The EU has successively signed association agreements with countries under the ENP. Since 2008, OLAF has developed anti-fraud cooperation clauses that can be used in agreements such as association agreements, partnership and cooperation agreements and other such agreements between the EU, its Member States and third countries. Clauses have become more sophisticated over time; the 30 more recent Association Agreements systematically contain specific provisions on OLAF`s competences, including the power to carry out on-the-spot checks and the possibility to exchange information on cases. OLAF relies on a wide range of instruments for its investigations outside the EU`s borders. For pre-accession countries, the legal framework is already largely harmonised. The anti-fraud provisions of the international framework agreements, as well as the obligation for each country to set up an AFCOS to coordinate its anti-fraud measures, provide for a clear modus operandi for the conduct of OLAF investigations. The situation is more diverse for neighbouring and other third countries, with the most recent international agreements providing for a legal situation similar to that of pre-accession countries. OLAF`s extensive network of cooperation partners around the world helps to facilitate cooperation and effectively protect EU funds. The contractual obligations of the body receiving Union funds to cooperate with OLAF provide for additional and highly effective instruments, as confirmed by the recent case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. As we have seen in Section III, OLAF is responsible under both Regulation (EC) No 883/2013 and Regulation No 2185/96 for carrying out on-the-spot checks in third countries to investigate allegations of fraud and irregularities affecting the Union budget.

This competence is reflected in the international agreements concluded between the EU and the country concerned vis-à-vis the third country. In accordance with Article 17 of the IPA Regulation, the Commission and the beneficiary countries shall conclude framework agreements on the implementation of the aid. In accordance with Article 18, all agreements resulting from the IPA Regulation contain provisions ensuring the protection of the Community`s financial interests, in particular as regards fraud, corruption and other irregularities under the applicable Regulations21, which expressly confirm OLAF`s right of access to information and on-the-spot checks. In line with this legal obligation, all pre-accession countries have concluded a framework agreement22 with the Commission on the implementation of EU financial assistance under the IPA. As will be explained in more detail below, OLAF relies on international agreements in which the country concerned consents to the exercise of OLAF`s powers on its territory. In the absence of such an agreement, the third country may de facto give its consent to OLAF`s investigative activities if the competent authority accepts OLAF`s actions in a particular case.15 The practical aspects of cooperation between the two bodies have not yet been defined. The EPPO and OLAF should conclude the working arrangements provided for in the proposal to amend Regulation No 883/201357 (currently Article 12(g)). For example, according to art. 50(5) of the Framework Agreement with Montenegro23, OLAF may `carry out documentary and on-the-spot checks and inspections in accordance with Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 883/2013 and Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2185/1996`.

The agreement also applies to subcontracting: according to Article 50(6), `Controls and audits … applies to all beneficiaries and subcontractors who have received support under IPA II. Identical provisions are contained in the framework agreements of the other pre-accession countries. The European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) is an independent body that fights against illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the Union. It conducts investigations of an administrative nature both within the European Union and outside its borders. This article explains the legal framework within which OLAF investigates EU budget expenditure in third countries. It describes OLAF`s competence to operate outside the EU, as defined in the EU legal framework and reflected in international agreements. The discussion includes an analysis of the single instruments by which OLAF must act on the basis of the contractual obligations of the economic operator, the elements of which have been clarified in two recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. In addition, the practical aspects of studies carried out in third countries are highlighted, with particular emphasis on pre-accession countries and the European Neighbourhood countries. The article concludes with an overview of how OLAF`s specific expertise, in cooperation with the EPPO, could further improve the protection of the Union`s financial interests. Many student organizations bring speakers, musicians, and other artists to campus.

To this end, we establish a contract. Signing a contract allows St. Olaf and external talent to agree on mutually beneficial terms. A minimum of four weeks is required to complete this process. Events requested within four weeks must set a new date or may not occur. Contracts can take time and the four-week window gives us time to close deals. In addition, we cannot pay talents for their services without a contract. Students are not allowed to enter into agreements with non-St. Olaf units and all legal agreements must be reviewed and signed by staff authorized to sign on behalf of St. Olaf College. In addition, investigative cooperation between OLAF and the international organisation concerned is defined directly in funding contracts, known as contribution agreements.

Where the European Commission makes a financial contribution to an operation, programme or project managed by an international organisation, the corresponding contribution agreement shall be supplemented by a standardised annex referring to OLAF`s investigative competence. According to art. 17(2) of Annex II – General conditions applicable to contribution agreements – `[t]he organisation agrees that OLAF may conduct investigations, including on-the-spot checks and inspections, in accordance with the provisions of Union law protecting the Union`s financial interests against fraud, corruption and any other illegal activity`. A very similar standard clause was included in the previous proposal (“Grant or Delegation Agreement for Pillar Evaluation” – PaGoDA), which was in force until the entry into force of the new Financial Regulation on 2 August 2018. In order to enable OLAF to carry out its investigative tasks, including in order to effectively protect the external relations aspect of the EU budget, Article 129(1), (2) and (220)(5c) of the Financial Regulation16 provides that any person or entity receiving Union funds must agree to include OLAF`s competence to conduct investigations in any financing agreement. Article 129(2) provides that `any person or entity receiving Union funds under direct and indirect management shall agree in writing to grant the necessary rights in accordance with paragraph 1 and shall ensure that all third parties involved in the implementation of Union funds grant equivalent rights`. The financing agreements concluded with the body receiving EU funds relate directly to OLAF`s competence on the basis of Regulations No 883/2013 and No 2185/96 and thus give OLAF the possibility to rely on the contractual obligations of the economic operator. Although OLAF is a largely successful organisation, it is not free of flaws and challenges.

It depends above all on its dependence on the cooperation of the European Member States. OLAF is not a sanctioning authority, it does not have the power to prosecute or discipline, but only to make recommendations. Following litigation before the US courts and to resolve the problem of contraband and counterfeit cigarettes, EU Member States and the European Commission signed (between 2004 and 2010) legally binding and enforceable agreements[4] with the world`s four largest tobacco manufacturers. .