budget 1st stage
        subtype
        Debate or resolution on oral questions
        type
        RSP - Resolutions on topical subjects
        subject
        8.70.04 Protecting financial interests of the EU against fraud
        @parltrack
        @parltrack@eupolicy.social
        [javascript protected email address]
        code AGPLv3.0+
        data ODBLv1.0
        site content CC-By-Sa-3.0

        ParlTrack - 2011-2024

        © European Union, 2011 – Source: European Parliament
        Hosted by AS250.net Foundation