COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Implementation of Article 325 TFUE by the Member States in 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Implementation of Article 325 TFEU by Member States............................................ 4

1.1........ The 2013 PIF Questionnaire......................................................................................... 4

1.2........ Structure of the Questionnaire...................................................................................... 5

2........... Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by Member States in 2013 under Article 325 TFEU 5

2.1........ Domain......................................................................................................................... 5

2.2........ Types of adopted measures.......................................................................................... 8

2.2.1..... Examples of measures taken within the public procurement...................................... 11

2.2.2..... Examples of measures taken in the fight against corruption...................................... 12

2.2.3..... Examples concerning measures taken in the area of financial crime.......................... 12

2.2.4..... Examples concerning measures taken in the area of conflict of interest.................... 13

2.3........ Schemes summarising the measures adopted............................................................. 13

2.3.1..... Legislative measures................................................................................................... 13

2.3.2..... Administrative measures............................................................................................. 25

2.3.3..... Organisational measures............................................................................................. 35

2.3.4..... Operational measures.................................................................................................. 40

2.3.5..... Corruption in public procurement – adopted provisions in detail.............................. 47

3........... Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS)............................................................. 52

3.1........ Appointment of AFCOS............................................................................................ 52

3.2........ Legal basis of Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service....................................................... 55

3.3........ Organisation of AFCOS............................................................................................. 56

3.3.1..... Organisation of AFCOS – STRUCTURE................................................................. 57

3.3.2..... Organisation of AFCOS – CENTRAL CONTACT POINT..................................... 59

3.4........ Functions accomplishes by AFCOS........................................................................... 60

3.4.1..... Training and antifraud prevention.............................................................................. 61

3.5........ AFCOS internal organisation..................................................................................... 61

3.6........ Human resources......................................................................................................... 62

3.7........ Tasks and powers........................................................................................................ 65

3.7.1..... Coordination competences......................................................................................... 66

3.7.1.1.. Irregularity management framework.......................................................................... 67

3.7.1.2.. Exchange of information............................................................................................ 68

3.7.2..... Investigative competences.......................................................................................... 69

3.8........ Cooperation with judicial authorities.......................................................................... 72

Implementation of Article 325 tfeu by member states

Article 325(5) of the TFEU requires the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to submit a report each year to the European Parliament and the Council on the measures taken to implement that Article. The Commission bases the part of the report relating to the Member States on the answers to the “Article 325” questionnaire, as agreed upon with them within COCOLAF and adapted each year in the light of past experience so as to facilitate the monitoring of anti-fraud measures.

Consequently, each year, the Commission draws up a report in cooperation with the Member States on the measures taken to implement this obligation, according to Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). This report is addressed to the European Parliament and the Council and it is published.

The Commission report is drafted on the basis of the Member States' answers to the "Article 325" questionnaire sent by the Commission to the Members States. The present questionnaire covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2013.

This document lists all the answers of Member States to the 2013 questionnaire presented in schemes according to a category.

Over time the report had become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and the European Parliament were concerned that its size was increasing and the fact that the document is annual, horizontal and multisectoral hampered a detailed assessment of all the aspects of the protection of the EU’s financial interests by the Member States. Since 2003, the Commission has therefore applied a new approach. After the traditional question asking Members States to report on new measures taken in the past year (2013), the questionnaire focuses on one major theme. The aim is to gather information on a particular topic which goes beyond the measures taken in the course of a calendar year, thereby allowing a more detailed analysis of that topics. The topic changes from year to year.

As in the previous years, the first part of the questionnaire asks the Member States to present the main measures that give effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud and all illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. This part is structured the same way as the 2012 questionnaire. Member States are invited to describe two or three "key" measures taken in the year 2013 in order to implement Article 325 of the Treaty.

The second set of questions concerns the organisation of the Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS).

1.1. The 2013 PIF Questionnaire

In the past, the questionnaire was mainly composed of “open” questions, implying the possibility for the Member States to provide very detailed answers and this resulted in increasing difficulty in the analysis of the information transmitted in two ways: Firstly, non-homogeneity of the replies and secondly, time-management related issues and the further need of clarification on the answers submitted. Therefore the questionnaire for PIF 2013 has been constructed around questions offering multiple “closed” answers with sub-questions providing further pre-selected choices (where applicable) and limiting, to a minimum, the possibility to submit a free text.

The questionnaire for the PIF report 2013 was created on the EU survey online platform. The EU Survey functions since January 2014 and it is a new version of the old “IPM platform”, which has been previously successfully used by OLAF for the purpose of collecting answers for the PIF report.

1.2. Structure of the Questionnaire

Each year the Commission compiles a report in cooperation with the Member States on the measures taken to implement this obligation, according to Article 325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The Commission report is drafted on the basis of the Member States' answers to the "Article 325" questionnaire sent by the Commission to the Members States. The first part of the questionnaire asks the Member States to present three main measures giving effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud and all illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU.

The second set of questions concerns situation in the Member States regarding establishment of an Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS), as envisaged in Article 3(4) of the new OLAF regulation which entered into force on 1 October 2013.[1]

2. Most important anti-fraud measures adopted by member states in 2013 under Article 325 tfeu

2.1. Domain

The first question referred to the "domain" to which the adopted measure pertains. Member States were requested to indicate up to three measures adopted in 2013. The Member States were asked to answer a couple of main questions clarifying on each of the measures taken: to specify the domain, number of provisions (single or a package of measures) and clarification of the measure (legislative and/or administrative, organisational and operational) accompanying it, if it is a new measure or an update, its scope, reasons of adoption, type of act, number and date.

Public procurement was the main sector ("domain" in the questionnaire) where legislative, administrative, organisational and operational measures were adopted, followed by the ‘other’ category, ‘financial crime‘ and ‘conflict of interest’, as shown in Table 1, which summarises “at a glance” the information provided by the Member States. The ‘other’ category collects measures which could not fit in any of the predefined answers and counts 26 occurrences.

