Background to the complaint

1. The complainant is a consultancy specialised in development aid projects.The European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) opened an investigation concerning suspicions of irregularities in relation to EU-funded projects and contracts awarded to the complainant.The complainant was thus considered a ‘person concerned’ in the OLAF investigation, within the meaning of Regulation 883/2013.[2]

2. On 31 July 2024, OLAF informed the complainant that it had closed the investigation and that it had presented financial and administrative recommendations concerning the complainant to the relevant Directorates-Generals of the European Commission. OLAF also provided information on the possibility for the complainant to turn to the Controller of procedural guarantees.[3]

3. On 26 August 2024, the complainant submitted a complaint to the Controller. It took issue with OLAF’s decision to close the investigation based on a summary of facts which it argued contained unclear and vague statements, preventing it from providing informed comments.

4. On 9 September 2024, the Controller closed the complaint as inadmissible. The Controller explained that the complaint was time-barred because it was submitted after the one-month deadline following the closure of the investigation. In particular, the Controller noted that the investigation was closed on 22 July 2024, and therefore, the deadline for submitting a complaint to it expired on 23 August 2024.

5. In response, the complainant argued that the letter from OLAF informing it of the closure of the investigation was sent on 31 July 2024 and that it did not contain any information that the investigation had been closed on 22 July 2024.

6. The Controller explained that Regulation 883/2013[4] establishes a clear deadline for making a complaint to the Controller, which starts from the date of the closure of the investigation, and not from the date the person concerned was informed of or became aware of the closing date of the investigation.

7. The complainant contested the Controller’s decision. It argued that OLAF should notify the person concerned within one week of the closure of the investigation, and that the one-month period to lodge a complaint to the Controller should begin from the date of notification. Additionally, it claimed the one-month time limit is in itself too short, and that it was not treated fairly nor given an adequate opportunity to defend itself.

8. Dissatisfied with the how the Controller and OLAF handled the matter, the complainant turned to the Ombudsman.

The inquiry

9. The Ombudsman opened an inquiry into how OLAF informed the complainant about the closure of the investigation and the possibility to turn to the Controller.  

10. The inquiry did not address the Controller’s decision to reject the complainant’s complaint as inadmissible, as the Ombudsman considered this was not manifestly wrong. The Controller acted in line with the wording of Regulation 883/2013. The inquiry into this complaint thus focused exclusively on the actions of OLAF regarding the matter.

11. In the course of the inquiry, the Ombudsman inquiry team inspected the file of the case. OLAF also provided clarifications in writing on the matter. The reply was shared with the complainant, which provided comments.

Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

By OLAF

12. OLAF argued that, since the complainant is a ‘person concerned’ in an OLAF investigation, it should have known the rules set out in Regulation 883/2013, including the deadlines for submitting a complaint to the Controller. The complainant was also informed of these rules in the context of a previous complaint to the Controller, which had also been declared inadmissible because it was submitted too late.  

13. Moreover, OLAF explained that, in its letter of 31 July 2024 informing the complainant of the closure of the investigation, it had informed the complainant of the possibility to turn to the Controller and of the relevant deadlines to submit a complaint.

14. Additionally, OLAF noted that, while the letter informing the complainant of the closure of the investigation was sent on the 31 July 2024, it was dated 24 July 2024. Therefore, OLAF considered that it should have been clear to the complainant that the investigation was concluded by 24 July 2024 at the latest.

15. However, OLAF admitted that, in the letter informing the complainant of the closure of the investigation, it had failed to clearly indicate the closing date of the investigation, which was 22 July 2024. OLAF acknowledged that, without this information, the complainant could not have known that the deadline for filing a complaint ran from 22 July 2024 to 23 August 2024. Moreover, OLAF noted that, even if the investigation had been closed on 24 July 2024, the date of the letter to the complainant, the deadline to turn to the Controller would have still been 26 August 2024, the date on which the complainant submitted its complaint to the Controller.

16. Nevertheless, OLAF noted that, even if the complainant had turned to the Controller within one month from the closing date of the investigation, some of the claims it had raised would still have been considered inadmissible. This is because, under Regulation 883/2013, a complainant must turn to the Controller within one month of becoming aware of the facts at issue, and in any event no later than one month after the closure of the investigation. Since the complainant had already been informed of certain facts in March 2024, any claims related to these facts would be considered as submitted too late.

17. Thus, OLAF acknowledged that, due to its failure to indicate the date of the closure of the investigation, and given the literal interpretation of the rules by the Controller, the complainant was prevented from lodging its complaint to the Controller within the applicable timeframe, but only for part of its claims.

18. While OLAF stressed the importance of timely notification to ensure that persons concerned by an OLAF investigation can turn to the Controller within the applicable timeframe, it noted that, in line with Regulation 883/2013, there is no set deadline to inform a person concerned of the closure of an investigation where OLAF makes recommendations.[5] In this case, where OLAF made recommendations, it still notified the complainant within six working days.

19. In addition, OLAF noted that the complainant had sent an e-mail to it on 26 August 2024, which mirrored the complaint to the Controller. OLAF replied to the complainant on 19 September 2024. While OLAF acknowledged that its reply cannot be considered as equivalent to a decision of the Controller, it noted that it had still provided a detailed reply to the complainant’s allegations.

