EU prosecutors asked to investigate advisory body

The EU’s antifraud watchdog said it has passed on to prosecutors allegations of potential corruption at the European Economic and Social Committee, a Brussels-based body that advises the EU on proposed legislation and policy.

OLAF, the antifraud office, received a report from whistleblowers earlier this year saying there was a conflict of interest in the management of funds at the EESC, which is financed by the EU. It has now passed the case to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

OLAF’s press office told POLITICO it had sent the case to EPPO but added that it could not comment further.

The EPPO did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The EESC was informed by OLAF yesterday that this case has been transmitted to the EPPO,” an EESC spokesperson told POLITICO.

“Under these circumstances, the EESC cannot comment further except to re-confirm that when these matters first arose, the EESC president immediately and proactively referred the allegations to OLAF. The EESC will continue to respect fully the independence of this process.” Séamus Boland of Ireland was elected president in October 2025.

“The EESC and its senior leadership take this matter very seriously and remain fully committed to integrity, transparency and accountability,” the spokesperson added.

The EPPO has significantly stronger enforcement powers than OLAF. Whereas OLAF conducts administrative investigations, the EPPO investigates crimes against the financial interests of the EU, and can search private homes or seize evidence.

OLAF has also been investigating a report that EESC executives tried to smoke out a staff whistleblower who raised the alarm about the funding concerns, the EU Ombudsman told POLITICO.

Anonymous letters, seen by POLITICO, say that IT workers at the EESC were asked by senior managers to identify which staffers had connected to the OLAF website in previous weeks.

The EESC said those anonymous letters contained “serious personal threats” and added that they were not made through the EESC’s “robust formal whistleblower process.”