Tab.1: Three most important measures taken by the Member States per domain – Member States have been prominently intervening in the area of public procurement (confirmation of the trend of the last year)

Similarily as last year, the vast majority of legislative, administrative, organisational and operational measures adopted by the Member States in 2013 were as a single measure or a package of measures[2], concerning public procurement. These provisions were mainly adopted in combination with measures to fight financial crime, conflict of interest, corruption, fraud, organised crime, measures concerning organisation of Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) and/or ‘other’. The totals below the scheme show how many times the domain referred to in the answers, as reported by the Member States. Further schemes and analysis present the measures per domain in detail.

The set of reported measures categorised as the ‘other’ involves various areas[3]. This category included a mix of answers when the Member States assumed that the preselected domains are non-fitting, or as an additional clarification, due to a specific context. In the ‘other’ category Member States reported transparency and good governance measures, such as e-government[4], transparency of beneficiary on the website[5] or corruption in a context other than public procurement[6]. As regards investigations, the reported measures included agreement on priority handling and more effective detection of crimes damaging the financial interests of the EU[7] or the set-up of a working group of irregularities inspectors[8]. In relation to subsidies, the reported measures among ‘other’ involved state aid[9], procedures for obtaining EU funding and activity plans for controls[10], specific policy of paying advances to reduce the number of recoveries[11], combatting fraud in European subsidies[12] and data monitoring based control method[13]. As regards management and control systems, the ‘other’ category included policy of legislation proofing against irregularities and fraud[14]. As regards IT tools in ‘other’ category, Member States reported processing of support and payment requests within information system[15], Unified Management Information System[16] or testing of the ARACHNE risk scoring tool[17].

The ‘other’ organisational and operational measures involved the extension of the powers within the unit[18] or establishment of a working group of irregularities inspectors[19].

Germany listed many activities as falling into the ‘other’ field due to the federal structure and special cooperation of Länder and the Federation does not enable the priority of the three main measures taken in 2013. These included measures in the context of implementation of Article No 70 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006[20], which involves identifying and correcting undue payments and irregularities and recovering amounts unduly paid. Moreover, in addition to the EU rules, in Germany there are national rules which serve to protect financial interests and to combat fraud and corruption. The federal states provide advice and training on the allocation of EU structural funding. In addition, the management and control systems carry out checks at various levels on operations and systems. Weaknesses and errors identified in the checks are notified and remedied and improvements are conducted. Germany also reported that several federal states also have anti-corruption provisions and rules regarding the acceptance of rewards and gifts that include corruption and fraud prevention measures. In addition, the following measures were carried out[21]: implementing anti-corruption guidelines, carrying out vulnerability analysis to identify posts vulnerable to corruption, providing extensive anti-corruption training, establishing the 'four-eyes principle, setting up specialised or centralised procurement authorities, issuing guidelines on 'the prevention of money laundering, the funding of terrorism and other criminal acts', setting up an external ombudsman's office offering staff independent and confidential advice on criminal infringements and appointing a central compliance officer as part of the internal control system.

2.2. Types of adopted measures

Member States were asked to specify whether the reported measure was adopted within one instrument or as a package of measures. They also needed to specify the type of measure adopted, distinguishing between:

(1) ‘Legislative’,

(2) ‘Administrative’,

(3) ‘Organisational’ and

(4) ‘Operational’

Tab.2: A single measure or a package of measures adopted by the Member States. A package of measures, involving set provisions of (legislative, administrative, organisational and operational) or selection of more than one provision is seen as a “more complex” measure.

Tab.3: Single measures adopted by the Member States (L = legislative, Ad = administrative; Or = organisational; Op= operational)

Tab.4: Package of measures adopted by the Member States (L = legislative, Ad = administrative; Or = organisational; Op= Operational)

Several examples of replies as regards the domain selected can be highlighted.

2.2.1. Examples of measures taken within the public procurement

Bulgaria reported new legislation in the field of Cohesion policy laying down a more streamlined operation (in order to reduce the administrative burden on beneficiaries and the risk of errors and irregularities being committed) for activities under projects co-financed from EU funds to be outsourced to external contractors by beneficiaries who are private operators.

Estonia reported a package of legislative and operational measures concerning electronic public procurement. The Public Procurement Act states that the contracting authority must enable the electronic submission of tenders and requests at least to the extent of no less than 50 per cent of the financial capacity of public procurement planned by the contracting authority for the budgetary year.

The Czech Republic reported a new legislative measure which enables the police authorities to use operational means, such as interception of telephonic communications (pursuant to Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), in all cases where an examination or investigation is conducted in respect of a criminal act committed to the detriment of the EU's financial interests.

Spain reported a new legislative measure regarding e-government in order to introduce electronic invoicing and creation of an accounting register in the public sector.

The United Kingdom reported a package of administrative and organisational measures aiming to fight corruption within public procurement and conflict of interest. One of the measures concerns improving the effectiveness of management: The EAFRD funded projects of lower and middle value are under increased scrutiny, which includes also remote rural areas with fewer suppliers.

2.2.2. Examples of measures taken in the fight against corruption

Hungary reported a new operational measure introducing assessment of integrity compliance during a check, in order to eliminate corruption (including within public procurement) in the sector of Cohesion policy and centralised direct management.

Malta introduced a legal act protecting whistleblowers, thus tackling corruption in both the private and public sector.

Romania reported a package of legislative (a new Criminal Procedure Code was implemented), administrative, organisational and operational measures to fight corruption and to raise institutional awareness as regards corruption and the protection of EU financial interests. The package involves vast measures aimed at corruption within public procurement and EAFRD private beneficiaries.

Slovenia upgraded the online application Supervizor, aimed at more efficient and transparent supervision of transactions.

2.2.3. Examples concerning measures taken in the area of financial crime

Belgium reported a legislative measure containing tax and financial provisions and provisions on sustainable development within the VAT Code, which imposes penalties for violations involving serious tax fraud.

Bulgaria introduced a package of measures, applied by revenue authorities, aimed at strengthening the financial control of movements of goods of high fiscal risk to prevent tax evasion and tax fraud.

