2.1.Improved coordination and cooperation: a new impetus in the fight against fraud

2.1.1.Reinforced legal and administrative structures for enhanced cooperation

Significant steps were taken in 2014 to enhance the Commission’s and the Member States’ protection of the EU’s financial interests.

In 2014, the Commission successfully completed the priority actions of its multi-annual Anti-Fraud Strategy (CAFS). While the focus of CAFS is primarily upon developing anti-fraud strategies at Commission service and agency level, the Commission is now increasingly focusing on how to support Member States in developing their own anti-fraud strategies.

Regulation (EU) No 883/2013 provides, inter alia, for enhanced cooperation with Member States through the appointment of an AFCOS.

At the end of 2014, all Member States had designated their AFCOS. The responsibilities of each national AFCOS vary, depending on the Member State. All Member States have given their AFCOS coordinative responsibilities, albeit to varying extents. Only a few Member States empower their AFCOS to act in an investigative capacity.

Structured coordination between anti-fraud bodies and other national authorities have proved to be a best practice and should be implemented in all Member States.

Recommendation 1:

Member States are encouraged to use their AFCOS to its full potential.

AFCOS also benefits from CoLP’s agreements with overseas law enforcement. Using the structures provided by Europol, Interpol, the Home Office, and OLAF, UK AFCOS willingly shares information with international bodies to support prosecutions both within the UK and overseas. A significant number of MoUs are in place to facilitate such international cooperation.

CoLP and the National Police Chiefs Council have a significant number of MoUs in place with the following national bodies. AFCOS, as a part of CoLP, benefits from these links:

Nonetheless there are arrangements in place to coordinate the different authorities engaged in anti-fraud measures. CoLP manages the UK’s national fraud reporting centre which is the single point of contact for all reported fraud. CoLP has MOUs with all UK police forces in relation to the tasking of fraud cases for investigation. CoLP and OLAF are in the process of signing a cooperation and exchange of information agreement. For the management of ESIF funds in the UK, AFCOS has a designated regional contact point for each of the devolved nations, and, in the case of England, for each of the major EU funds (ERDF and ESF). Relevant communications regarding AFCOS are regularly circulated to managing authorities and paying agencies.

In the UK, the AFCOS remit is to act as the designated contact point for incoming OLAF referrals for police investigation. Cases of suspected fraud identified by managing authorities on the other hand are examined by the authority’s fraud investigation unit, and followed up if necessary by local police forces therefore not requiring liaison through AFCOS. However, managing authorities report irregularities to OLAF, managed centrally by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for England, and by the devolved administrations in other parts of the UK. Because of these unique governance arrangements in the UK, which are spread across four constituent nations, managing authorities develop their own anti-fraud strategies.

The Swedish Economic Crime Authority is the Swedish AFCOS and chairs the Swedish Council for the Protection of the European Union’s Financial Interests (the SEFI Council). All government authorities involved in the administration and protection of the EU’s funds in Sweden are represented in the Council and its mission is to promote an efficient and correct use of EU-related funds in Sweden. The Council has met at several occasions during the year and continue to facilitate cooperation between AFCOS and relevant national parties.

The inquiry proposes some legal changes, covering on-the-spot checks, the role of competent authorities and AFCOS, that will enter into force in 2017. These proposals are currently subject to referral to authorities and other actors concerned in Sweden until mid April 2016.

In March 2015, the Swedish Ministry of Finance initiated an inquiry tasked to review the legal situation regarding OLAF’s on-the-spot checks in Sweden, inter alia in order to bring it up-to-date with the present Multiannual Financial Perspective 2014-2020.

If necessary, wider strategic issues related to fraud control can be included on the agenda of the advisory board for internal control and risk management, which is a statutory advisory board appointed by the government and laid down in the State Budget Decree. The tasks of the advisory board are to assess the organisation and status of internal control and the related risk management and to propose development initiatives. Other tasks include monitoring and evaluating the situation concerning misuse or violations committed in the operations of government agencies and public bodies or aimed at state funds or assets, or funds or assets for which the state is responsible, and coordinating and developing the operations and procedures of various authorities and government agencies and public bodies, as well as reporting on misuse and errors.

Ways of rendering the AFCOS cooperation network more efficient will be examined and promoted in 2016; this objective is also one of the performance targets of the Government Financial Controller Function, which acts as the Finnish AFCOS. Appropriate ways of improving efficiency could include regular meetings of the service as well as the promotion and dissemination of good practices (an example of a good practice is the fraud control plan drawn up by the Finnish Agency for Rural Affairs).

The content of the National Strategy reflects a detailed description of individual parts of the anti-fraud cycle: prevention of fraud and irregularities; detection; investigation and prosecution; recovery of unduly paid funds; and sanctions. The measures contained in the National Strategy relate to both the expenditure and revenue parts of the EU’s budget.

The National Strategy was drawn up in recognition of the need to improve the protection of funds provided from the EU budget for the period of 2014-2020. This document replaced the previous National Strategy for the Protection of the Financial Interests of the EC in the SR, including its subsequent updates, that was approved by the Government Resolution No 547 of 27 June 2007.

On 7 January 2015, the Government of the Slovak Republic approved an updated version of the National Strategy for the Protection of the European Union´s Financial Interests in the Slovak Republic with regard to the programming period of 2014-2020.

b) the bodies who are authorized to check the use of these funds, and the bodies who are entrusted with the exercise of powers in order to perform the tasks with regard to the protection of the EU’s financial interests;

To perform its tasks, the anti-fraud co-ordination service in the Slovak Republic is assisted by an AFCOS Network. The AFCOS Network is a structure of co-operating authorities and bodies (i.e. AFCOS Network partners), whose main objective is to mutually co-operate in performing the tasks focused on the protection of the EU´s financial interests as well as to efficiently communicate with OLAF and other Member States. That Network is an anti-fraud structure that comprises contact points from the relevant sectors. The AFCOS Network includes the following entities: a) the bodies and institutions who provide the Union’s financial resources and otherwise handle with these funds;

In the Slovak Republic, the function of an anti-fraud co-ordination service is performed by organisational units of the Office of the Slovak Government, namely the Central Contact Point for OLAF that is part of the Control and Anti-Corruption Section.

Slovenia has yet to draw up its national strategy for protecting the EU's financial interests, which will entail good inter-institutional cooperation. Slovenia plans to use the guidelines for drafting a national strategy, as they will facilitate better coordination and organisation of tasks needed for producing the national strategy in the coming year. The Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy has already begun work on the cohesion policy part of the strategy.

AFCOS also organises conferences (one every two years) on safeguarding the EU's financial interests targeting those responsible for administering and supervising the use of money from EU funds, those responsible for reporting irregularities, all heads of internal auditing services at ministries, and representatives of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, the Office of the State Prosecutor General of Slovenia, the Criminal Police Directorate, the National Review Commission for Reviewing Public Procurement Award Procedures, and Transparency Slovenia.

The group's members come from the following institutions: Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Office of the State Prosecutor General of Slovenia, Criminal Police Directorate, Agency of Slovenia for Agricultural Markets and Rural Development, Government Office for Development and European Cohesion Policy, Office for Money Laundering Prevention , Ministry of Finance – Financial Administration of Slovenia, and the Ministry of Justice.

AFCOS was designated in 2002 and has since played a very active role in protecting the EU's financial interests. In addition to its usual work, which involves cooperating with OLAF and the Commission, AFCOS also organises periodic meetings with other Slovenian institutions that form part of the Inter-departmental working group for cooperating with OLAF. The working group meets at least twice every year and provides a platform for the exchange of information and experience between its members with a view to improving and promoting active cooperation and coordination in fighting fraud against the EU.

In addition, at the invitation of partner institutions, DLAF representatives attended national events relevant to the protection of the financial interests of the EU in Romania and to the fight against fraud involving EU funds.

Since 2014, it has shared responsibility for implementing the national project providing further training to magistrates on topics relating to the protection of the financial interests of the EU (PIF) with the National Institute of the Magistracy.

In terms of national cooperation, DLAF organises training programmes on subjects relating to the protection of the financial interests of the EU in Romania, in cooperation with the National Institute of the Magistracy, the Ministry of European Funds, the Audit Authority, Managing Authorities, etc.

DLAF has reviewed the implementation of the DG REGIO Guidance Note on Fraud Risk Assessment and Effective and Proportionate Anti-Fraud Measures for the 20142020 Programming Period, and has provided guidance on the subject to the authorities responsible for managing European funds .

In the context of the new 2014-2020 Multiannual Financial Framework Regulations and the negotiations between the Romanian Government (through its Ministry of European Funds) and the European Commission on the 2014-2020 Partnership Agreement for the European Structural and Investment Funds and the resulting design of the new national infrastructure for the management of EU funds, DLAF has started developing the ESIF National Anti-Fraud Strategy, by coordinating diagnostic analyses to assess the current state of play, as well as anti-fraud risk analyses to serve as a basis for the general and specific objectives of the strategy and help design its action plan.

To improve inter-institutional cooperation, in addition to the existing bilateral cooperation agreements, DLAF has concluded several cooperation protocols with the institutions involved in managing EU funds (such as the Ministry of European Funds or the National Anticorruption Directorate).

