The European anti-fraud agency found “irregularities” at the Malta-based European Asylum Support Office.
Confirming that an investigation was concluded recently, an OLAF spokeswoman said it was recommended that the EASO management board should take disciplinary action against former EASO executive director José Carreira, and several other staff members. Mr Carreira, who denied the allegations, left the agency in July.
“The OLAF investigation established irregularities such as the breach of procurement procedures resulting in unjustified expenditure for the EASO, mismanagement, the abuse of position regarding human resources issues, harassment and inappropriate behaviour towards staff members as well as breaches of data protection rules,” the spokeswoman said. No further details could be given at this stage, she said.
Read: Malta-based European Asylum Support Agency in disarray
In such cases, the final case reports are sent to the competent authorities for possible follow-up, the spokeswoman told Times of Malta.
Contacted for a reaction, a spokesman for the EASO confirmed that the report had been sent to the agency’s management board and would be discussed during a meeting next week. “As such, at this stage, EASO cannot prejudice the discussion and possible decisions which may be made by commenting any further,” she said.
The EASO provides support to member states facing particular pressure due to the migration crisis, offering monitoring and training relating to the implementation of the Common European Asylum System. Its work is focused around a number of ‘hotspots’ in Italy and Greece.
The European Court of Auditors last month singled out the Malta-based agency as the only one not given a clean bill of health. This was also the case last year.
The European auditors concluded that the EASO had an “inadequate internal control system” and flagged “significant weaknesses” in the assessment of the office’s needs.
This included shortcomings in the drafting of tender specifications, in the choice of the type of contract, in the procurement procedures followed, in the deadlines set for the submission of tenders, in the evaluation and award methods (like the weighting of price versus quality criteria), in the amendments and extensions of contracts, in the execution of contracts and in the verification of services provided.