Denmark implemented a new legislative measure in order to improve action against economic crime. The legislation introduces a penalty for corruption (the maximum penalty has been increased in the Danish Criminal Code), namely for bribery of persons in a public office or acting in a public capacity, bribery in private situations and bribery of arbitrators.

Swedish customs developed an IT tool (in order to comply with the requirements of the Union Customs Code), which involves an electronic blocking system enabling checks to be made when goods are allocated to a customs procedure. Various items will be subjected to risk analysis and the new IT support will facilitate risk management.

France reported a package of legislative, administrative, organisational and operational measures, establishing, among other, more criminal sanctions to tackle financial crime, conflict of interest and corruption within public procurement in the sectors of customs and tax fraud.

2.2.4. Examples concerning measures taken in the area of conflict of interest

In the Cohesion policy sector, Slovakia reported a new guidance for managing authority, clarifying the existing rules.

Belgium reorganised its Paying Agency in Wallonia (agriculture and fisheries sector) separating the paying and control functions, which should as a result reduce situations of conflict of interest.

Ireland reported an operational measure in the form of risk indicators aimed at better targeted checks in order to detect conflict of interest in the Agriculture sector.

Portugal reported testing of risk indicators, using the ARACHNE information risk scoring tool[22], supplemented with publicly available information, in order to identify the "riskier" projects through risk indicators.

2.3. Schemes summarising the measures adopted

The following schemes show all administrative, legislative, organisational and operational measures, adopted per domain and Member State. Each summary table indicates whether the adopting act was accompanied by other measures (as a package) or whether it was a single measure, specifying if it was a new measure or an update of existing provision(s) or both and it also indicates the scope of the measure. If the adopted measure concerned more than one domain, these are presented in the separate columns.

2.3.1. Legislative measures

This section is dedicated to "legislative measures", i.e. those legislative acts aimed at strengthening or reviewing the legal framework for the management, control and protection of the EU financial interests. Member States were asked to specify if it is a new piece of legislation, an amendment to an existing one or both, scope of legislation, reasons, type of act, number and date.

The legislation adopted by the Member States can be evaluated on the basis of a couple of main aspects. First it is the main domain (and other domains-fields covered by the legislation), its scope[23] and its impact (sectoral or horizontal).

As regards the domain of the legislation, the new or amended provisions concerned mainly public procurement.The scope of legislation adopted in 2013 in the areas for the protection of EU financial interests and fight against fraud varied. Mostly it concerned modifications in powers and competences, in combination with definition of breach, financial or administrative penalties and criminal sanctions and/or other[24]. Criminal sanctions were mentioned several times, however only three Member States clarified the provision[25]. Recovery procedure was involved in two instances[26]. Time barring was also reported twice[27].

The measures concerning public procurement were adopted covering one domain[28] or in combination with another, targeting financial crime, conflict of interest, corruption, fraud and organised crime, all mostly with horizontal effect[29]. The legislation involved transparency measures, good governance measures and improved practices within the procurement procedure[30].

Ten Member States introduced measures or sets of measures aimed at combatting corruption within public procurement which included measures to enhance transparency, effectiveness of management, effectiveness of control and audit and other (see the chapter “Corruption within public procurement”)[31]. These specific measures also included operational measures with a sectoral effect[32].

Single measures tackling financial crime and money laundering introduced Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Latvia, Poland and Finland. Denmark introduced an increased maximum penalty within the Criminal code.[33]

The Czech Republic and Greece introduced anti-corruption measures within their national anti-corruption strategy[34]. Croatia and Netherlands adopted measures concerning their Anti-Fraud Coordination Service[35]. Malta adopted new legislation on the protection of whistleblowers. Legislative measure tackling VAT fraud more effectively reported Denmark and Poland[36]. Poland also introduced amended legislation to tackle organised crime.

Specific provisions concerning EU financial assistance in cases where the beneficiary has been sentenced were reported by Lithuania[37]. Greece introduced legislation enhancing data feeding of cases of suspected fraud within their national monitoring and control system. Belgium introduced legislation to eliminate situations of conflict of interests within the Wallonia's Paying Agency. Portugal adopted legislation enhancing transparency by introducing publication of information on the websites as regards reporting subsidies and any EU support.

Tab.5: Member States clarified on criminal sanctions (new, less, more) within the scope of legislation adopted

Tab.6: Member States clarified on time barring (less or more) within the scope of legislation adopted

The following tables include answers from the Member States as regards legislative measures adopted, sorted according to the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.

2.3.2. Administrative measures

This section is dedicated to "administrative measures", i.e. those non-legislative measures aimed at detailing the implementing rules for the management, control and protection of the EU financial interests. Member States were asked to specify if it is a new measure, update or both, the scope of the measure, the type of act adopted, reasons of the measure and nature of the measure (horizontal or sectoral and specific sectors concerned).

The majority of administrative measures taken in 2013, were adopted as a single measure or within a package of measures[38], concerned public procurement alone or in addition with other domain(s), such as corruption, conflict of interest, financial crime or fraud definition. These provisions mostly had sectoral effect[39]. The scope of these provisions was mostly monitoring, detection and investigation (monitoring, desk checks or on- the- spot checks and audit checklist) and fewer concerning irregularity reporting and recovery.

The administrative measures adopted in the domain of public procurement included sets of provisions concerning instructions, guidelines and manuals (new or updated) on monitoring, desk checks and on-the spot controls[40], completed by irregularities reporting guidance[41], management of funds, penalty and recovery guidance[42].

Italy for example introduced a special obligation as regards first level of control in order to avoid double funding (on-the-spot checks in relation to self-declarations by the beneficiaries – e.g. accounts verification).

Separate measures adopted included audit checklist and investigation[43], recovery procedure[44], eligibility criteria[45], penalty[46] and irregularities reporting[47].

Other administrative measures reported by the Member States involved various provisions, such as administrative controls within public procurement[48], establishment of a working group clarifying guidelines on financial crime[49], introduction of red flags for Managing Authorities for checks in the public procurement procedure[50] or guidance for Managing Authority to reduce situations of conflict of interest[51] .