The Anti-Fraud Department (DLAF) has been established as an AFCOS since as early as 2002. The institution's capacity was strengthened over the years, and since 2011, under the legislation governing its organisation and functioning (Law No 61/2011 and Government Decision No 738/2011), the Department has been performing all the tasks set out in the Guidance Note on Main Tasks and Responsibilities of an Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS).

A good example of cooperation and pooling of experience and good practice was the visit by an AFCOS delegation from Bulgaria, which took place from 16 to 19 March 2015 in Lisbon. The visit included workshops, held either at the IGF (AFCOS unit) or at other bodies involved in managing and monitoring Community funds (ADC, IFAP and managing authority of POPH), or at the Lisbon District Public Prosecutor’s Office.

An anti-fraud strategy is defined for each management and control system, with the aim of adopting effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures, taking into account the risks identified in the area of activity and establishing the procedures to be followed as regards fraud prevention, detection and correction and the reporting of findings to the appropriate bodies.

With specific regard to the AFCOS, a role which in Portugal is performed by the Inspectorate-General of Finance (IGF), it is worth highlighting developments in cooperation with various national bodies. The aim is to share knowledge and experiences of running management and control systems in the anti-fraud area.

The 2015-2017 Strategic Plan to combat tax and customs fraud and evasion was approved. The aim of its strategic areas of action is: to step up the fight against tax and customs fraud and evasion and the black economy, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of tax and customs inspection, promote voluntary compliance with tax and customs obligations and also improve the effectiveness of tax and customs management and collection.

The tasks of the AFCOS, as defined in Article 3(4) of Regulation 883/2013, which consist in facilitating effective cooperation and exchange of information with OLAF in connection with investigations conducted by OLAF, are carried out by the Department for the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests in the Ministry of Finance. In addition, Poland also has an AFCOS structure, which offers a platform for cooperation between the actors involved, one of the most important functions of which is the exchange between institutions which implement EU funds and law enforcement authorities of information of key importance for preventing fraud against the financial interests of the EU. The body is headed by the Government Commissioner for Combating Financial Irregularities against Poland or the EU, assisted by an Inter-ministerial Team for Combating Financial Irregularities against Poland or the EU (including specialised work groups established by the Team). Because of its composition and the scope of its tasks, the body operates across administrative sectors. With this set-up, proper coordination between the government administration and the institutions involved in implementing EU funds in Poland can be ensured insofar as it is relevant to the overarching objective of protection of Poland's and the EU's financial interests. Work groups have been established by the Team as part of the process of establishing and implementing effective and proportionate measures for combating fraud (which are required under the 20142020 financial framework).

Dutch Customs recognises and makes extensive use of cooperation with the relevant enforcement partners (e.g. FIOD - Fiscal Information and Investigation Service, NVWA - Netherlands Food and Product Safety Authority, foreign customs authorities); nationally and internationally determined priorities are aligned annually and examined for cooperation opportunities. Progress has thus been made towards the one-stop shop approach.

Dutch Customs decided last year (2015) to position the AFCOS differently (combine it with two other fraud teams to make a single team) for an optimum response to the Commission's requests and messages. The revamped AFCOS will start operations on 1 April and will be positioned independently from other teams within Customs. The new AFCOS has the required areas of expertise to comply with the broad AFCOS remit.

Nonetheless, IAID has set an objective to set up the Co-ordinating Committee in terms of Article 23 of cap. 461 and hold the first meeting with the relevant stakeholders charged with combating fraud and irregularities in Malta by the first half of the current year. Moreover, IAID is in the process of finalizing an Operational Base for further cooperation between the Department and the Economic Crimes Unit within the Malta Police. These two objectives are considered to be of utmost importance and as such, have been included in the operational plan of AFCOS Malta for Year 2016.

As a sideline, one should note that though the formal Co-ordinating Committee has not been set up, cooperation between bodies combating fraud in Malta is well pronounced.

The aim of Malta’s National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy is to have a Co-ordinating Committee whose remit is to “devise an initiative through which public financial control is analysed and seen that it is being addressed adequately. The Co-ordinating Committee will then be in a position to make the necessary recommendations to the appropriate authorities for the improvement of public financial control”.

Article 23 of cap. 461 makes reference to the setting up of a Co-ordinating Committee “to facilitate the exchange of information between different entities charged with the protection and safeguarding of public funds”. Nonetheless, this Committee has, to date, never been set up in a formal way albeit IAID, the Attorney General Office and the Economic Crimes Unit within the Malta Police are in close contact especially in relation to ongoing financial investigations.

As stated in the Executive Summary of Malta’s National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy: “the main aim of the anti-fraud and corruption strategy is to set up a normative, institutional and operational framework for the effective and efficient fight against irregularities, fraud and corruption in Malta, reflecting both the local requirements and its international obligations. The main thrusts of the strategy are prevention, deterrence, detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud and corruption, whilst encouraging and facilitating transparency and accountability”.

Amongst other functions which include the conduct of financial investigations in terms of Articles 3 and 5 of the Internal Audit and Financial Investigations Act (cap. 461 of the Laws of Malta), AFCOS Malta co-ordinates strategy dissemination and implementation, develops vision, standards and agreements on ensuring co-operation in investigations and prosecution of cases of fraud and corruption.

The Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service (AFCOS) Malta was established at IAID during the EU membership negotiations and an Administrative Cooperation Arrangement (ACA) was signed by IAID and OLAF in June 2003.

Malta’s National Anti-Fraud and Corruption Strategy was tabled in Parliament in November 2008 together with two other documents during the Budget debate.

Given the above, it can be said that Hungary is concentrating on utilising the full potential of the Anti-Fraud Coordination Service, and in accordance with Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013, AFCOS is playing a major role in fulfilling Hungary’s legal, administrative and operational obligations to protect the EU’s financial interests, ensuring cooperation between OLAF, Hungarian institutions and authorities, and promoting the dissemination of information among specialist organisations operating in the field in Hungary.

When it comes to OLAF investigations and the system for dealing with and reporting on irregularities, contacts and cooperation have a narrower and more specialised focus. Activities in these areas typically involve targeted one-off enquiries.

To make this a regular event, the Bureau is planning to conclude a cooperation agreement on training with the Prime Minister’s Office, which coordinates the management of EU funds and also runs training courses in this area.

The Bureau also held three events of its own, which contributed to the exchange of professional opinions with staff of institutions involved in EU-funded projects or in dealing with irregularities or investigating the misuse of aid. At these events, experts involved in dealing with the issue could hear presentations and receive updates not only from competent AFCOS staff, but also from experts from the Prime Minister’s Office, Ministry of National Development, Hungarian Competition Authority, DirectorateGeneral for Audit of EU Funds, and the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Extensive cooperation is also being undertaken to raise awareness of anti-fraud measures to protect public funds and on education and training to develop the system for dealing with irregularities involving EU funds in Hungary. In 2015 AFCOS made several presentations, including at the International Taxation Conference organised by the Hungarian Association of Qualified Tax Experts and the 2015 ‘Anti-Corruption Festival’ organised by the European Commission and Transparency International. Competent Bureau staff also made presentations on the topic of protecting the EU’s financial interests as part of in-house training at various organisations (for example, Magyar Fejlesztési Bank Zrt. (Hungarian Development Bank), Budapesti Corvinus Egyetem (Corvinus University of Budapest) and the Hungarian State Treasury). Hundreds of participants attended.

The most wide-ranging cooperation can be seen in the work of the ICCEA’s OLAF expert working group (working group No 43). For the purposes of EU anti-fraud activities the working group was set up to make preparations for tasks stemming from Hungary’s EU membership, formulate negotiating positions to be advocated in EU decision-making procedures, monitor the development of EU policies and coordinate the requisite government measures. Eighteen Hungarian organisations (ministries, investigating authorities, control bodies and EU fund managing authorities) delegate members to the group. This working group met once in 2015 and carried out twenty written procedures, with its members being regularly notified of incidents, new information and documents associated with protection of the EU’s financial interests.

The Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) was created in Hungary in 2001 within the existing Central Management of the National Tax and Customs Administration. The Service operates under the name ‘OLAF Coordination Bureau’ (‘the Bureau’) and carries out certain defined tasks relating to the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in Hungary on an on-going basis. The following were among the most important of these tasks in 2015:

Luxembourg is committed to effective protection of the EU's financial interests. The recommendations to the Commission’s report on the protection of the EU’s financial interests have therefore been discussed with all the relevant stakeholders and are going to be taken into account in the national anti-fraud strategy that Luxembourg is currently devising. A first meeting that brought together all the relevant authorities involved in managing EU funds had taken place. It is Luxembourg’s intention to have such meetings on a regular basis in order to have a structured coordination.

Responsibility for implementing this measure lies with the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Social Security and Labour, the Prosecutor General's Office, the SIS and the FCIS, i.e. the authorities that are responsible within their respective areas of competence for the implementation of the relevant EU funds and programmes in Lithuania, and the authorities with the power and experience to prevent, investigate and detect fraud and corruption.

