In order to strengthen the cooperation between the Office, Eurojust and the competent authorities of the Member States in respect of deeds which may be the subject of a criminal investigation, the Office should inform Eurojust of, in particular, those cases of suspected fraud, corruption or any other illegal activity affecting the financial interests of the Union and involving serious forms of criminality.

1. Any official who, in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties, becomes aware of or honestly believes in the existence of breaches of law, non-compliance by other officials with obligations deriving from fundamental ethical principles, waste and/or risks detrimental to the interests of the European Union shall have the right to report the matter and to provide supporting information to either his immediate superior or his Director-General, or the persons in equivalent positions, or, if the matter concerns the competences of the European Anti-Fraud Office ...[+++] (OLAF), directly to OLAF.

3. Welcomes the initiative to reform the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), one of the main objectives of which is to strengthen cooperation with third countries; notes that this reform will, inter alia, enable OLAF to conclude administrative arrangements with third countries’ competent authorities and with international organisations, thereby strengthening its capacity to tackle fraud in areas pertaining to the EU’s external policy dimension, and looks forward to the rapid conclusion of the current legislative procedure aimed at revising the 1999 regulation and giving the office the framework it now needs to operate with maximum effect ...[+++]iveness; welcomes the anti-fraud strategy (COM(2011)0376), inter alia as regards the inclusion of improved anti-fraud provisions in spending programmes under the new multiannual financial framework for 2014-2020; notes with concern, however, the Commission’s conclusion that there are insufficient deterrents against criminal misuse of the EU budget in Member States, welcomes the Commission proposals to address this problem and recommends that beneficiary third countries should also be involved as fully as possible;

2. Notes that in 2011, the Office committed 99,1 %, 75 % and 95,1 % of the appropriations received under Title I (Staff Expenditure), Title II (Administrative Expenditure) and Title III (Operational Expenditure) respectively; observes that in terms of paid appropriations the Office's execution rate stands at 96,8% under Title I, 33,8% under Title II and 47,1% under Title III; takes note of the Office's statement that the costs related to the new headquarters had a substantial impact on the execution rates for Titles II and III which ...[+++] would have reached respectively 53% and 58% without this factor; calls, nevertheless, on the Office to implement specific measures to improve its budgeting process and execution rate of payments in the case of administrative and operational expenditure;

Under Article 74(1) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark, examiners of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, on appeal, the Boards of Appeal of the Office are required to examine the facts of their own motion in order to determine whether the mark registration of which is sought falls under one of the grounds for refusal of registration laid down in Article 7 of that regulation.

Moreover, the question whether or not such information is necessary for assessing whether a given mark has acquired distinctive character through use comes within the scope of the assessment of the facts by the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) and, on appeal, by the Court of First Instance.