EU Parliament’s reputation at stake in access debate, new anti-fraud chief says

BRUSSELS — A debate over how far OLAF can go in searching the European Parliament is putting the reputation of both institutions on the line, the head of the EU anti-fraud body has warned.

Petr Klement, OLAF’s new director general, said the watchdog is still struggling to get the access it needs to properly investigate alleged wrongdoing in the institution, and called for greater clarity over the powers of investigators.

“This is subject to an ongoing legal debate — the extent to which OLAF can perform searches in the European Parliament,” Klement said in an interview with POLITICO in his Brussels office. “For the sake of the reputation of both institutions, OLAF — and especially the European Parliament — I think we should conclude the debate.”

Klement’s push for clarity over the scope of OLAF’s access comes ahead of an anticipated EU review later this year of rules governing the watchdog’s work, part of a broader revamp aimed at improving fraud prevention in Europe. It comes amid wider scrutiny of how EU institutions handle allegations of corruption and misconduct.

The issue came into sharp focus during the 2022 corruption scandal known as Qatargate, a Belgian probe into alleged attempts by Qatar and Morocco to influence decision-making in the Parliament. OLAF investigators complained at the time of being blocked from accessing lawmakers’ offices and laptops.

EU institutions have a “moral obligation” to “embrace transparency,” Klement wrote in OLAF’s annual report for 2025, released Monday. The body concluded eight cases last year involving Parliament staff members, the report said.

“We don’t have any problems with most of [the EU institutions]. With most of them we cooperate without any issues,” Klement told POLITICO. But it’s debatable whether the agreements OLAF has with certain institutions are “enough as a legal basis for the cooperation,” he added.

Under current rules, OLAF — an administrative body without the power to bring criminal prosecutions — must request permission to access the premises of the Parliament 48 hours in advance, except in “exceptional” cases where giving such notice would undermine an investigation.

A 2013 cooperation agreement between OLAF and the Parliament is supposed to facilitate access to the legislature’s premises, building on an agreement signed in 1999 that says the Parliament’s security office “shall assist [OLAF] in the practical conduct of investigations.” But OLAF’s scrutiny board said in a 2024 report that the Parliament remained reluctant to let investigators conduct searches.

“Parliament appeared to consider that the entity best placed to investigate such allegations is not OLAF but Parliament itself, and that accordingly, OLAF should refrain from any parallel investigations,” the board wrote.

“OLAF was encountering certain difficulties in investigating alleged cases of serious misconduct by MEPs,” it added.

Klement, who took up the role in February, said he “completely agrees” with that assessment.

Petr Klement’s predecessor, Ville Itälä, is among those who have long argued that the immunity MEPs enjoy can allow them to block or slow OLAF investigators in ways that those working in other institutions can’t. | Thierry Monasse/Getty Images

Many Brussels accountability watchers — including Klement’s predecessor, Ville Itälä — have long argued that the immunity MEPs enjoy can allow them to block or slow OLAF investigators in ways that those working in other institutions can’t.

Klement said the upcoming review of OLAF legislation, expected as part of the European Commission’s broader overhaul of the EU’s “antifraud architecture” — the rules governing the bodies that handle fraud, crime and corruption within the EU — is a “perfect opportunity” to settle the issue.

Yet the Czech official, who previously served as deputy to the chief prosecutor at the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, said OLAF is not seeking stronger powers.

“I do not call for more competences, we do not need more powers, we are not ‘after’ anyone,” he said. “But we want clarity on what we can and we cannot do.”

“I can see a lot of effort to share information, to resolve the situation. It must be painful for the [Parliament] itself,” he said, when asked whether he saw any lessons learned by the institution after Qatargate.

The Parliament revised its code of conduct and rules of procedure in 2023, introducing several new obligations for MEPs, including tougher requirements on declaring private interests and a ban on lobbying activities.

A Parliament spokesperson declined to comment.