The 2015-2019 inter-institutional action plan to implement the programme approved by the Lithuanian Government on 17 June 2015 provides for the deployment of anti-corruption and anti-fraud measures and activities relating to the use of EU fund resources (measure No 2.2.4.), by carrying out an analysis of the reasons for corruption and fraud, risk factors and problems in the field of the use of EU fund resources, the identification of anti-corruption and anti-fraud measures and activities and the coordination and control of their implementation until 31 December 2019.

Furthermore, Resolution No XII-1537 of 10 March 2015 of the Seimas [Parliament] of the Republic of Lithuania approving the 2015-25 Lithuanian National Anti-Corruption Programme approved Lithuania's National anti-corruption programme for 2015-25 (hereinafter "programme"), providing for the deployment of anti-corruption and anti-fraud measures and activities relating to the use of EU fund resources (subparagraph 29.2.3. of the programme).

It should be noted that cooperation is being stepped up between law enforcement agencies and the Ministry of Finance to ensure that information is collected on pre-trial investigations relating to projects and their progress, that the measures provided for under legislation are executed as expeditiously as possible and that only eligible project expenditure is declared to the Commission, and to ensure that prevention measures are effective. Accordingly, the Ministry of Finance, together with the FCIS and the Special Investigation Service (hereinafter "SIS"), which is responsible for the fight against corruption, has drawn up a procedure for providing the Ministry of Finance with information on pre-trial investigations being carried out, i.e. law enforcement agencies will inform the Ministry of Finance about the launch of pre-trial investigations (where doing so does not prejudice the course of the investigation) and of procedural decisions relating to their progress (e.g. referral for judicial proceedings) or termination.

FCIS representatives likewise participate in the work of the EU fund infringement inspectors' working group, which examines questions relating to the investigation, identification, elimination and prevention of infringements relating to projects jointly financed under the EU structural funds.

Each year the FCIS organizes anti-fraud training courses for employees involved in the administration and control of EU structural funds which present examples of the most common types of fraud encountered, discuss issues of concern regarding cooperation between the FCIS and institutions administering EU structural fund resources in the investigation, prevention and detection of suspected cases of fraud, and look at what lies ahead.

The FICS is also entrusted by law with the detection, investigation and prevention of criminal acts and other breaches of law connected with the receipt and use of financial support funds from EU and foreign states. Where a case of fraud is suspected, the FCIS must be informed of this in writing without delay. The FCIS informs the body that submitted the information on a suspected case of fraud about the decision to launch or not to launch an investigation into an alleged offence. This cooperation with the FCIS works on a case-by-case basis.

The FCIS participates in the drafting of legal acts regulating the administration of EU structural funds and documents detailing these, and submits proposals to the competent authorities about how to amend and improve them.

In the Republic of Lithuania, the Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter "FCIS") is responsible for the coordination of cooperation between State and other institutions and OLAF.

-AFCOS and representatives from relevant national parties participated in OLAF meetings and training sessions as well as exchange of experience and best practice with the Member States in this area (seminar organized by the AFCOS with the participation of OLAF, to improve cooperation for on-the-spot checks; exchange of best practice in IT tools with IT, DK, BG and EL representatives).

-distributed information to AFCOS network on the AFCOS and OLAF and possible trainings, seminars, exchange of best practice on fraud and corruption-related topics;

-updated information on the website of the Ministry of Finance and other institutions involved in the EU management about the AFCOS and other institutions involved in protection of EU's financial interests and published information leaflet on whistle-blowing;

Furthermore AFCOS has updated the Anti-fraud strategy of the Ministry of Finance for the protection of the financial interests of the Union for 2014 – 2016. The strategy covers State Administrative Institutions that are Subordinate to the Ministry of Finance, as AFCOS Latvia is located at the Ministry of Finance, and was meant to be the first step towards National Anti-Fraud strategy. Continued implementation of the measures set out in the action plan:

2)draw up rules for efficient cooperation and exchange of information in order to strengthen and formalize cooperation between the Latvian competent authorities and OLAF and to improve mutual legal assistance.

To improve cooperation and to use the AFCOS to its full potential an Inter-institutional working group has been established to:

To enforce the rules for the new programming period 2014-2020 in the Guidelines, particular tasks are assigned to all public institutions i.e. State institutions and municipalities shall adopt and/or update their Anti-Corruption Action Plans, including risk based anti-fraud and anti-corruption measures to prevent and detect fraud in the EU funds and other foreign financial assistance instruments, if applicable.

On 16 July 2015 the Cabinet of Ministers approved a new mid-term policy planning document “The Corruption Prevention and Combating Guidelines for 2015-2020” describing the current situation of Latvia’s anticorruption policy, defining problems and stipulating tasks to be executed by various state institutions, implementation time frame for individual assignments, justification of the assignment and overall policy results to be expected within a certain period of time.

When a case opened by OLAF or a request for provision of information/documents all members of AFCOS work towards the satisfaction of OLAF’s request in line with local and European Law. If the information relates to other areas such as Tax, social insurance, existing shareholders a writing request is made to the competent departments for provision of such information. Such exchange of information respects the principles of confidentiality and the rules on data protection.

Cyprus identified the competent authorities which are able to provide OLAF’s Office with the assistance needed in the performance of its duties.

Later, with Minister’s Decision No. 61.895, dated 21/04/2005, Contact Point was set the Treasury of the Republic of Cyprus, since at that time was responsible for the notification to the Commission of all irregularities were identified by all services of AFCOS members. Now the AFCOS members shall communicate on their own cases.

In Cyprus, with Minister’s Decision No. 56.370 dated 12/09/2002 AFCOS was established and as a contact point with the Anti-Fraud Office in the European Union (OLAF), was set the Legal Service and specifically the responsible Unit combating of Money Laundering (MO.K.A.S).

Thanks to the significant efforts made, good results have been achieved and further strategic areas of activity identified for the future, both at national and European levels. These are set out in the aforementioned annual report to Parliament.

The strategic action carried out by AFCOS has tackled several significant areas of activity, at all levels, in order to improve further the coordination of all the national institutions concerned, and consequently, the national anti-fraud structure, mainly from the point of view of preventing illegal activities.

The Committee is therefore the ideal tool for enhancing knowledge of and analysing illegal activities, as well as identifying the most appropriate action to prevent, combat and punish irregularities and fraud.

It includes top-level representatives from all the administrations concerned in the management and/or control activities in the field of EU funding, namely: Prime Minister's Office, Ministries of the Interior, Justice, Economic Affairs and Finance, Economic Development, Agricultural Policies, Infrastructure and Transport, Employment and Education; the Guardia di Finanza (financial police), the Carabinieri; the Customs and Revenue Agencies; Agricultural Payments Agency; Conference of the Regions, Union of Italian Provinces and Italian National Association of Municipalities.

It has advisory and guidance functions for the coordination of all actions to combat fraud/irregularities in the fields of taxation, the common agricultural policy and the Structural Funds.

The Committee is the government body responsible for drawing up and developing the national strategy for combating irregularities/fraud affecting the EU budget, included in the annual report to the Italian Parliament provided for by Article 54 of Law No 234 of 24 December 2012.

Furthermore, on the basis of Article 3(4) of the recently adopted Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 September 2013 concerning investigations conducted by OLAF, the Committee has been designated as the central Anti Fraud Coordination service (AFCOS).

The Italian COLAF (Comitato per la lotta contro le frodi nei confronti dell’Unione europea [Committee for combating fraud against the European Union]) was established by Article 76 of Law No 142 of 19 February 1992, and subsequently confirmed by Article 54 of Law No 234 of 24 December 2012.

Additionally, SCIF also drafted Guidelines for managing irregularities and fraud which are integrated within Manuals of procedure of Irregularity Reporting System bodies in the context of EU Structural Instruments environment (programming period 2007 – 2013) and for ESI Funds (programming period 2014 – 2020) (Guidelines). Guidelines were adopted by Minister of Finance on 13 August 2015. Correspondingly, reinforced cooperation and exchange of information is achieved through the Guidelines, since the document is, inter alia, consisted of provisions on way how to and in which form bodies should cooperate with each other.

Protocol on cooperation with the Ministry of Interior was signed on 24.3.2015 and with the Croatian State Attorney's Office (SAO) on 16.6.2016. On 14 April 2015, the Ministry of Finance sent to OLAF the initiative for concluding Administrative Cooperation Arrangement with OLAF (ACA). By defining fields of mutual cooperation, ways of communication and information exchange, ACA ought to improve the already effective cooperation between the Ministry of Finance and OLAF and to contribute to the enhancement of the protection of the EU financial interests in general.

The aim of these Protocols is to help to define cooperation and exchange of information in detail.

In order to further enhance cooperation with certain national bodies, measures set in the National Anti-Fraud Strategy in the Field of Protection of EU Financial Interests for the period 2014-2016 and Action Plan, inter alia, include signing Protocols on:

Cooperation between SCIF and relevant national parties is a product of good practices and has also its basis in national legislation (e.g. Regulation on the institutional framework of the system for combating irregularities and fraud (OG 144/13), Decision on the establishment of the AFCOS network (NN 151/13)).

Efficient information flow and effective cooperation between institutions within the AFCOS system in the Republic of Croatia (cooperation between institutions at different levels i.e. SCIF – AFCOS Network- Irregularity Reporting System) are set and in use.

Moreover, when drafting the Strategy 2014- 2016, all the aspects that require improvement on the basis of the weaknesses detected in the system for combating irregularities and fraud were taken into account.