By the complainant

20. The complainant noted that the date of the letter, 24 July 2024, is not the date on which the investigation was closed. It argued that, by failing to inform it of the closing date of the investigation, OLAF did not act in line with the principles of good administration. This deprived it of the opportunity to turn to the Controller.

21. Moreover, the complainant argued that OLAF’s reply to the complainant of 19 September 2024 cannot be considered as equivalent to a decision from an independent authority such as the Controller. OLAF may not itself review its compliance with the procedural guarantees of persons concerned by an investigation.

The Ombudsman's assessment

22. This inquiry concerns exclusively the actions of OLAF. However, as these actions are related to the possibility to turn to the Controller of procedural guarantees, it is first necessary to set out the role of the Controller. The Controller was set up to provide those concerned by OLAF investigations with a dedicated and independent mechanism to challenge alleged violations of their procedural guarantees. According to the applicable legislation, complaints to the Controller may only be lodged by persons concerned and must be submitted within one month of becoming aware of the relevant facts, and in any case no later than one month after the closure of the investigation.[6]

23. For this important independent remedy mechanism to be of relevance for those concerned by OLAF investigations, OLAF needs to inform them in a timely manner that the Controller exists, and have all relevant information necessary for submitting a complaint.

24. As explained by OLAF, when it issues a recommendation in an investigation, there is no set deadline under the applicable legal framework for informing the person concerned of the closure of the investigation. There is a specific deadline only in cases where no recommendations are made.[7]

25. This means, in practice, that a person concerned by an OLAF investigation may only become aware of the closure of the OLAF investigation after the deadline to turn to the Controller has expired, preventing it altogether from turning to the Controller once the investigation is closed. This indicates a broader issue regarding procedural guarantees in OLAF investigations.[8]

26. In the case at hand, OLAF did inform the complainant of the closure of the investigation on 31 July 2024, within the timeframe to turn to the Controller. However, as acknowledged by OLAF, the notification letter did not include the closing date of the investigation, but only the date when the letter was signed, that is 24 July 2024. This date appeared three times in the letter and, understandably, led the complainant to believe it was the closing date of the investigation. Thus, the complainant was not in possession of all necessary and correct information for submitting an admissible complaint to the Controller, that is, within the deadline.

27. Knowing the actual date of closure of the investigation was essential for the complainant to be able to turn to the Controller within the deadline. The complainant ultimately turned to the Controller three days after the deadline had expired. It is therefore undeniable that not having information on when the investigation was closed impacted the complainant’s ability to turn to the Controller.  

28. This situation could have easily been avoided by simply including, in the letter informing the complainant of the closure of the investigation, the actual date when the investigation was closed. Against this background, the Ombudsman finds that OLAF’s failure to inform the complainant of the closing date of the investigation amounts to maladministration.

29. While OLAF replied to the complainant’s letter of 26 August 2024, which mirrored the complaint to the Controller, and provided useful clarifications to the complainant, the Ombudsman finds that this cannot be considered as a sufficient remedy in this case. The Controller was specifically established to act as an independent mechanism for dealing with complaints against OLAF. As such, OLAF’s assessment on a complaint cannot substitute that of the Controller. 

30. However, the Ombudsman finds that there is no appropriate recommendation to make to address this maladministration. As mentioned above, the scope of the inquiry was limited to the actions of OLAF, as the Ombudsman found that, by rejecting the complaint as inadmissible, the Controller was not manifestly wrong. The Ombudsman will nevertheless make a suggestion to OLAF with a view to preventing a similar situation occurring in the future. 

Conclusion

Based on the inquiry, the Ombudsman closes this case with the following finding:

By failing to inform the complainant of the closing date of the investigation, the European Anti-Fraud Agency (OLAF) acted with maladministration.

The complainant and OLAF will be informed of this decision.

Suggestion for improvement

OLAF should ensure that, when it informs a person concerned of the closure of an investigation, it provides timely, clear and exhaustive information on the possibility to turn to the Controller. This includes indicating the closing date of the investigation.

Teresa Anjinho
European Ombudsman

Strasbourg, 19/09/2025

 

 

[2] Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/883/oj/eng, Article 2 (5): “person concerned’ shall mean any person or economic operator suspected of having committed fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union and who is therefore subject to investigation by the Office”.

[3] The Controller of procedural guarantees examines complaints submitted by persons concerned in investigations carried out by OLAF, specifically regarding OLAF’s compliance with procedural guarantees and the rules applicable to investigations. More information available here: https://supervisory-committee-olaf.europa.eu/controller-procedural-guarantees_en

[4] Article 9b (2) second indent of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2020/2223 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 December 2020 amending Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, as regards cooperation with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office and the effectiveness of the European Anti-Fraud Office investigations: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2020/2223/oj. 

[5] Article 11 Regulation 883/2013; Article 29 of OLAF’s Guidelines on Investigation Procedures for OLAF Staff: https://anti-fraud.ec.europa.eu/guidelines-investigations-olaf-staff_en.

[6] Article 9b(3) of Regulation 883/2013.

[7] Article 11 Regulation 883/2013; Article 29 of OLAF’s Guidelines on Investigation Procedures for OLAF Staff.

[8] This issue was raised by the Ombudsman in the context of the current evaluation of the OLAF Regulation, as an issue to be addressed by the legislators.