The administrative measures relating to the public procurement also involved introduction of specific IT tools[52] or upgrade of the online application[53].

The following tables include answers from the Member States as regards administrative measures adopted, sorted according to the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.

2.3.3. Organisational measures

This section is dedicated to "organisational measures", i.e. those measures aimed at impacting on the organisation of bodies competent for the protection of the EU financial interests. The Member States were asked to specify if it is a new measure, update or both, to specify the scope of the measure, expected results in terms of resources, date and nature of the measure.

The organisational measures taken in 2013 again confirm the trend of provisions adopted mainly within the public procurement domain alone or complemented with other field (such as corruption, organised crime, conflict of interest and other) and a few measures in otherfields[54], adopted mostly within a package of provisions[55] with a horizontal effect[56].

The concrete organisational measures adopted by the Member States concerned mostly the reorganisation of existing bodies and competences within and inter-agency cooperation[57], general trainings and fraud awareness training[58].

Italy for example adopted an organisational measure aimed at instructing investigative Departments about the implementation of international cooperation for the fight against organised crime (economic and assets recovery measures). Furthermore, the measure also targeted investigative projects based on specific “risk scores". Portugal implemented a more robust management and control system for Cohesion policy by a merger of the Development and Cohesion Agency, which should be an essential step for fraud prevention and creating procedural synergies.

The following tables include answers from the Member States as regards organisational measures adopted, sorted according to the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.

2.3.4. Operational measures

This section is dedicated to "operational measures", i.e. those measures aimed at increasing the performance of the control system, in terms of utilised tools or enhance cooperation with other bodies. The Member States were asked to specify if it is a new measure, update or both, the scope of the measure, expected result, date and nature of the measure (horizontal or sectoral and specific sectors concerned).

The operational measures taken in 2013 were mainly aimed at public procurement in combination with other domains. Several measures have been also adopted separately in the corruption field, financial crime, organised crime or regarding AFCOS service[59]. Most operational measures were adopted with sectoral effect[60].

The concrete scope of operational measures adopted that concerned public procurement included strengthened IT tools, web reporting and hotline[61], enhanced with risk indicators and an increased number of checks[62]. Slovenia upgraded the IT tool support, which provides that it is no longer possible to enter incorrect parameters. Slovenia also organised workshops (Agency for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development) for investors in order to reduce the error rate in public procurement and other areas. Poland introduced risk indicators (adding dried tobacco to the risk register) in order to target checks in the customs area. Portugal reported that it is testing ARACHNE risk scoring tool, which comprises a database of projects supported by the Structural Funds, supplemented by publicly available information with a view to identifying the ‘most at risk’ projects by the use of risk indicators.

Enhanced structured cooperation with law enforcement reported four Member States[63]. Assessment of integrity compliance during checks introduced Hungary. France introduced flagging practice and tightening up of controls in combating fraud in European subsidies.

Latvia introduced a complex operational measure[64] targeting fraud in Agriculture, Fisheries and Cohesion Policy that includes flagging practice, risk indicators, increased number of checks, structured cooperation with law enforcement, structured cooperation with judicial authorities and a matrix on the prevention of double funding published on the website.

Slovenia introduced measures on priority handling and more effective detection and investigation of crimes which damage the financial interests of both Slovenia and the EU between the police and the Budget Supervision Office of Slovenia on the one hand and the police and the Court of Audit of Slovenia on the other.

The following tables include answers from the Member States as regards operational measures adopted, sorted according to the revenue and expenditure part of the budget.

2.3.5. Corruption in public procurement – adopted provisions in detail

The Member States were asked to clarify on the measures interested fraud prevention and corruption within public procurement, please indicate which elements have been addressed. The choice included pre-set answers regarding measures against corruption, transparency measures, and measures to enhance effectiveness of management, control and audit.

Ten Member States specified adoption of new (or updated) measures aimed at fighting “corruption within public procurement”: Germany, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom. These measures concerned, with a few exceptions, the public sector[65], which reflects the current trend in the measures taken to combat fraud within procurement and responds to some extent to several recommendations from the last year[66].

The specific measures aimed at corruption that involved administration of personnel (including the post-employment rules)[67], introduction of the four-eye principle[68], anti-corruption training and awareness raising[69] were among the most frequent measures adopted within this set. Italy, Latvia and Malta also introduced provisions on the protection of whistleblowers. Debarment (black lists) has been included in the provisions tackling corruption in Italy, Latvia and Romania. The specific transparency measures in this section involved public disclosure of information, including disclosure of fraudsters[70].

Amongst the specific measures to enhance effectiveness of management were reported provisions concerning specialised or centralised procurement authorities[71]. Fewer Member States introduced or enhanced corruption statistics[72], e- procurement[73] and integrity pacts[74].

The set of measures aimed at effectiveness of control and audit[75] in particular focused on enhanced smart IT tools and databases together with enhanced risk assessment[76].

The following tables include answers from the Member States as regards adopted measures to fight the corruption within public procurement.

3. Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS)

Implementation of Article 3.4 of the new OLAF Regulation, which entered into force on 1 October 2013, states that ‘Member States shall, for the purposes of this regulation, designate a service (‘the anti-fraud coordination service’) to facilitate effective cooperation and exchange of information, including information of an operational nature, with the Office. Where appropriate, in accordance with national law, the anti-fraud coordination service may be regarded as a competent authority for the purposes of this regulation’.

The AFCOS part of the Questionnaire aimed to collect information regarding the establishment and current organisation of AFCOS, their tasks and competences, including coordinating and investigative powers.

3.1. Appointment of AFCOS

Member States were asked if there is an AFCOS authority set up in their Member State. OLAF provided Member States with a guidance note on main tasks and responsibilities of an Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS).

Twenty-three Member States have already established their Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) and Germany which re-confirmed working cooperation arrangement with OLAF. These include all the post-2004 Member States[77], plus Belgium, Denmark, Greece, France, Italy[78], Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland and United Kingdom[79] and Germany.