Following the National strategy 2010 – 2012, on 23 January 2014, the Government adopted the National Anti-Fraud Strategy in the Field of Protection of EU Financial Interests for the period 2014-2016 and its accompanying Action Plan. The purpose of this Strategy is to ensure effective and efficient protection of EU financial interests by further strengthening the AFCOS system in the Republic of Croatia, by carrying out predefined measures and achievement of the set objectives.

On 14 January 2010, the Government of the Republic of Croatia adopted the National Anti-fraud Strategy for the Protection of the EU Financial Interest for the period 2010-2012 as the main strategic document stressing the priorities in the protection of EU financial interests and measures for their attainment. The Strategy defined the scope of work and responsibilities of bodies in the AFCOS system, as well as the measures and activities for strengthening the protection of EU financial interests in the Republic of Croatia. Most of those measures and activities were fulfilled during the course of implementation of IPA 2007 Twinning light project “Strengthening Croatian AFCOS System with the aim of protecting the EU's financial interests”.

Tasks and responsibilities of SCIF are set in the Government Decree on internal organization of the Ministry of Finance (OG 32/12, 67/12, 124/12, 78/13, 102/13, 24/14, 134/14, 154/14) and in the Government Regulation on the institutional framework of the system of combating irregularities and fraud (OG 144/13).

The Republic of Croatia has fulfilled its obligation under Article 3, paragraph 4 of the Regulation (EU EURATOM) No. 883/2013, since the Service for Combating Irregularities and Fraud (SCIF) was established within the Ministry of Finance. SCIF performs a coordinating role within the AFCOS system and acts as the main contact point to the European Anti-fraud Office (OLAF) and therefore ensures protection of financial interests of the EU in the Republic of Croatia.

Since its creation in 2008, the National Anti-Fraud Unit (Délégation nationale de lutte contre la fraude - DNLF) has drawn up a national plan for the fight against fraud in national public finances. This plan is approved every year by the Prime Minister or, by delegation, the Minister for Finance, during the meeting of the National Anti-Fraud Committee. For 2016, it is planned to include in the plan specific measures to better combat fraud against the Union’s financial interests.

3) The National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service is holding meetings with various national bodies and institutions with a view to establishing channels for cooperation with any other bodies that may have an interest in combating fraud vis-à-vis the financial interests of the European Union. In this respect, a convention, protocol or similar instrument is due to be drawn up to formalise relations between AFCOS and relevant departments in the Prosecutor's Office for the Fight against Corruption and Organised Crime regarding channels for exchanging information on cases of fraud vis-à-vis the EU's financial interests, among other issues.

In particular, paragraph 5 of the 25th additional provision lays down that ‘The authorities, representatives of the State, Autonomous Communities and Local Authorities, as well as the heads and directors of public offices, public bodies and other public organisations and, in general, those who exercise public duties or work in these institutions shall cooperate with and support the Service' and that 'The Service shall have the same powers as OLAF to access information relevant to the matter under investigation'.

2) Secondly, the 25th additional provision of the GSL confers new powers on the National AntiFraud Coordination Service to ensure the statutory involvement of the entities that might be affected by the actions of AFCOS, thereby ensuring that AFCOS can carry out its duties fully.

i) Any other task that is assigned to it by law or regulation, within the scope of its powers'.

h) Help draw up and promote the national strategy to prevent and combat fraud vis-à-vis the financial interests of the European Union.

g) Communicate information concerning the proposals, decisions and recommendations made by the European Union in the field of the prevention of and fight against fraud.

f) Inform and advise the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service in relation to any issues that it may raise regarding the prevention of and fight against fraud vis-à-vis the financial interests of the European Union.

e) Help the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service set out general criteria and establish procedures for handling specific cases of suspected fraud, as well as the procedures to be followed in each case depending on the specific circumstances in each individual case.

c) Work together with the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service to establish systems that allow a smooth exchange of information between the national institutions that are responsible for managing, monitoring, preventing and combating fraud vis-à-vis the financial interests of the European Union, and between these bodies and the European Anti-Fraud Office, in full compliance with the existing rules on information confidentiality.

b) Study, consider and propose to the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service any measures considered necessary regarding the prevention of and fight against fraud vis-à-vis the financial interests of the European Union.

'a) Consider, and if necessary, comment on draft laws and proposals of any kind that are submitted to it by the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service.

As regards the tasks conferred upon the Advisory Council, the purpose of the Royal Decree is to make the Council the principal tool for guaranteeing effective cooperation between all those involved in the various stages of the anti-fraud cycle (prevention, detection, investigation, recovery/sanctions) and for ensuring that the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service can successfully perform its coordination role in terms of preventing and combating fraud. To this end, Article 2 of the draft Royal Decree confers the following tasks upon the Advisory Council:

In addition, the draft Royal Decree provides that, alongside the voting members of the Advisory Council, experts - where appropriate - and especially OLAF representatives may attend its meetings in an advisory capacity without the right to vote.

l) One member representing local administration, on a proposal from the largest association of local authorities in the country, if it chooses to accept the invitation from the Chairperson of the Advisory Council.

k) One member or several members representing the bodies or institutions of the Autonomous Communities responsible for managing European Union funds if they choose to accept the invitation from the Chairperson of the Advisory Council.

e) Two members representing the National Agency for Tax Administration, at least one of whom will represent the Department of Customs and Excise as regards customs duties and other traditional own resources in the EU budget.

Thus, in accordance with Article 3 of the draft Royal Decree, the Advisory Council for Preventing and Combating EU-related Fraud will comprise the following members:

In light of the above, a broad-based composition was chosen so as to represent all the national bodies, entities and institutions that are responsible for managing, monitoring, preventing and combating fraud in this field. As such, the Advisory Council is designed to be the principal tool for ensuring cooperation between the various bodies and entities concerned.

When designing the Advisory Council for Preventing and Combating EU-related Fraud the recommendations made by OLAF itself were used as a reference point, particularly those made in the 'Guidance note on the main tasks and responsibilities of an Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS)' (prepared by OLAF in October 2013) and especially those in Part IV 'Institutional framework of the AFCOS in the Member State'.

The National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service has prepared the draft of the Royal Decree governing the composition and workings of the Advisory Council for Preventing and Combating EU-related Fraud. The process of approving the Royal Decree is ongoing. AFCOS has prepared the text of the Royal Decree as well as the accompanying documentation required for the approval process. However, the text has not yet been approved by the Council of Ministers because the general election was held and it cannot be approved until a new Government has been formed.

1) Firstly, point four of the fourth paragraph of the 25th additional provision of the GSL provides that 'The National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service shall be assisted by an Advisory Council chaired by the Auditor General and comprising representatives of the ministries, bodies and other national institutions responsible for managing, monitoring, preventing and combating fraud in relation to the financial interests of the European Union. Its composition and workings shall be established by Royal Decree.'

The 25th additional provision of the GSL added to the rules governing the Anti-Fraud Coordination Service by including certain elements that are needed for it to be able to carry out its tasks successfully. In particular, the following should be noted concerning the content of Recommendation 1:

A new twenty-fifth additional provision, which entered into force on 2 October 2015, was added to the General Subsidies Law (GSL) No 38/2003 of 17 November 2003. This granted legal status to the establishment of the National Anti-Fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) and to the regulation of its core tasks. These aspects were previously covered by a regulatory instrument (Royal Decree No 802/2014 of 19 September 2014, which set up the AFCOS).

Regarding cooperation between AFCOS and the relevant national authorities, Ireland established an AFCOS network, the inaugural meeting of which took place in May 2015. The relevant authorities represented at the inaugural meeting included the Department of Education, Food and the Marine, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Department of Education and Skills, Department of Justice, Revenue Commissioners and the Irish police. The AFCOS network will meet periodically to inter alia share information and best practice.

In the future we will focus more on composing the written strategic action plan with every party’s duties and goals. We will assess this plan in our annual meeting with the partners’

It organises joint training courses at least twice a year, where common cases and area-specific challenges and achievements are discussed. Due to regular and close cooperation we all are aware of our and the others’ duties and the importance of cooperation for the protection of the EU and Estonian financial interests.

Germany's AFCOS at the Ministry of Finance is in constant direct and indirect contact with all federal and regional administrative bodies competent for preventing, detecting and fighting fraud and irregularities in the country. The issue of preventing and fighting fraud now routinely features on the agenda for coordination meetings and other discussions with these authorities. OLAF's coordination assistance is consistently provided but depends to a great degree on mutual recognition and reporting.

Cooperation in the network has been reinforced through regular meetings, exchanges of experience, and continuous information exchange. It is our view that cooperation in the network has been - and continues to be - useful for the authorities involved in fighting fraud against the EU’s financial interests. A manual is being drawn up in order to completely clarify the respective authorities’ powers, anti-fraud action plans, interfaces and cooperation within the AFCOS network, and their cooperation with OLAF. The aim is to strengthen cooperation by giving a more cross-cutting overview of the authorities’ work in fighting fraud against EU funds. This can be helpful to authorities both within and outside of the network. It is not considered necessary at the present time to have a formal national anti-fraud strategy.

