TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Implementation of Article 325 by the Member States in 2012 1

1........... INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 4

2........... Summary of Member states’ contributions....................................................................... 4

2.1........ Key developments concerning the implementation of Article 325 of the Treaty on The Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)................................................................................................................ 4

2.2........ Qualitative evaluation: Improvements in the financial control and risk management system in order to prevent fraud against the EU financial interest in the area of agriculture................................................... 6

2.2.1..... Measures taken in the period 2011-2012 which have substantially contributed to better prevention of cases of suspected fraud in the area of the agriculture or/and improvements in the risk management system. 6

2.2.2..... Description of the outcome of the measures taken in relation to prevention of suspected fraud cases and recovery of misused EU funds....................................................................................................... 7

2.2.3..... Use of new control and investigation strategies in order to reduce the risk of fraud and to better detect cases of fraud in the spending of the Agriculture funds................................................................... 8

2.2.4..... Use of fraud indicators.................................................................................................... 9

2.2.5..... Cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations......................................... 9

2.2.6..... Has your Member State administration adopted guidelines to distinguish between fraud and irregularities? 10

2.2.7..... How often do you audit the reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF?..................... 10

2.2.8..... How often trainings have been given to staff dealing with reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF? 11

2.2.9..... At what moment the Member States report cases of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities in OLAF.................................................................................................................................... 11

2.3........ Statistical elements........................................................................................................ 12

2.3.1..... Performed financial checks (ex-ante, ex-post), administrative anti-fraud checks and criminal investigations in Agriculture area (EAGF, EAFRD and SAPARD) in years (2011, 2012)....................... 12

2.3.2..... Amounts recovered in relation to anti-fraud checks and investigations related to Agriculture area (EAGF, EAFRD and SAPARD) in years (2011, 2012)........................................................................... 15

2.3.3..... Personnel assigned and involved in anti-fraud investigations............................................ 15

Annex: Replies of Member States to the questionnaire "Implementation of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2012".................................................................................................................................... 17

1........... Key Developments Concerning The Implementation Of Article 325 Of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union (TFEU)............................................................................................... 17

2........... CONTROLS TO COMBAT IRREGULARITIES AND FRAUD AGAINST THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE EU IN THE AREA OF AGRICULTURE...................................................... 36

2.1........ Qualitative evaluation: Improvements in the financial control and risk management system in order to prevent fraud against the EU financial interest...................................................................................... 36

2.1.1..... Briefly describe maximum three measures (within the national legal framework and/or administrative procedures) taken in the period 2011-2012 which in the area of the Agricultural Funds have substantially contributed to better prevention of suspected fraud cases or/and improvements in the risk management system. These measures may be disseminated as "best practices" among other MS (Legislative measures, Administrative measures/procedures)..................................................................................................................................... 36

2.1.2..... Describe the outcome of measures you mentioned above on the actions performed in relation to the prevention of suspected fraud cases and the recovery of undue paid EU funds in terms of:................... 47

2.1.3..... Based on the lessons learnt from the findings of the administrative investigations undertaken in the period of 2011-2012, which new control and investigation strategies have your Member State put in place or plans to put in place, in order to reduce the risk of fraud and to better detect cases of suspected fraud in the spending of the agriculture funds? specify selected answers :( National strategies, Regional strategies (including the number of such regional strategies, Type of operations, Economic sectors covered, Specify the most relevant aspects of these strategies, Other).......................................................................................................................... 57

2.1.4..... Use of fraud indicators.................................................................................................. 65

2.1.5..... Does your Member State apply cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations? 76

2.1.6..... Has your Member State administration adopted guidelines to distinguish between fraud and other irregularities? (yes:When have they been updated the last time? How do you foresee a coherent application of the definition of fraud vs irregularity?), (No: Do you plan to adopt guidelines and if yes, when?).............. 78

2.1.7..... How often do you audit the reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF?..................... 83

2.1.8..... How often trainings have been given to staff dealing with reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF? 85

