How are OLAF reports implemented in the Member States and what is their impact on the customs decisions of Member States? The following briefing shows that despite the lack of binding effect, OLAF reports often have a significant impact on subsequent measures at a national level. In particular, these reports have a considerable influence over the protection of confidentiality under customs law.

Germany has been tightening its foreign investment control rules significantly in the past. This stricter view was confirmed yesterday: According to reports in the German press the Federal Cabinet prohibited a transaction by a Chinese state-owned enterprise (SOE) because the acquisition would pose a threat to Germany’s public order and security.

Where OLAF investigations, and in particular OLAF reports, violate the rights of natural and legal persons, such as data protection rights or procedural guarantees, it is possible to submit complaints and take legal action against OLAF. Various possibilities exist at both European and national level:

In the course of external investigations, OLAF has the power to conduct on-site controls and inspections in accordance with Article 3 (2) of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No. 883/2013. As a preliminary remark, it is important that the management appears to remain calm, because an on-site OLAF search places immense stress on staff. In particular, the management should observe the following rules of conduct:

OLAF operates in cases of fraud, corruption and offences affecting the financial interests of the EU. OLAF’s power to investigate is not limited to investigation internal to the EU institutions and bodies, but it can also conduct external investigations. Such external investigations are administrative in nature and serve to detect fraud or other offences committed by natural or legal persons.

The hot-off-the-press JUVE Handbook of Business Law Firms 2020/2021 recommends BLOMSTEIN in all our practice areas: Public procurement, antitrust & competition and international trade law. All four BLOMSTEIN partners are listed in their respective fields and are recommended by clients as “best in class”.

The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF, abbreviation for Office Européen de Lutte Anti-Fraude) is an office established by the European Commission. It is currently attached to the Commissioner for Taxation and Customs Union. However, OLAF is completely independent in the way it exercises its investigative mandate. The current head of OLAF is Director General Ville Itälä. The organisation is divided into four directorates.

Misuse of the EU budget and evasion of taxes, duties and levies has increased significantly in recent years. This should be prevented to protect the EU-taxpayer. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) was established to investigate fraud, corruption and other criminal acts affecting the EU’s financial interests. For this purpose, it can conduct investigations both inside and outside the EU institutions and bodies. In its final investigation report, OLAF makes recommendations to the European institutions or to the competent national authorities of the EU Member States as to whether legal, financial, disciplinary or administrative measures should be taken.

In case you are interested in the Inter-American Development Bank’s policies on sanctions and debarments, please join us in a webinar on 27 November. The webinar is being organized by PUC-RIO together with BMA and BLOMSTEIN. We are very happy that IDB’s Juan Ronderos will be joining us.

Margrethe Vestager, EU commissioner for competition policy, recently issued a stern public warning to car manufacturers. The European Commission is currently investigating the companies for their role in Germany’s infamous car emissions scandal. Businesses that intend to cooperate in the area of cybersecurity would do well to reflect on the commissioner’s warning as well. Cars and IT? At first glance, few parallels come to mind between the traditional automotive sector and the relatively new field of cybersecurity. Yet both areas face disruptive technological challenges that companies can only overcome together. The cautionary tale of the German carmakers offers vital antitrust lessons for technical cooperation far beyond the confines of the automotive industry.