The AFCOS network meets regularly, both before relevant meetings in Brussels, and also in connection with thematic meetings on subjects of cross-cutting relevance for the authorities. Cooperation in the network allows for a helpful and regular exchange of ideas and experiences, and easier coordination of cross-cutting issues. It also allows for discussions of a more strategic nature.

The Finance Ministry thus carries out the obligations laid down in Article 3(4) of the OLAF Regulation and can act as a contact point for OLAF. However, the Danish AFCOS is merely a coordinating unit, and specific inquiries from OLAF are therefore passed on to the relevant authority. Cooperation in the network helps to ease this communication.

The Danish Anti-Fraud Coordination Service was placed in the Finance Ministry by a Government decision in May 2014. In order to support the Finance Ministry in this task, an anti-fraud network was set up at the same time, composed of the relevant authorities (the Danish AgriFish Agency, the Danish Business Authority, the Danish Customs and Tax Administration, and the Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic and International Crime (SØIK)). The network was set up in this way so as to cover both the revenue side and the expenditure side, along with the prevention, detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud against the EU’s financial interests and recovery of the unduly paid funds.

In addition to that, based on the Agreement on the Mutual Cooperation, the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office in cooperation with the Supreme Audit Office organized a workshop. The workshop attended by representatives of those bodies held on 13th September 2015 was organized to exchange practical information, describing new types of criminal activities, and different possibilities for common cooperation in procedures for the awarding of public contracts co-financed by ESIF.

Secondly, the revision of the Czech national anti-fraud strategy is still in the process of being adopted. As far as the internal comments procedure is concerned, it has been completed. In regards to the external comments procedure, it has not been adopted yet. The revised strategy shall be adopted by government decree.

The Czech AFCOS team intensively cooperated with the other relevant Czech parties such as the Customs Administration of the Czech Republic, the Supreme Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Unit for Combating Corruption and Financial Crime as to improve the fight against fraud and irregularities. Firstly, the Czech AFCOS team organized a conference for the members of local contact points of AFCOS in September 2015, in which representatives of the aforementioned offices were trained in the field of the protection of the EU’s financial interests, specifically in analysing collected evidence or gathered facts which are reported to the administrative authority, inter alia, when there is suspicion of a violation of administrative law, or it regards the case of suspicion of a breach of criminal law. We focused on the efficiency of the detection and legal classification of behaviour of the accused party by inspectors during the conduction of checks, inspections, and prompt reporting to the police. A representative of the Unit for Combating Corruption and Financial Crime presented a few case studies to show practical examples of breaching the Czech Penal Code, specifically of criminal cases where suspects caused financial damage to the EU budget.

PMS No 89/16 April 2015 established an interdepartmental coordination centre on combating smuggling and controlling the movement of hazardous goods and cargo, aiming to ensure the interaction and coordination between the bodies of the Ministry of the Interior, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Transport, Information Technology and Communications (MTITS). The effective interaction at the inter-institutional level and the coordination of the operational activities on identified cases of smuggling and tax misuse from a single coordination centre enables immediate action on risk analysis, identification of countermeasures and undertaking of joint control activities by the law enforcement bodies, the Executive Agency for Automobile Administration and the two revenue agencies: the National Revenue Agency and the Customs Agency.

The PRB has set up an electronic register for the exchange of information between the Prosecutor’s Office of Bulgaria and the European Anti-Fraud Office in accordance with the agreement signed between the PRB and the AFCOS Council.

In early November of 2015 a Cooperation and Collaboration Agreement was signed between the Council for Coordination in the Fight Against Infringements Affecting the European Union’s Financial Interests (AFCOS) and the Prosecutor’s Office of Bulgaria (PRB). The agreement establishes the conditions, procedures and formats for the interaction and cooperation between the Council and the Prosecutor’s Office.

Agreement of 23 March 2015 between the Bulgarian Prosecutor’s Office, the Ministry of the Interior, the State Agency for National Security (DANS), the National Revenue Agency (NAP) and the Customs Agency (AM) on establishing an interdepartmental unit to support the investigation of organised crime related to financial offences. The main priorities in the unit’s operations are the specialisation and teamwork of prosecutors, investigative police officers, officials from the DANS, the NAP and the AM; information exchange and confidentiality, efficiency and speed of preliminary checks and pre-trial proceedings. The overall management and control over the unit and the joint investigation teams established within it are exercised by the Supreme Court of Cassation deputy responsible for this area, designated by the Prosecutor General.

The following agreements were signed in fulfilment of the tasks defined in the Action Plan implementing the National Strategy for Preventing and Combating Irregularities and Fraud Affecting the Financial Interests of the EU for the period 2014–2020:

Furthermore, all institutions administering European programmes actively implement the AFCOS Directorate’s Methodological Guidelines relating to the administration of irregularities. The Permanent Working Group on Irregularities, headed by the AFCOS Directorate, discusses, on an ongoing basis, all complex issues arising in relation to the administration of irregularities. The training sessions organised by the AFCOS Directorate further enhance the administrative capacity of experts responsible for the prevention, detection, reporting and subsequent handling of cases of irregularities and fraud relating to the spending of funds from the common budget of the EU.

All institutions administering European programmes cooperate closely with the AFCOS Directorate, which is reflected in the submission of information to the Directorate in all cases when indications of fraud are established in the course of checks and when suspected irregularities are classified as ‘suspected fraud’. Upon completion of the alerts the responsible institutions notify the AFCOS Directorate of the final position and the measures adopted in response to the alert. In addition, the relevant national institutions report to the AFCOS every three months on the registered irregularities and the measures taken in response to them.

Improving efficiency in detecting and combating irregularities and fraud by strengthening cooperation among revenue authorities and enhancing internal control and interaction between State authorities, the private sector, non-governmental organisations and civil society;

The National Strategy for Preventing and Combating Irregularities and Fraud Affecting the Financial Interests of the EU identifies 4 strategic goals, providing the framework for cooperation between the responsible national institutions:

With the adoption, in December 2014, of the National Strategy for Preventing and Combating Irregularities and Fraud Affecting the Financial Interests of the EU for the period 2014–2020 and of the Action Plan implementing the National Strategy for the period 2015–2016, the cooperation between the responsible national institutions, whose heads are AFCOS Council members, is implemented in a structured manner on the basis of the strategic goals and functions envisaged in the two programming documents.

In accordance with Article 3(4) of Regulation (EU, EURATOM) No 883/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, the AFCOS Directorate is the designated national coordinating anti-fraud service, which assists the effective cooperation and information exchange with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The AFCOS Directorate coordinates the operational cooperation between OLAF and the members of the AFCOS Council in carrying out investigations in Bulgaria, and ensures and coordinates, at the national level, the reporting of irregularities between the national institutions and the European Commission.

In fulfilment of the European Commission’s recommendations, by Council of Ministers Decree (PMS) No 18 of 4 February 2003, Bulgaria established a Council for Coordination in the Fight Against Infringements Affecting the European Union’s Financial Interests (AFCOS). At the higher political level, the AFCOS Council provides guidelines, monitors and coordinates the activities of State authorities responsible for preventing and combating infringements affecting the revenue and expenditure of the EU budget and the national budget. The Council is chaired by the Minister for the Interior, who implements the State policy on the protection of the EU’s financial interests. The Council is composed of ministers, deputy-ministers and heads of administrations responsible for the management of EU funds and programmes, directors of revenue agencies, and heads of control, certification, audit and enforcement bodies. The operation of the Council is supported by the Protection of the European Union’s Financial Interests Directorate (AFCOS), a specialised unit within the Ministry of the Interior (MVR) which carries out control, information and coordination activities relating to the protection of the European Union’s financial interests.

A legal framework to regulate the operation of the AFCOS and cooperation with all the departments concerned is currently being drafted.

The introduction of a national anti-fraud strategy will be examined in 2016. There is currently no national coordination of the anti-fraud strategies applied by the different departments concerned.

The committee is made up of representatives of all departments involved in the fight against economic fraud, and therefore in the fight against fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU. The members of the committee include, inter alia: the customs administration, SPF Finances (the Federal Public Finance Service), regional departments managing the structural and agricultural funds, the Economic Inspectorate and the Board of Prosecutors-General.

2.1.2.Measures to fight fraud and corruption in public procurement

In February 2014, the first EU anti-corruption report was adopted and the revised package of public procurement Directives and a new concessions Directive entered into force.

The transposition of these Directives gives the Member States an opportunity to enhance transparency and strengthen their anti-fraud efforts, by defining conflict of interest, making e-procurement mandatory and introducing monitoring and reporting obligations to curb procurement fraud and other serious irregularities.

In addition, Member States took a significant number of legislative and administrative measures aimed at strengthening anti-fraud work in the area of public procurement.

Member States are invited not only to transpose the definition of ‘conflict of interest’ contained in the Public Procurement Directive, into national legislation but also to put effective measures in place to tackle conflicts of interest.

During the public procurement process, conflict of interest can cause serious harm to the public budget and to the reputation of both the EU and the Member States concerned.