2.1.9..... At what moment do your services report cases of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities via IMS in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006?............................................................. 87

2.1.10... Are the procedures indicated in point 2.1.9 also applied for reporting to OLAF within the meaning of Regulations (EC) Nos 1681/94, 1828/2006, 498/2007 and 1150/2009? (Yes, No)........................ 94

2.2........ Statistical elements (Performed anti-fraud investigations and finalised criminal proceedings during 2011 and 2012, related to measures/actions financed or co-financed under EAGF, EAFRD and SAPARD 95

1. INTRODUCTION

Article 325(5) of the TFEU (ex article 280 of the EC Treaty) requires the Commission, in cooperation with the Member States, to submit a report each year to the European Parliament and the Council on the measures taken to implement that Article. The Commission bases the part of the report relating to the Member States on the answers to the “Article 325” questionnaire, as agreed upon with them within COCOLAF and adapted each year in the light of past experience so as to facilitate the monitoring of anti-fraud measures.

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

The Commission report is drafted on the basis of the Member States' answers to the "Article 325" questionnaire sent by the Commission to the Members States. The present questionnaire covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2012.

This document lists all the answers of Member States to the 2012 questionnaire.

Over time the report had become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and the European Parliament were concerned that its size was increasing and the fact that the document is annual, horizontal and multisectoral hampered a detailed assessment of all the aspects of the protection of the EU’s financial interests by the Member States. Since 2003, the Commission has therefore applied a new approach. After the traditional question asking Members States to report on new measures taken in 2012, the questionnaire focuses on one major theme. The aim is to gather information on a particular topic which goes beyond the measures taken in the course of a calendar year, thereby allowing a more detailed analysis of that topics. The topic changes from year to year.

As in the previous years, the first part of the questionnaire asks the Member States to present the main measures that give effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud and all illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. This part is structured the same way as the 2011 questionnaire. Member States are invited to describe two or three "key" measures taken in the year 2012 in order to implement Article 325 of the Treaty.

The second set of questions concerns the controls to combat irregularities and fraud against the financial interests of the EU in the area of agriculture.

2. Summary of Member states’ contributions

2.1. Key developments concerning the implementation of Article 325 of the Treaty on The Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)

All Member States reported their main legislative and administrative measures giving effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud and illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. These measures related to both horizontal and specific fields in the area of Common Agriculture Policy, cohesion policy and the customs area.

The administrative measures reported by the Member States indicated that many of them take an approach of reorganising[1] and strengthening the monitoring by Managing Authorities, Paying Agencies, bodies and relevant services[2], strengthening financial audit[3] and updating guidelines or methodology manuals[4]. Only a few of them sought to introduce new cross-cutting measures, or to reinforce the existing ones, with the aim of improved collaboration between competent authorities, complemented with a high density of controls[5] or cooperate strategically with OLAF in preventing fraud, corruption and combatting irregular behaviour[6]. A few Member States reported specific administrative measures: In the United Kingdom (Wales), in the 2012 Welsh Grant Project focused on enhanced training of grant managers, promotion of risk awareness and identification of suspicious invoices and grant claims, Denmark implemented a secure digital signature, used for applications to the single farm payment scheme, for all citizens and undertakings used in contacts with public authorities.

The legislative measures reported by the Member States in general indicate their intention to ensure the proper use of funds, precautionary measures have been taken to promote the more effective distribution of resources and ensure that funds are used in a lawful and transparent way. Where Member States reported taking cross sectoral measures, these mainly involved revisions of existing acts, which related to various areas. A number of Member States reported that they revised Public Procurement Acts[7] or clarified a relevant offence: For Ireland, false declaration under an EU agriculture support scheme; Spain on rules governing tax offences; Hungary, provision of false data when completing a tax return; Latvia - Criminal Procedure Act entitling supervisory or monitoring bodies to challenge a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings; Slovakia - tightened penalties for committing significant and large scale tax offences.) Some Member States reported measures concerning the entire administration of agricultural aid[8]. Member States also reported legislative measures on procedures for recovering unduly paid amounts, such as clarification of the legal framework, simplification and improvements of the recovery procedure or revision of the guidelines in a process.[9] France introduced detailed rules on mutual assistance for international recovery of financial claims concerning EAGF, EAFRD and Common Market Organisation in Sugar. Latvia introduced cross-cutting amendments to the Criminal Procedure Act and Public procurement Act which enable certain improvements in the criminal proceedings.