Germany reported that the Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF, Department EA6) currently continues to coordinate matters relating to OLAF at national level. Even before the new OLAF regulation entered into force, OLAF and the German government had concluded a working cooperation arrangement which has been re-confirmed[80].

The remaining four Member States have not formally established their AFCOS yet, however the procedures are ongoing in Ireland, Spain Luxembourg and Sweden, with expected framework to become operational before the end of 2014, or within 2 years’ time (Spain).

Tab.7: Status quo concerning AFCOS authority appointment in the Member States

Germany did not answer concerning the set-up of AFCOS in the questionnaire and clarified on the situation separately - the AFCOS continues to be coordinated by department EA6. Greece communicated establishment of AFCOS on 13 June 2014.

Tab. 8: Name and date of establishment of the Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service

Greece communicated establishment of AFCOS to OLAF on 13 June 2014.

3.2. Legal basis of Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service

Member States were asked to specify the current legal basis empowering the central authority to take action/provide assistance to OLAF. (Type of legal basis: Legal act, internal rules or internal procedures)

The majority of Member States reported a legal act as a legal basis for establishment of the AFCOS.

Table 9 details the replies of those Member States which indicated a legal act as a reply to this question.

Tab.9 : Legal act empowering the AFCOS to act as a contact point for OLAF

Internal procedures are a legal base for AFCOS in Belgium, France and Austria, as detailed in Table 10. In Greece the legal base of AFCOS is under finalisation. In Denmark the legal base of establishment of AFCOS is a government decision.

Tab.10: Internal procedures empowering the AFCOS to act as a contact point for OLAF

Table 11 shows the information concerning the Polish AFCOS, which is based on internal rules.

Tab.11: Internal rules empowering the AFCOS to act as a contact point for OLAF

3.3. Organisation of AFCOS

The Member States were asked[81] if the AFCOS competences are handled by a single organisation or whether the coordinating structure is relying on a network of organisations to accomplish its tasks.

Thirteen Member States organised their AFCOS as a Central contact point[82], while the remaining seven Member States organised their AFCOS as a structure[83], consisting of the AFCOS service where AFCOS competences are handled by a network of organisations involving AFCOS service and other authorities relevant for cooperation with OLAF.

Tab.12: Member States indicated the organisation of their AFCOS set-up.

3.3.1. Organisation of AFCOS – STRUCTURE

The Member States, which indicated that AFCOS competences are endowed within a structure, were asked if the setting is formally established (meeting on a regular basis) or is it based on ad hoc meetings.

Of the seven Member States which defined that AFCOS competencies are handled by a "structure", in five of them the meetings are in an established form (in Belgium, Croatia, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia), while in two (in France and Cyprus) it functions on the basis of ad hoc meetings as shown in table 13.

Tab.13: AFCOS structure – form of establishment (ad hoc or formally established)

The seven Member States, who established their AFCOS as a structure, were also asked to indicate the organisations belonging to it. Table 14 shows for each of them the bodies (organisations) participating in the structure. The Slovak Republic reported all bodies from the choice in the below scheme and indicated that their AFCOS comprises also of the Office for Public Procurement, The Supreme Audit Office of the Slovak Republic, the Slovak Information Service and the Bratislava Self-Governing Region. Belgium reported that their AFCOS may be extended depending on the issue to be dealt with.

Tab.14: Organisations belonging to the AFCOS structure – seven Member States indicated which organisations belong to the network.

Table 15 specifies the bodies referred to under the ‘other’ category.

Tab. 15: Organisations belonging to the AFCOS structure – other category

Belgium, Croatia, Latvia and Slovakia further commented on organisations involved in the AFCOS structure as specified in table 16.

Tab. 16: Organisations belonging to the AFCOS structure – other (comment)

3.3.2. Organisation of AFCOS – CENTRAL CONTACT POINT

Member States were asked to describe what type of body is the national AFCOS and the functions it accomplishes.

Thirteen Member States organised their AFCOS service as a Central contact point, for the most part within a ministry (Austria, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Italy, Malta, Poland and Portugal).

Three Member States reported that their AFCOS is based in an investigative body (Netherlands, Portugal and Romania). Only Lithuania based its AFCOS service within a law enforcement body, as shown in the scheme 17. None of the Member States based its AFCOS within a judicial body.

Tab. 17: Central contact point – type of body

In the Netherlands, Portugal and Romania the AFCOS service has been situated into an investigative body. In the Netherlands the AFCOS has administrative powers, as it is in charge of reporting irregularities and coordination of information. In Romania the AFCOS has broad coordinative and investigative powers (Romania selected all sub-options of the questionnaire) and conducts joint investigations with OLAF, based on the New Criminal Procedure Code[84].

3.4. Functions accomplishes by AFCOS

The table 18 summarises the situation in all the Member States. The answers concerning Member States who established their AFCOS as a “structure” have been derived from the answers provided in the part 2.6 (Human resources per activity). The reason why the Czech Republic indicated personnel in charge of investigation and did not specify this function is that the AFCOS Central contact point (base) is not in charge, however investigations are carried out by the Local contact point (The Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office).

Tab. 18: Main functions of AFCOS (all types)

Five Member States, which established their AFCOS as a Central contact point, specified other functions or clarified the choice, as shown in table 19.

Tab. 19: Main functions of AFCOS (Central contact point) - Other

3.4.1. Training and antifraud prevention

Fifteen Member States reported that their AFCOS provides training and antifraud prevention, as shown in table 18.

Eight Member States having established their AFCOS as a Central contact point, included “training and antifraud prevention” amongst AFCOS functions and were requested to indicate further details (AFCOS acting as a participant, organiser or both).

In Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania and Romania AFCOS acts as an organiser and participant in trainings and antifraud prevention. In the Czech Republic, AFCOS acts as an organiser; in Malta, as a participant only, as shown in Table 20.

