Mechanizmus ochrany finančních zájmů Evropských společenství v České republice

Nearly 10% of the resources originating from the budget of the European Community are used in incorrectly and about 1–2% of this amount consists of criminal activity. In the period when the Czech Republic was a candidate nation, it was engaged predominantly in drawing from so-called pre-entry funds, particularly PHARE, ISPA, SAPARD, etc. After entry, it will be able to draw from structural funds, from the cohesive fund, and from so-called transition measures. The same obligations apply to other member states in relation to the field of protecting these resources. According to art. 280 of the Treaty establishing the European Community, the European Community and member states are jointly responsible for taking measures for the purpose of protecting the financial interests of the European Community, which must provide effective and equivalent protection of these interests to all member states. The protection of the financial interests of the European Community is not a new requirement. Already at the end of the 1980s, such were included in a specific ruling of the Court of Justice of the EC in the matter of the so-called Greek Corn ruling, through the relevant provisions of art. 280 of the Agreement establishing the EC, and incorporated into the Convention on Protection of the Financial Interests of the European Community dated July 26, 1995, as well as related protocols in this convention from 1996 and 1997. These documents assume effective (both administrative and criminal/legal) protective resources from the budget of the EC, which are endangered by misuse or which have been misused. At the end of the 1990s, the field of administrative protection was incorporated into regulations, which were the basis for the establishment of the European Anti-Fraud Office – OLAF). OLAF is the organ of administrative investigation, authorised to conduct internal and external investigations. Internal investigations affect all institutions of the European Community, while external investigations are focused on relations for handling resources in member states. While all legal regulations modifying the position of OLAF emphasise its administrative/legal character, it is apparent that it currently creates a somewhat unclear image of relations of this type of legal means for criminal law. This manifests itself, in particular, in the unique schizophrenia in the use of terminology in regulations, which define this or that method of OLAF. Of the hitherto results of OLAF activities, it is also more and more apparent, that legal protection by administration alone is insufficient. For some time now, it is also possible that OLAF has been engaged with the idea of establishing a European public prosecutor, which would be entrusted in particular to investigate and criminally prosecute possible criminal activities against the financial interests of the EC. At present, OLAF has initiated the establishment of the so-called Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) in individual member states, the sense of which is to create a system of control points in relevant state organs handling resources from the budgets of the ES and securing a mutual level of an informed OLAF and state organs on possible inequalities when handling these resources. In the Czech Republic, this is the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office, which in the context of AFCOS coordinates the activity of relevant ministries and other official state organs and by communicating with the OLAF contact worksite. In 2004, the Government of the Czech Republic approved a national strategy against fraud by negotiating with damaged or endangered financial interests of the EC.