In 2012 Germany, Luxembourg[10], Austria, United Kingdom (Scotland and England) did not introduce new legislative measures.

Member States’ replies show that both administrative and legislative measures adopted in the year 2012 vary in terms of scope and topic(s) covered, however more complex measures were developed in countries that are more successful in their fight against fraud.

2.2. Qualitative evaluation: Improvements in the financial control and risk management system in order to prevent fraud against the EU financial interest in the area of agriculture

2.2.1. Measures taken in the period 2011-2012 which have substantially contributed to better prevention of cases of suspected fraud in the area of the agriculture or/and improvements in the risk management system.

All the Member States described either legislative or administrative measures that they have taken in the period 2011-2012 which in the area of Agricultural Funds have substantially contributed to better prevention of suspected fraud cases and improvements in the risk management system.

Regarding improvements in the area of financial control, Member States gave varied answers, which reflects differences in their national systems for combating fraud and irregularities. The replies show that four Member States[11] are still improving and developing their national legislative framework as regards the concept of irregularity, their administrative procedures in place, prevention, detection and/or prosecution of fraud. Several Member States[12] reported adopting a clearer definition of the offences of fraud and sometimes the investigative procedures related to these offences.

A number of Member States[13] reported improvements in their financial control due to revision of national legislation and procedures and updating practices in relation to supporting schemes (rural development policy, direct supporting schemes and fisheries), in particular on eligibility of expenditure, audits, financial corrections, and procedures of recovery.

Poland introduced better rules under the scheme for the common organisation of the fruit and vegetables market aiming at eliminating cases where beneficiaries often inflate transaction prices above the market value when making a new investment (for example purchasing machinery and other equipment).

Regarding on-the spot checks in areas more prone to fraud, improvements or better targeted checks as a result of risk assessment have been reported for EAFRD in the Less Favoured Areas (LFA) by Poland[14] and young farmers’ schemes[15] as well as in the certification procedure[16] due to stricter controls.

Seven Member States[17] reported easier cross-checking as a result of improvements in their national registers in terms of better management of data, mergers with other databases or new features, such as introducing new accounting applications.

Five Members States[18] reported improvements in their risk management system due to improvements in organisational structure, internal control systems and guidelines on checks or introduction of new risk analysis for the prevention of serious and organised tax fraud.

A number of Member States updated their guidelines and manuals[19] regarding the measures mentioned above and disseminated the information to the staff concerned. A few Member States[20] reported substantial organisational changes. Denmark's reply described the initiation of successful inter-agency cooperation, resulting in the identification of 200 cases of a possible infringement of the EU cross-compliance rules.

2.2.2. Description of the outcome of the measures taken in relation to prevention of suspected fraud cases and recovery of misused EU funds

In terms of effectiveness and efficiency, most Member States[21] reported, that new legislative or administrative measures introduced had led to better results in terms of timely detection, fewer undue payments, more irregularities detected before payment, decreased number of irregularities with financial impact, improved administeration of irregularities at national level or higher degrees of accepted eligible expenditures. Some Member States[22] pointed to fewer on-the spot checks, including better use of resources due to new risk analyses. Most Member States[23] reported strengthened endeavours had ensured the reliability and consistency of financial reporting.