Tab. 20: Training and antifraud prevention – AFCOS acts as an organiser or participant or both

3.5. AFCOS internal organisation

Most AFCOS, established as a Central contact point, are based as a sector or directorate within ministry directly referring to the minister (Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Malta and Portugal). Two AFCOS are established as a self-standing authority (Lithuania and Romania). Netherlands established its AFCOS as a service within a Directorate directly referring to the Head of Directorate. The remaining four countries, Austria, Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, have “other” internal organisation as shown in the scheme 21.

Tab. 21: AFCOS internal organisation (Central contact point)

Table 22 shows ‘other’ replies, clarifying on the internal organisation by the Member States concerned.

Tab. 22: AFCOS internal organisation (Central contact point) – Other

3.6. Human resources

All Member States, having already established AFCOS, were requested to provide details about the overall level of human resources and then detail it per activity as per the typology indicated in the table 23.

Seven Member States indicated an overall level of human resources above 25 people, while eight have allocated less than six as shown in the table.

Tab. 23: Human resources overall – All Member States (all types of AFCOS)

Table 24 provides further details on the allocation of HR in broad terms, ensuring various functions attributed to the AFCOS. It is important to underline, however, that AFCOS members of staff deal with more than one function.

Tab. 24: Human resources per activity – All Member States (all types of AFCOS)

Several categories should be highlighted. Training is employing most personnel in Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia. Irregularities’ reporting involves highest number of resources in the Czech Republic, Cyprus and Italy[85], while legal issues are employing most officials in Italy and Romania.

Investigation involves most personnel in Cyprus, Lithuania, Portugal and Romania, which is also corresponding to a stronger investigative competence of AFCOS in these countries.

Training is extensively dealt with AFCOS in Italy, Lithuania and Slovakia, coordination of information in Austria and Romania, public relations in Italy.

3.7. Tasks and powers

Member States having established the AFCOS had to indicate if it has a coordinating or investigative role or it covers both.

All the Member States indicated that the mandate of AFCOS enables for coordinating role. Eight Member States indicated that their AFCOS is entrusted with certain investigative powers: In Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia, as specified in Table 25.

Tab. 25: Role of AFCOS (all types of AFCOS)

3.7.1. Coordination competences

The following question requested the Member States to specify the coordination competences of AFCOS according to predefined categories as shown in Table 26.

Tab. 26: Coordination field (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)

Vast coordination competences[86] were reported by Bulgaria, Estonia, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and Slovakia.

Lithuania, Portugal and the Czech Republic indicated broad coordination competences of AFCOS.

Table 27 specifies further coordination competences reported by four Member States.

Tab. 27: Coordination field (all Member States, all types of AFCOS) – other

Limited coordinating competences reported France (in the field of “national antifraud coordination”), Austria (AFCOS is informed about coordination and exchange of information in connection with on‑the‑spot controls by OLAF) and Finland (possibility to develop antifraud proposals to enforce antifraud arrangements).

Note that the competences in the field of national antifraud strategy have not been explored in the questionnaire.

3.7.1.1. Irregularity management framework

The eleven Member States, which indicated Irregularity management framework within the coordination function, were requested to select the option(s) that best describe the role of AFCOS in relation to it, according to the suggested answers as shown in Table 28.

Tab. 28: Coordination - Irregularity management framework

The seven Member States having selected the involvement in the preparation of regulating instruments were requested to provide further specification as shown in Tables 29 and 30.

Tab. 29: AFCOS is involved in preparation of regulative instruments regarding irregularity management

Tab. 30: AFCOS is involved in preparation of regulative instruments regarding irregularity management-Other

3.7.1.2. Exchange of information

The fifteen Member States, which indicated that AFCOS participates in exchanges of information were required to further specify on it as shown in Tables 31and 32.

Tab. 31: Coordination field – AFCOS is informed about

Tab. 32: Coordination field – AFCOS is informed about- Other

When the information concerns irregularity investigations, further clarification was requested, as shown in Table 33.

Tab. 33: Information about irregularity investigations – specification

3.7.2. Investigative competences

The following set of questions aims at obtaining the knowledge about those AFCOS for which investigative competences have been indicated, as shown in Table 34.

Cyprus, Romania[87], Portugal and Malta reported broader investigative competences (a selection of all answers choice in the questionnaire: Contact point – link for OLAF to national investigative authorities, exchange of investigative information with OLAF, investigative powers according to national procedures, investigation of irregularities, participation in audit and control, on irregularity investigative procedure and penal cases). Seven Member States out of eight with broader investigative competences responded competence in investigative activities according to national procedures, six of them proceed with interviewing persons concerned and witnesses with their consent have access to documents and premises and to the information about ongoing criminal or administrative investigations.

The Member States were asked to specify the competences of AFCOS in investigative fields. The results are summarised in Table 34.

Tab. 34: Competences of AFCOS in investigative fields (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)

Tab. 35: Competences of AFCOS in investigative fields (all Member States, all types of AFCOS) - Other

The option “contact point” in table 36 refers to the competence of AFCOS to act as OLAF’s contact point in relation to OLAF’s investigations (for example link for OLAF to national investigative authorities, link for exchange of investigative information with OLAF and/or other Member States).

The eight following Member States specified certain investigative activities of AFCOS as a contact point: Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Slovakia. Germany re-confirmed cooperation agreement with OLAF that has been concluded in April 2008, based on which BMF[88] functions as a contact point in relation to OLAF.

Tab.36: Activities of AFCOS as a contact point

Netherlands reported that their AFCOS is based within the Customs Information Centre (Duane Informatie Centrum, DIC), however its investigative powers are limited to administrative investigation. As regards investigation at the governmental departments, the authority to investigate is attributed to them.

In Belgium the Economic directorate (DG Inspection Economique), to which the CICF belongs, assists OLAF by carrying out inspections of Belgian economic operators in order to identify serious or international irregularities and to protect EU financial interests. The CICF’s role as a contact point is to centralise and dispatch OLAF’s requests for investigations to the relevant national authorities. AFCOS in Belgium thus rarely conducts operational cooperation, as the function consists solely of coordination of relevant information and centralisation. Its role is limited to dispatching information requests to the competent authorities.