BE As part of the transposition process, Belgium has worked mainly, as regards conflicts of interest, on extending the existing measures in that area. There was already a whole raft of specific measures in Belgian law on the prevention of conflicts of this type. Those measures have been slightly adapted to bring them into line with Directives 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU. More specifically, the existence of a conflict of interest under Belgian law will be presumed, for example (as is already the case): 1. where there is a relationship by blood or by marriage to the third degree in direct line, or to the fourth degree in collateral line, or in the event of legal cohabitation, between the civil servant or public official and one of the candidates or tenderers or any other natural person who holds powers of representation, decision-making or control on behalf of one of the above; 2. where the civil servant or public official is himself or herself, or through an intermediary, the owner, joint owner or an active partner of one of the candidate or tendering companies or holds, de jure or de facto, himself or herself, or, where applicable, through an intermediary, powers of representation, decision-making or control. The Act will clarify that a civil servant or public official in a conflict-of-interest situation must recuse himself/herself and immediately notify the contracting authority thereof in writing. This provision is currently included in the implementing decree. Where the civil servant or public official holds himself or herself, or through an intermediary, one or more shares or stock representing at least five per cent of the share capital of one of the candidate or tendering companies, he or she will likewise be obliged to notify the contracting authority (as is already the case). The government also intends to take action against the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon. This is a situation where a person who has worked in-house at a contracting authority, in a hierarchical relationship or otherwise, subsequently plays a part in the award of a public procurement contract by the contracting authority, where a direct link exists between the activities previously performed by that person for the contracting authority and their activities under the contract. The application of this measure would be limited to a period of two years following the person's resignation or any other type of departure from his/her employment. Such a situation would be considered a conflict of interest. There will, of course, also be measures designed to exclude candidates or tenderers from participating in a contract because of specific conduct or acts at any stage of the procedure. Exclusion will be mandatory in the case of candidates or tenderers convicted of corruption or fraud by a judicial decision having final and binding effect. Exclusion will, however, be optional and left to the discretion of the contracting authority: - where they have committed acts, entered into agreements or implemented restrictive practices with the aim of distorting competition; - where a conflict of interest cannot be effectively remedied by other less intrusive measures; - where a distortion of competition resulting from the prior involvement of the economic operators in the preparation of the procurement procedure cannot be remedied by other, less intrusive measures; - where they have attempted to unduly influence the decision-making process of the contracting authority, to obtain confidential information that may confer upon them undue advantages in the procurement procedure or to negligently provide misleading information that may have a material influence on decisions concerning exclusion, selection or award. Measures are also envisaged in the areas of governance and monitoring, in particular an obligation for Belgium to submit an audit report every three years to the European Commission, focusing on the prevention, detection and reporting of cases of fraud, corruption, conflicts of interest and other serious irregularities in the field of public procurement.

