EU Parliament Debates EPPO, OLAF VAT Access

Following the European Commission proposal to formally integrate the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) into the existing administrative cooperation framework, and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issuing an Opinion regarding the Commission's Proposal, the European Parliament published a draft amendment to the Regulation (EU) No 904/2010 concerning granting these two institutions access to VAT information.

Main Themes of the Amendments

The amendments proposed by the European Parliament are based on the Commission's proposals to strengthen how information about VAT fraud is shared within the EU, specifically by improving cooperation between EU countries and key anti-fraud bodies such as the EPPO and OLAF. 

In the document, the Parliament members acknowledge that the cross-border VAT fraud is a major issue for the EU's finances. Under the proposed amendments, EU countries will grant EPPO centralized access to targeted searches of VAT information. Similarly, OLAF will receive centralized access to the same systems, with access through a single entry point covering information across multiple EU countries.

One notable theme is hard pushback from several members of Parliament on broad access, insisting on strict limits. More specifically, Parliament members insist on access that does not permit bulk data extraction, generalized monitoring, or automated profiling not linked to a specific administrative investigation. In contrast, the access must be limited to the minimum necessary, tied to active case files, and fully logged and auditable.

Several amendments address new requirements for security clearance, role-based access, and mandatory data protection training. These amendments aim to ensure that only European Prosecutors, European Delegated Prosecutors, and selected staff of the EPPO and OLAF, previously authorized by the EPPO and OLAF, have access to VAT information to execute their tasks, under the oversight of Eurofisc Liaison officials.

While the Commission proposed putting infrastructure costs on EPPO and OLAF themselves, several Parliament members proposed deleting this provision. Furthermore, a provision requiring that the European Parliament be fully informed of the preparation of implementing acts governing technical access has been added.

Since some of the most recognized obstacles to effective cooperation between EU bodies are incompatibility among IT systems, fragmentation of communication channels, and limited interoperability of case management systems, several amendments propose investing in a common digital infrastructure to address these issues.

Conclusion

Step by step, the EU is moving towards integrating EPPO and OLAF into an administrative cooperation framework. Nonetheless, from the text provided by the European Parliament, it is apparent that a legislative debate on how to give EU anti-fraud bodies better tools to fight VAT fraud is ongoing. 

Looking at the amendments proposed by the Commission and those proposed by the Parliament members, it is clear that a balance between effectiveness, which includes broad access, and fundamental rights compliance, such as targeted, traceable, and minimized access, is a point of disagreement between these two EU bodies.

Source: European Parliament, VATabout