Investigative powers according to national procedures apply AFCOS Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Lithuania, Malta, Portugal and Romania, as shown in Tables 37 and 38.

Tab.37: Investigative powers according to national procedures

Tab.38: Investigative powers according to national procedures – Other

The following tables detail the replies provided by the Member States concerned about AFCOS competencies in the investigation of irregularities and of criminal investigations

Tab. 39: Investigation of irregularities (launching of irregularity proceedings or irregularity investigations)

Tab. 40: Participation in irregularity investigations (as an observer or consulting)

Tab. 41: Investigative powers conferred to AFCOS in the area of criminal investigations

3.8. Cooperation with judicial authorities

The last question of the survey requested the Member States to indicate whether the AFCOS cooperation with judicial authorities is structured or unstructured.

Formalized cooperation with judicial authorities has been established in AFCOS of Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia. In Austria there is no cooperation agreement between AFCOS and judicial authorities. Cooperation on a case by case and/or cooperation on request is foreseen in Belgium, France, Italy, Cyprus, Lithuania, Hungary, Netherlands, Poland, , , Portugal, Slovakia and Finland (in Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Croatia, Latvia, Malta, Romania and Slovenia the cooperation is both formalized and case by case or on request) as specified in table 42.

Tab. 42: Cooperation with judicial authorities (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)

Table 43 collects the comments provided by the Member States in relation to cooperation with judicial authorities

Tab. 43: Cooperation with judicial authorities – Comment (all Member States, all types of AFCOS)

[1] Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999. Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1073/1999 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1074/1999.

[2] Legislative measures accompanied by administrative, organisational or operational measures.

[3] This category also concerned legislative, administrative, organisational and operational measures.

[4] Spain (legislation on the control of public expenditure, e-government)

[5] Portugal (legislation introducing compulsory publication of advantages granted to individuals by public authorities, reporting subsidies and any EU support to the IGF, which publishes the information on its internet site)

[6] France (customs and tax fraud)

[7] Slovenia (administrative measure, agreement between Police and Budget Supervision Office and Court of Audit)

[8] Sweden (administrative measure to combat financial crime)

[9] Belgium (a set of administrative measures applied in the procurement procedure)

[10] Italy (checks to avoid double financing)

[11] Netherlands (administrative measure applied by the Agency for Social Affairs and Employment)

[12] France (administrative and operational measure concerning ERDF, ESF, EFF, in the context of public procurement)

[13] Netherlands (the Agency for Social Affairs and Employment)

[14] Cyprus (administrative measure)

[15] Hungary (the Agriculture and Rural Development Agency uses the Opten company information service assessing the client/company financial background and personal links)

[16] Bulgaria (changes introduced to the functionalities of the irregularities and on-the-spot checks module in the information system as regards reporting irregularities, at request of the AFCOS directorate)

[17] Portugal (database of projects supported by the Structural Funds, which is supplemented by publicly available information with a view to identifying the ‘most at risk’ projects by the use of risk indicators)

[18] Spain (in charge of financial crime to include the fight against corruption, which cannot be deemed to be an anti-corruption measure)

[19] Lithuania (the group includes representatives of the Lithuanian bodies responsible for the administration of EU financial assistance)

[20] The ERDF managing authorities of the federal states have set up management and control systems ensuring that EU structural funds are used in a legal manner. xc

[21] The list is neither exhaustive nor applicable to all federal states.

[22] The risk scoring tool ARACHNE aims at providing the MS authorities involved in management of the Structural Funds with an operational tool to identify their most risky projects.

[23] In the field “scope of legislation” the Member States had a multiple choice to clarify competence, powers, definition of breach, recovery, financial penalties, other administrative penalties, criminal sanctions, time barring and other.

[24] The other field was selected if a different context non-fitting to the questionnaire has been intended (procedure concerning external contractors, for example financial crime, corruption in general, tax fraud, specific AFCOS network and tasks or access to public information).

[25] Lithuania introduced amendments to the Criminal Law in connection with the application of coercive measures to legal entities for criminal offences, including bribery. The Procurement Monitoring Bureau (IUB) has become competent authority that detects administrative violations in the fields of public procurement and public-private partnerships, and also enforces administrative liability. Romania implemented a New Criminal Procedure Code to tackle corruption. Other Member States did not specify. Denmark increased maximum penalty for bribery in the Danish Criminal Code.

[26] Greece enhanced data feeding with cases of suspected fraud based on the checks and a new legislation on transparency, access to public information and good governance.

[27] Denmark (in the context of a set of provisions concerning corruption, financial crime and organised crime) and Spain (in the context of a new legislation on conflict of interest)

[28] Single legislative measures concerning public procurement adopted by Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Lithuania, Malta, Spain, Romania and Sweden. Package of measures (legislative, administrative, organisational or operational measures) adopted by Estonia and Greece.

[29] In total there were adopted 23 legislative measures with horizontal effect and 13 with sectoral effect (6 expenditure and 7 revenue).

[30] E- procurement and good governance (Spain, Portugal); mechanisms for prevention of conflict of interest (Romania); cancellation of procurement procedure if only one tenderer applies (the Czech Republic); provisions concerning external contractors (Bulgaria), monitoring and follow-up of activities provided conducted by private-sector providers (Sweden); coercive measures regarding administrative liability for violations in the field of public procurement and public- private partnerships (Latvia).

[31] Germany, Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Malta, Romania, Slovenia and United Kingdom (Latvia, Romania, Slovenia introduced also sanctions; Malta and Latvia enhanced protection of whistleblowers).

[32] Cyprus, Hungary, Slovenia and United Kingdom

[33] Denmark (legislation - the maximum penalty has been increased as regards bribery in the Danish Criminal Code)

[34] Czech Republic (ratification of the PIF Convention) and Greece (National Anti-Corruption Coordinator)

[35] Croatia (decision defines the bodies comprising the AFCOS network and their tasks), Netherlands (powers)

[36] Denmark (specific provisions concerning investigation of cases of tax fraud) and Poland (list of goods covered by the reverse charge mechanism, exclusion of possibility of quarterly clearance in certain cases)

[37] Lithuania (provision stating that EU financial assistance may not be granted to the applicant or project promoter for five consecutive years following a definitive court judgment)

[38] Most of them were single administrative measures (19), however several Member States adopted administrative measures within a package of mesures (a whole set of legislative, administrative, operational and organisational measures (5), administrative and organisational measures (2), administrative and operational measures (2) or as measures accompanying legislation (2).