BG Pursuant to Article 19(2)(5) of the Public Procurement Act (ZOP), the Public Procurement Agency, as a specialised body, is empowered to draw up draft legislation in the field of public procurement, including drafts relating to the implementation of EU legislation in this field. In accordance with the aforesaid powers and in the light of the new Public Procurement Directives, 2014/24/EU and 2014/25/EU, a draft of a new ZOP was prepared and submitted for discussion to the National Assembly (the new ZOP was adopted at second reading on 2 February 2016). The measures envisaged in the draft, specifically targeting the prevention of conflicts of interest, pertain to the following: Article 54(1)(7) of the draft ZOP prohibits participation in a public procurement procedure by any person for whom a conflict of interest has been established and cannot be removed. In this regard, any interested party is obliged, when participating in a public procurement procedure, to declare the absence of the aforesaid circumstance in the European Single Procurement Document (ESPD). Unlike the applicable European Directives, under which the application of the grounds is left to the discretion of contracting authorities, the draft act adopts a more restrictive approach, whereby the contracting authority is obliged always to include this requirement in public procurement procedures. According to the definition in subparagraph 21 of § 1 of the Supplementary Provisions of the ZOP, a ‘conflict of interest’ is present when the contracting authority, its employees or persons hired by it (beyond its structure), participating in the preparation or awarding of the public procurement contract or in a position to influence its outcome, have an interest which may result in benefits under Article 2(3) of the Conflict of Interest Prevention and Ascertainment Act (ZPUKI), and which could be assumed to affect their impartiality and independence with regard to the award. It should be noted that persons for whom the presence of a ‘conflict of interest’ is examined, as well as the connection between them, are identical to those under the new Directives. The draft also envisages an opportunity for the contracting authority to reject any proof of technical and professional skills presented by a person who has an interest which may result in a benefit under Article 2(3) of the ZPUKI. The draft is in compliance with Article 58(4)(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU. In addition to introducing the aforesaid provisions of the European directives, the draft act proposes national measures aimed at ensuring the principle of free and fair competition, ensuring equal treatment of all participants and avoiding agreements or concerted practices between participants in public procurement procedures. The draft act examines the presence of a conflict of interest between committee members and procedure participants. To this end, the committee members will be required to submit to the contracting authority a declaration of absence of conflicts of interest after receiving the list of participants/applicants. In the event that such a conflict is established with regard to a committee member, they will be removed from the procedure, and their actions will not be taken into account by the committee. When during a public procurement procedure the contracting authority establishes a conflict of interest with regard to the applicants or participants, depending on the type of the procedure, it is obliged to point out this circumstance in the respective decision, as well as the measures undertaken to rectify it. The decisions of the contracting authority are subject to appeal before the Commission for Protection of Competition or the Supreme Administrative Court as the second instance, as appropriate, ensuring that each participant can defend their interests if they disagree with the decision of the contracting authority. Such an opportunity is also given to participants who believe that a conflict of interest exists but the participant concerned has not been removed from the procedure. Article 44(3) and (4) of the draft Act provide for specific measures by the contracting authorities when they have conducted market consultations before announcing the awards. In this case, the contracting authority is obliged to publish in the buyer profile all the information exchanged in connection with the preparation of the public procurement procedure, as well as to set an appropriate term for the receipt of bids. Furthermore, the contracting authority is obliged to extend the term for the receipt of applications for participation or bids when they have made use of the opportunity to shorten the terms and within the deadline set by them only one bid or participation application has been received, submitted by a person who has consulted them. When, regardless of the measures taken, the contracting authority cannot ensure compliance with the principle of equal treatment, it must remove the candidate/participant who consulted it from the procedure. The envisaged measures aim to eliminate any opportunity for persons who have consulted the contracting authority to receive any undue advantage over other participants in the procedures. The draft Act also provides for the mandatory removal from the procedures of participants or applicants who represent related parties. The grounds for removal were introduced in order to prevent concerted practices in the procedures and fictitious offering of the same bid by them. The definition of ‘related parties’ contained in the Act refers to relationships regulated under § 1(13) and (14) of the Supplementary Provisions to the Public Offering of Securities Act. Under the aforesaid provisions, these are the persons whose activity is controlled by a third party, persons where one controls the other or its subsidiary, etc. On 20 March 2015, the Commission for Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest (KPUKI) signed a Framework Agreement for cooperation with the Commission for Protection of Competition (KZK). The Agreement is aimed at further strengthening cooperation on and effective action against conflict of interest and actions that could lead to the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition. The agreement states that when, in connection with the operation of the KZK, it is established that a person holding public office has violated the provisions of the ZPUKI, the KZK will send an alert to the KPUKI. Likewise, when, in connection with the operation of the KPUKI, there is information giving rise to reasonable suspicion of violations of competition rules, the KPUKI will send an alert to the KZK. In fulfilment of the signed Framework Agreement, in 2015 the KPUKI and the KZK conducted reciprocal training for their staff, thereby increasing the administrative capacity of their experts to take effective action against any manifestation of conflict of interest and anti-monopoly behaviour. In addition to the measures already adopted in 2014, specifically the controls introduced against fraud, ‘red flags’ and the declaration on the absence of conflicts of interest under Article 57(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012, in 2015 the ‘National Fund’ Directorate — a Certifying Authority under all operational programmes — detailed its control procedures on establishing indicators on conflicts of interest at the Managing Authorities and Beneficiaries level, and on formulating a conclusion based on them. As a result, a number of additional checks have been and will be performed in order to establish the presence of conflicts of interest, which contributes to the effective implementation of the adopted measures. An analysis was conducted on the irregularities in the absorption of EU funds, which established that only 1 % of the reported 1190 irregularities during the period 2007–2013 under the SKF are related to conflicts of interest. The main irregularities concern violations of procedures conducted under the ZOP and inadmissible, unlawful or unjustified costs. The European Commission regards ‘Arachne’ as a useful tool to combat fraud, and its use will be taken into consideration when assessing the compliance of the implemented control systems. The Managing Authorities under operational programmes co-funded by the ERDF, the ESF, the CF and the YEI during the programming period 2014–2020 are planning to use ‘Arachne’ as a system for assessing the risk of fraud and irregularities. The system enables the continuous and systematic monitoring and review of internal and external data relating to projects, beneficiaries, contracts and contractors. The information is analysed and enables the efficiency of the management and control systems of operational programmes to be increased, especially reducing the error rate by focusing the controls on projects with the greatest risk and simultaneously strengthening the measures to identify and prevent fraud against the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund. By Order No R-249 of 2 December 2015, the Deputy Prime Minister for EU Funds and Economic Policy, Mr Tomislav Donchev, established the procedure for managing access to ARACHNE, the European Commission’s fraud and irregularity risk assessment tool. Under the procedure, the EU Funds Management Systems Directorate (SUSES), which is the Central Coordination Unit Directorate under the Rules of Procedure of the Council of Ministers and its administration (promulgated in SG No 2 of 8 January 2016), was designated as the central coordinator of the system at national level. For the performance of inspections on public procurement procedures by the Audit Authority (the IAOSES), the absence of circumstances under Article 35(1) and (2) of the ZOP with regard to the members of the committee conducting the procedure and the consultants has been established as a separate item for verification. It examines the number of committee members and consultants, the date that submitted bids were received, the number of submitted declarations, the date of their submission and their contents. In 2015, the checklist for public procurement procedures was supplemented and expanded so as to include dedicated questions aimed at establishing indicators of irregularities and fraud. Checklists contain detailed guidelines and instructions to auditors regarding the manner in which they should analyse the established irregularities in order to assess the presence of any fraud indicators. In order to assist auditors, the working document identifies specific hypotheses as examples of ‘red flags’ for irregularities. This part of the checklist was developed on the basis of OLAF’s Practical Guidelines on establishing conflicts of interest in public procurement procedures. The checklists of the Audit Authority were provided to the Court of Auditors, the Public Financial Inspection Agency (ADFI), the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Prime Minister for European funds and economic policy. In order to unify the methodology for examining public procurement procedures and to improve the fraud indicator identification skills, in a letter No 5.15.207 of 8 April 2015, the Deputy Prime Minister for European funds and economic policy requested that all Managing Authorities under the operational programmes should implement the checklists of the Audit Authority. In addition, every year after the completion of the audits of operations, the Audit Authority prepares an analysis of established violations under the public procurement legislation. The purpose of this analysis is to acquaint stakeholders with the main types of violations with a financial impact conceded by beneficiaries in the selection of contractors for supplies, services or construction in order to avoid them in the future. The final analysis is published on IAOSES’s website and is presented to the bodies exercising control functions in the field of public procurement (including the Managing Authorities on operational programmes) and to the AFCOS Directorate. All Managing Authorities for operational programmes receiving European funding undertake active measures to prevent conflicts of interest. The guidelines on the management and implementation of operational programmes include declarations of conflict of interest for participation in the procedure for the awarding of grants, as well as a declaration on the absence of conflicts of interest under Article 57(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002, which is completed by officers from the directorates participating in programme preparation, implementation and management, members of the units/teams managing EUfunded projects. The general terms and conditions of grant contracts include clauses for the beneficiaries and their employees, obliging them to take appropriate steps to prevent or terminate conflicts of interest. Under Article 47 of the Public Procurement Act, participants in public procurement procedures must declare the absence of a conflict of interest, as a condition for their participation in the procedure. The beneficiaries in territorial cooperation programmes co-funded under the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) are obliged, under the signed grant contracts, to observe, for the purposes of public procurement, the rules set forth in the Practical Guide to contract procedures for EU external actions, including the provisions on conflicts of interest. If there is any suspicion of a conflict of interest, the competent national authority, i.e. the Commission for Prevention and Ascertainment of Conflict of Interest, must be notified and its decision must be complied with. In cases where a conflict of interest is established by a competent national authority, financial corrections are imposed, amounting to 100 %, pursuant to the provisions on irregularity 21 of Appendix 1 to Article 6(1) of the Methodology on Determining Financial Corrections (MOFK), adopted by Council of Ministers Decree No 134 of 5 July 2010. In addition to the Bulgarian regulations on the prevention of conflicts of interest, the project implementation guidelines for beneficiaries, which are mandatory for all beneficiaries under the Operational Programmes with failure to implement them resulting in the non-verification of the costs under the respective programme, expressly state that in order to establish effective and proportional measures for combating fraud in the reporting of identified risks (Article 125(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013), all members of the project management team must complete a declaration on the absence of conflicts of interest under Article 57(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012. It is also completed by the project manager when the contract is signed. The declaration must also be completed by the contracting authority or the persons empowered by it under Article 8(2) of the ZOP. Copies of the completed and signed declarations are to be presented by the beneficiary to the Managing Authority once the project management team has been determined (via a contract/order), or, as appropriate, to the authorised person/s who will be organising and conducting the public procurement procedures on the project and signing the contracts for them. When personnel changes are made, the new team members/authorised persons also present a declaration. When a technical report is filed, if the declarations on the absence of conflicts of interest under Article 57(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 have not been submitted, the report is not processed. In addition to the above, each person signing such a declaration is liable under criminal law if they provide false information. The Managing Authority’s procedural guidelines on the implementation of the operational programmes Development of Competitiveness (OPRK), Innovations and Competitiveness (OPIK), and Initiatives for Small and Medium Enterprises (IMSP), contain a chapter on ‘Conflict of Interest,’ which outlines in detail the procedures on preventing and avoiding conflicts of interest in fulfilment of the official obligations on administering the grant contracts. In accordance with the guidelines, all employees of the Managing Authority sign a declaration stating that they are familiar with the provisions of Article 57 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 (the ‘Financial Regulation’) and are not in a situation of conflict of interest under Article 57(2) of the Regulation. Employees declare their obligation to report immediately any conflict of interest arising in the performance of their duties, and in the event of a conflict of interest they must withdraw from the task. In fulfilling their commitments, the members of evaluation committees sign a declaration on the absence of conflicts of interest with the evaluated applicants. The declarations signed during the period are duly verified; the verification is undertaken using a checklist. All external experts hired to assess the implementation of grant contracts must sign a declaration on the absence of conflicts of interest with the assessed beneficiary and its suppliers, which is subject to verification. The verification is reflected in a checklist. The general terms and conditions of grant contracts include clauses obliging the beneficiaries to avoid conflicts of interest. The Contracting Authority is entitled to terminate the contract unilaterally, without compensation, in the event that a conflict of interest has been established. The Managing Authority under the Operational Programme for the development of the Fisheries Sector (OPRSR) has adopted a ‘Procedure for subsequent control on public procurement procedures pursuant to the Rules of Procedure of the Structural Funds for Fisheries Directorate (SFR), conducted by applicants/beneficiaries under the OPRSR, which constitute contracting authorities under Article 7 and Article 14a(3) and (4) of the ZOP for costs fully or partially financed by the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)’. This Procedure has been amended in the interests of more effective verification of the legality of public procurements conducted by beneficiaries in accordance with the principles of publicity and transparency pursuant to in the ZOP, and in order to achieve the objectives of the ZOP, namely to ensure economy, effectiveness and efficiency in expending: 1. public finances; 2. resources provided from European funds and programmes. The Procedure introduced amendments in the form of checklists and relevant indicators. One of the changes pertains to the introduction of indicators for conflict of interest, as follows: ‘1. Indicators of fraud in a conflict of interest: A conflict of interest can arise when an employee of the contracting authority (a manager, a member of a committee conducting the procedure, an employee participating in the preparation and/or conduct of the specific public procurement procedure) has undeclared interests in connection with a particular contract or contractor/economic operator. A conflict of interest may be suspected if one or more of the following circumstances is established: - Unexplained or unusual favouritism of a specific participant (for instance, only one bid was submitted; only one participant was admitted and the others were rejected; there are restrictive requirements and/or conditions favouring specific economic operators; some participants are rejected in contravention of the rules; the participant selected as a contractor does not meet the requirements of the contracting authority; unequal treatment of the participants in the procedure; not all irregular or invalid documents from envelope No 1 of the eliminated participants could be identified within the procedure under Article 68(7)–(9) of the ZOP). - There are signs that a member of the committee holding the procedure, or any other employee who is directly involved in its conduct, carries out economic activities (e.g. in the committee conducting the procedure, persons external to the contracting authority have been assigned as members, or the preparation of the documentation for participation was done by persons external to the contracting authority). - There are close contacts (including contacts known to the public) between a member of the committee conducting the procedure or any other employee directly involved in the procedure, and the appointed contractor. - A person participating in a grouping or consenting to be listed as a subcontractor in the bid of another participant has submitted a separate bid; - There is a change in the bid after its submission and after the deadline for the submission of bids; - There are objections/complaints/alerts from other participants claiming some of the indicators of fraud; - There is information that some of the bids were opened before the deadline for the submission of bids and before the public sessions for the opening of the bids/price proposals; - The participant appointed as contractor has supplemented/amended their bid after the deadline for the submission of bids, beyond the procedure under Article 68(7)–(9) of the ZOP.’ These amendments ensure that the Managing Authority has met the requirements for strengthening the prevention of violations and irregularities in the conduct of public procurement procedures and for standardisation of the verification indicators and the performance assessment criteria between the audited person and the audit authority.

