• Emina Radosavljević Ph.D. student, University of Novi Sad, Faculty of law


EU, OLAF, corruption, recommendations



The Office of the European Union Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) during   20   years of existence as an independent and operational body has built up credibility by opening investigations into high-level corruption cases in EU member states with whom national judicial authorities simply could not cope with.

 The topic of this paper will be the role, competencies, and functioning of OLAF in the fight against corruption.  Therefore,   in this research, we will use the analysis,   synthesis, and comparative method of investigations launched by OLAF because of indications of the misuse of EU funds in Hungary, Romania, and Italy in order to find common denominators of the high forms of corruption and social fields in which it occurs. From the scientific point of view the aim is to reach a   certain level of scientific knowledge,   and from a   practical point of view,   to determine whether   OLAF's recommendations can serve to redefine and improve the legal framework for the fight against corruption, especially in the EU candidate countries.


1. Bejatović S, Ćirić J, Đorđević Đ, Matić M, Mrvić-Petrović N, Škulić M, (2014). Risk analysis in order to assess regulatory and organizational barriers to effective investigations and proceedings in corruption offenses. Belgrade. European Union and Council of Europe.

2. Čavoški A, Reljanović M. (2011). The idea of creating an EU criminal law. Belgrade. Association of Public Prosecutors and Deputy Public Prosecutors of Serbia.

3.Ćirić J, Bejatović S, Đorđević Đ, Matić M, Mrvić-Petrović N, Škulić M, Orlović A, (2015). Risk analysis in the investigation and prosecution of corruption. Belgrade. European Union and Council of Europe.

4. Herlin-Karnell, E & Ryder, N. (2017). The Robustness of EU Financial Crimes Legislation: A Critical Review of the EU and UK Anti-Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme. European Business Law Review. 28 (4), 427-446.

5. Ignjatović Đ, Škulić M. (2010) Organized crime. Belgrade. Law school, University of Belgrade.

6. Murawska, A. (2008). Administrative Anti-Fraud measures within the EU: Necessity and Means. Nomos

7. Quirke, B. (2009). OLAF’s role in the fight against fraud in the European Union: do too many cooks spoil the broth? Crime Law Social Change. 53. 97-108.

8. Quirke, B. (2015). The Routledge Handbook of White-Collar and Corporate Crime in Europe. New York. Rutledge.

9. Simonović B. (2014). International standards, criminal legislation, and implementation of anti-corruption regulations in Serbia. Criminal policy. Serbian Association for Criminal Law Theory and Practice.

10. Stajić Lj,( 2015) Basics of security systems with the basics of security phenomena research. Novi Sad. Law school, University of Novi Sad.

11. Stanojević J, Dimovski D, Milić I, (2014) The impact of corruption on national competitiveness. Proceedings. Law school Univesity on Nis.

12. Škulić, M. (2018). Organizacija i nadležnost državnih organa čija je funkcija suzbijanje koruptivnih krivičnih dela. Finansijski kriminalitet, 11-42.

13. Toade S, Ungureanu M, Predescu I, Predescu A. (2009). The fight against fraud and tax evasion in the European Union. The protection of community financial interests in Romania. Annales. 11(1), 546-555

14. Vasić, R. (2007). Nacionalna strategija za borbu protiv korupcije i planovi integriteta. Korupcija, osnovni pojmovi i mehanizmi za borbu.187-198.

15. Vega, D. (2017). The Fight Against Corruption in Europe: Lights and Shadows. Crimen. 242-267.

16. Xanthaki, H. (2010). What is EU fraud? And can OLAF really combat it? Journal of Financial Crime. 17(1),133-151

17. European Union (EU). Last approach 15.06.2020.

18. European Union (EU). Last approach 20.06.2020.

19. Strengthening OLAF, The European anti- Fraud office, Report with Evidence (House of Lords Papers). 2004. Last approach 15.07.2020.






Criminalistic and Criminal Justice Aspects in Solving and Proving of Criminal Of