[39] These aimed mostly at the expenditure part of the budget (8 measures with a horizontal effect): Cohesion policy (16), followed by Agriculture (8), Fisheries (6) and Migration and Asylum (3). Some of the also aimed at the revenue: customs and fraud (2).

[40] Belgium, Denmark, Germany (public procurement and corruption), Estonia, Ireland, Greece, France, Latvia, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Romania, Finland and United Kingdom.

[41] Belgium, Ireland, Greece, France, Croatia, Latvia and United Kingdom.

[42] Cyprus and Finland (only recovery)

[43] Slovenia and Slovakia

[44] Greece and Finland

[45] Belgium, Slovakia

[46] Latvia

[47] Croatia and France

[48] Slovakia

[49] Sweden

[50] Romania

[51] Slovakia

[52] Sweden (electronic system of checks in the customs procedure)

[53] Slovenia (in order to ensure more efficient supervision, by the competent authorities, institutions and the media, of the use of the public money)

[54] Financial crime (1), organised crime (1), corruption (1), conflict of interest (1) and AFCOS (2)

[55] Organisational measures together with administrative, legislative and operational measures (5) or legislative, organisational and operational 2) or administrative, organisational and operational (2) or legislative/administrative and organisational (2)

[56] Compare organisational measures with horizontal effect (11) and sectoral effect (3revenue and 4 expenditure).

[57] Greece, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Hungary, Poland, Romania, , Portugal, and (reorganisation of existing bodies and competences); Greece, Austria and Poland (inter-agency cooperation).

[58] Italy, Latvia and United Kingdom (general training and fraud awareness training), Greece, Italy and United Kingdom (fraud awareness training) and Estonia (general training)

[59] Financial crime (4), organised crime (1), AFCOS (3).

[60] In total 15 operational measures with sectoral effect (11expenditure and 4 revenue) and 7 with horizontal effect.

[61] Bulgaria, Estonia, Greece, Cyprus, Hungary (targeted inspection: in cases of suspicion, targeted inspection using the Opten contacts network module, which can identify individual client links), Romania and Slovenia.

[62] Risk indicators (Greece, Poland) increased number of checks (Bulgaria, Hungary, United Kingdom), both risk indicators and increased number of checks (Germany, Ireland, Greece and Slovenia).

[63] France, Lithuania, Malta and Romania.

[64] Within a package of legislative, administrative, organisational and operational measures.

[65] Malta introduced measures to protect whistleblowers with the effect on both private and public sector; Romania and Greece adopted a set of measures tackling corruption (with target on the public procurement) with the effect on private and public sector.

[66] Recommendation 5, 6 and 8, lesser to the recommendation 2 of the PIF report 2012.

[67] Cyprus, Hungary, Italy, Romania and United Kingdom

[68] Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Romania and Slovenia

[69] Germany

[70] Disclosure of fraudsters (naming and shaming) introduced Germany, Cyprus, Latvia, Romania; disclosure of documents and information introduced Italy and Romania; disclosure of beneficial owners introduced Cyprus, Italy and Slovenia.

[71] Germany, Greece, Italy, Cyprus and Romania

[72] Greece, Italy, Romania and Slovenia

[73] Malta, Romania and United Kingdom

[74] Italy and Slovenia

[75] Germany, Greece, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta and Slovenia

[76] Greece, Italy, Cyprus, Latvia, Hungary, Romania and Slovenia

[77] At the time of EU enlargement in 2004 and 2007 there was no relevant EU legal base for the designation of AFCOS. However the designation of AFCOS was included as a priority in the 2001 Accession Partnership and the Accession Countries committed themselves to this objective in their National programmes for the adoption of Acquis Communautaire, as well as in the so-called “Negotiation positions” under the relevant chapter on Financial control. Since 2013 the AFCOS concept is anchored in the Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 Article 3(4), the provision on the designation of AFCOS serves also as a benchmark for the Candidate Countries in their accession to the EU.

[78] Italy established Committee to combat fraud in the Community (Comitato per la lotta contro le frodi comunitarie) in 199, Art. 76 of the Law 19/02/1992 n. 142; based on the Regulation for the reorganisation of the bodies within the Department for the Coordination of Community Policies pursuant to Article 29 of Decree Law No 223 of 4 July 2006, converted into statute with amendments by Law No 248 of 4 August 2006, established COLAF, Committee to combat fraud in the European Union (Comitato per la lotta contro le frodi nei confronti dell'Unione europea).

[79] Finland reported an interim solution. Denmark, Greece, Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom reported procedures ongoing for 2013 and appointed their AFCOS service in 2014.

[80] Letter to OLAF on 13 January 2014.

[81] Denmark, Greece and the United Kingdom are not included in the answers as they appointed their AFCOS service during 2014.

[82] Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Netherlands, Austria, Poland, Portugal, Romania and Finland.

[83] Belgium, France, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Slovenia and Slovakia

[84] The Romanian AFCOS is an “ascertaining body” based within the New Criminal Procedure Code (Law No.61/2011).

[85] In the Czech Republic and Italy the higher number of personnel corresponds with high number of irregularities reported.

[86] Most or all of the choice from the questionnaire: Irregularity management framework, AFCOS is informed, National antifraud coordination, Possibility to develop antifraud proposals to enforce antifraud arrangements, Training and antifraud prevention, Guide on methodology and Accessibility of data in the administrative field.

[87] Romania clarified position of AFCOS as an investigative body, according to the updated New Criminal code procedure.

[88] Bundesministerium der Finanzen, BMF (Federal Ministry of Finance in Germany)