CZ In compliance with Directive 2014/24/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, Directive 2014/23/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on 26 February 2014 on the award of concession contracts, and Directive 2014/25/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council on 26 February 2014 on procurement by entities operating in the water, energy, transport and postal services sectors and repealing Directive 2004/17/EC, the new rules were incorporated into the new proposal entitled Act On Public Procurement. The legislation has not been finished yet. The proposal has been discussed in the Chamber of Deputies and has been addressed to the Senate for discussion. The new legislation scheduled to come into effect on 17 April 2016 (as was required by the aforementioned Directives) will not be adhered to. According to the latest information, the new act will come into effect on 1 August 2016. Act No. 340/2015 Coll., on Special Conditions for the Efficacy of Some Agreements, Publication of These Agreements (and an Agreement Register that came into effect in 2015), will come into effect starting 1st July 2016. From the date the Act comes into effect, entities such as state-funded institutions, local government authority-funded institutions, health insurance companies and legal entities (in which the state or any local government authority has the majority ownership or ownership through another legal entity) will be obliged to publish private-law agreements, agreements on the provision of grants or repayable financial assistance via the Agreement Register in written form, provided that the limit concerning the amount of the lower agreements exceeds a value of 50 000,-CZK without VAT (approximately 1850 EUR).

DK In Denmark, the Procurement Directive (Directive 2014/24/EU) has been implemented by Law No 1564 of 15 December 2015. Article 57(4)(e) of the Procurement Directive contains a voluntary ground for exclusion, whereby a bidder can be excluded if there is a conflict of interests that cannot be remedied with less radical measures. In Denmark’s implementation, this voluntary ground for exclusion has been made mandatory. This is a more effective safeguard against conflicts of interest than that envisaged in the Procurement Directive. Moreover, this mandatory exclusion in the case of conflict of interests is also stipulated in Denmark’s implementation of the Utilities Directive (Directive 2014/25/EU) and the Concessions Directive (2014/23/EU). In addition, Denmark has an Appeals Board for Public Procurement [Klagenævnet for Udbud], which ensures easy and cheap access for bidders to appeal against – among other things – conflicts of interest in tender procedures. This creates effective monitoring and also has a preventive effect with respect to conflicts of interests.

DE General In Germany the new EU public procurement directives are being transposed into German law in a two-stage procedure. The basic rules have been transposed in Part Four of the Restraint of Competition Act [Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen], which was adopted on 18 December 2015 and will enter into force on 18 April 2016 (the time-limit for transposition). The new Act also contains the rules excluding companies from procurement procedures in the event of corruption, fraud or other serious misconduct. The more detailed procedural rules of Directive 2014/24/EU, including the definition of the term ‘conflict of interest’, are being implemented by amendments to the Public Procurement Regulation. On 20 January 2016 Germany's Federal Cabinet adopted a Government draft of the Public Procurement Regulation, which now has to be approved by the German Bundestag and the Bundesrat. The new Public Procurement Regulation will also enter into force on 18 April 2016. The Government draft of the Public Procurement Regulation contains the broad definition of ‘conflict of interest’ in the second subparagraph of Article 24(2) of Directive 2014/24/EU. In order to ensure that contracting authorities take appropriate measures to manage conflicts of interest, the Regulation stipulates that employees of the contracting authority (or a procurement service provider acting on behalf of the contracting authority) with a conflict of interest are not to be allowed to take part in a public procurement procedure. It also contains a detailed list of the persons who may be presumed to have a conflict of interest. The draft Public Procurement Regulation also includes a mechanism aimed at ensuring that competition is not distorted by the involvement of enterprises that were previously involved in preparing the procurement procedure. Overall, Germany's new public procurement law contains effective mechanisms for countering conflicts of interest. ESF Structural Fund As regards the European Social Fund (ESF), Germany attaches great importance at federal level to preventing and tackling conflicts of interest and their potential threat to public finances both in general and in public procurement procedures. In the 2014-2020 funding period Article 125(4)(c) of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of 17 December 2013 requires the federal ESF managing authority and the administrative services of the federal ministries involved in the ESF to put in place effective and proportionate anti-fraud measures, taking into account the risks identified. This includes managing conflicts of interest. To identify the relevant risk areas, the federal ESF managing authority, in cooperation with a self-evaluation team, conducted a risk characterisation/risk assessment at the level of the ESF federal programmes of the 'Operational Programme ESF Federal Germany 2014-2020' and described and assessed the measures taken to combat fraud/corruption and to reduce risks - including managing conflicts of interests. The evaluation team is composed of representatives of the ESF managing authority, the administrations of the federal ministries involved (Employment and Social Affairs; Education and Research; Family, Elderly People, Women and Youth; Environment; Economic Affairs and Technology) and the implementing/intermediate bodies. In addition to the managing authority and the administrative departments, the line units of the federal ministries involved in the ESF were included. The ESF audit authority and the ESF certifying authority play an advisory role vis-à-vis the ESF self-evaluation team. The measures in the management and control systems (MCS) for preventing and fighting fraud and corruption are guided by a number of principles, such as separation of functions, and involve in-depth checks at application and implementation level. Further MCS measures consist in maximising transparency, training and providing materials to raise awareness of fraud and corruption risks. The description of management and control systems as a whole, also includes a wide range of other measures, obligations and approaches, such as risk management, aimed at supporting, flanking and complementing action to prevent and fight fraud and corruption and to manage conflicts of interest. These activities are also part of the strategy to prevent and fight fraud and corruption, which encompasses managing conflicts of interest. Preventing and fighting fraud and corruption and managing conflicts of interest is seen as an on-going process, encompassing planning, implementation, monitoring and improvement. This optimisation process covers the entire programming period and is applied at all ESF levels. Separation of functions is one of the most effective measures in fighting fraud and corruption and managing conflicts of interest. For this reason, almost all the programmes of the 'ESF Federal Operational Programme 2014-2020' apply the principle of separation of functions to, on the one hand, authorisation (checking applications and drawing up grant decisions) and, on the other, checking requests for payment and proof of expenditure. Consistently applying the dual-control principle with checks on factual and accounting accuracy and a separate payment function ensures a high degree of supervision and control over the implementation of support (authorisation, clearing, reporting and record-keeping, audits). The operations co-financed by the ESF are subject to a wide range of controls carried out by the managing authority and its intermediate bodies. These controls are supplemented by those carried out by the certifying authority and audit authority, the Federal Court of Auditors and, at European level, by the European Commission, the European Court of Auditors and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). The high number and density of audits and controls serves both repressive and preventive purposes by, respectively, increasing the detection of conflicts of interest and by deterring others from engaging in fraud/corruption in respect of ESF support. Audits at implementation level cover, in particular, calls for funds, public procurement documentation, intermediate and final payment requests and on-the-spot checks. These audits may, as a further measure to combat fraud and corruption, result in withdrawal of the funding granted, recovery and irregularity proceedings, thereby reducing the risk of conflicts of interest. Audits on calls for funds are carried out at the same time as public procurement audits. The comprehensive and exhaustive requirements and provisions of public procurement law represented by the Restraint of Competition Act (GWB), the Public Procurement Regulation (VgV), the Public Procurement Regulation for Construction Works (VOB/A), the Public Procurement Regulation for Services (VOL/A), the Public Procurement Regulation for Freelance Services (VOF) and the various sector-specific procurement manuals mean that Germany has a regulatory framework which, by imposing strict procedural rules and rules of conduct for the award of public contracts, counters fraud and corruption. Since these provisions have been widely incorporated into national funding legislation (No 3 ANBest-P or No 3 ANBest-Gk), they also serve to counter fraud and corruption and conflicts of interest in the award of contracts under projects co-financed by the ESF. The principle of transparency, as a measure for fighting fraud and corruption and conflicts of interest, is reflected in the 'Federal ESF Operational Programme 2014-2020' by the requirement to document the administrative procedure and the right of access to the files. Free access to the funding guidelines, the websites of the ESF authorities at federal and Land level and the regularly updated lists of beneficiaries also contribute to transparency. The principle of transparency is also served by the fact that suspicions of fraud or corruption can be reported via the functional mailbox of the federal ministry (e.g. the anti-corruption officer of the federal ministries involved in the ESF) or by telephone/mail both to the managing authority and all intermediate bodies involved in implementing aid. All reports of possible fraud and corruption connected with projects co-financed by the EU are immediately and thoroughly investigated - if necessary, with the help of the national law enforcement authorities - and followed up by appropriate action. Agriculture and fisheries The eligibility criteria for the accreditation of agricultural paying agencies and the designation audit of the managing/certifying authorities for the structural funds include appropriate measures to detect and remedy or prevent conflicts of interest. In addition to the existing measures (e.g. rotation of staff/personnel training), the nonbinding Commission (OLAF) guides ‘Identifying conflicts of interest in public procurement procedures for structural actions’ and ‘Identifying conflicts of interests in the agricultural sector’ are, wherever possible, complied with by paying agencies and managing/certifying authorities in the agriculture and fisheries sector. Given Germany's federal system, individual measures can vary from one Land to another. In principle, however, most of the recommendations proposed in the two guidance documents are complied with. The relevant audit bodies ensure an on-going review of these measures.

EE In 2015 Estonia commenced the official inter-ministerial consultation on the draft of the new public procurement act transposing the EU public procurement Directives in which the definition of “conflict of interest” is defined as stated in the Directive. Also, in their internal procurement rules there is an obligation for contracting authorities to define the best suitable measures for them to tackle the situations where the conflict of interest occurs. It is expected that the law will be adopted during 2016. Estonia has a public e-Procurement Register and is now exploring the possibiliy of making the Register obligatory for all non-contracting beneficiaries (starting from a stipulated amount).

IE Ireland expects to have transposed the public procurement Dir