2.2.3. Use of new control and investigation strategies in order to reduce the risk of fraud and to better detect cases of fraud in the spending of the Agriculture funds

Based on lessons learnt from findings of the administrative investigations undertaken in the period 2011-2012, the Member States put in place new strategies in order to reduce the risk of fraud and to better detect cases of suspected fraud in agriculture funds. The majority of the Member States[24] reported that they were using one or more of the following: national strategies, regional strategies or "type of operation" for risk mitigation and better prevention and detection of fraud in the spending of agriculture funds. The rest of the Member States[25] were satisfied with the existing situation and felt no need to introduce new strategies to reduce the risk of fraud or did not reply to the question.[26]

The national and regional strategies included increasing the number of quality checks, cross-checks and enhanced administrative controls regarding both the European Agricultural and Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural development (EAFRD), targeted actions to increase the effectiveness of-the spot checks on beneficiaries of agricultural funds (including development of a new risk analysis system), strategies based on a particular type of operation or simply actions aimed at improving the overall efficiency of checks on the use of EU funds co-financed through agricultural instruments.

The most frequent aspects of national strategies reported by the Member States are rapid exchange of information and cooperation, complemented by application of the specified risk analysis methodology used for the controls. On the other hand the most relevant aspects of the regional strategies reported by the Member States are regular reviews, updates of the management and control systems and targeted actions or extraordinary random on-the spot-checks.

The use of 'Types of operations' strategies reported by the Member States aimed at reducing and preventing fraud in the area of customs and in some aid schemes. The United Kingdom (Scotland) for example, in consequence of an altered risk modelling approach, increased checks on higher value cases and more novel project-types, subsidised by EAFRD.

Estonia introduced a new pilot project to identify risks of fraud in the measure “Investments to develop micro-enterprises in the agricultural sector” with the aim to increase the number of automatic checks. The results will be used by Estonia as input information in the new programming period. Denmark reported that the control authority intensified checks on inconsistencies and at the same time included a number of indicators in the risk analysis targeted on the use of commercial fertiliser. Additionally intensified collaboration with Danish tax and customs authority together with national controls, helped to identify more farmers who purchased illegal fertiliser.

Member States mostly reported strategies covering the following economic sectors, subject to a higher risk of irregularity or fraud: aid schemes for fruit and vegetables, rural development, the wine sector and single farm payments. Investigation strategies also took into account activities not directly linked to agriculture, such as publicity, traceability, subcontracting. In terms of programme/project structure aid relating to investments that require keeping particular commitments or involve early payment or other hidden potentially fraudulent areas were particularly targeted.

2.2.4. Use of fraud indicators

All the Member States[27] replied about the use of general and specific indicators during their risk analysis. Most of them[28] use both general indicators, including the categories of irregularities, operations, modus operandi, economic sectors or geographical areas, and specific indicators, such as measures/projects, transactions and beneficiaries.

In addition, almost all Member States declared that they also make use of their own specific indicators based on, the identity of beneficiaries, transparency in procedures, changes in the amount of aid as compared to the previous marketing year, a beneficiary's history of submitting false or suspect data or attempting to conceal information in a previous financial year.

Many Member States[29] reported that they carry out evaluations of individual 'direct area payment scheme'; The United Kingdom reported that it verifies and assesses the actual implementation of projects. The United Kingdom makes a detailed financial and technical appraisal of applicants for socio-economic schemes prior to approval, then site visits are used to verify whether the project is being carried out. Slovenia introduced an approach, based on a publically accessible web application monitoring public institutions' expenditure on goods and services, and thereby increasing transparency for all data on costs. Such measure will have a preventive effect. Regarding the on-the-spot checks, most Member States[30] consider factors specific to the particular conditions and objectives of the scheme. The risk factors to assess include new applicants, size of the grant and size of landholding (especially in cases when there is a major increase), the complexity of the project, its history of irregularities, alerts from mutually connected databases and also the experience of the implementing body.

2.2.5. Cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations

Many Member States[31] reported that they do not apply any kind of cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations. Other Member States or regions apply it where appropriate, for example during the set up of annual investigative priorities[32], based on a consultation with their Department of Justice[33], in known risk sectors[34] in different sectors[35]. In Greece cost benefit anaylsis is based on compliance with deadlines and quality obligations arising from Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008. The Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Luxembourg, Portugal and Romania use a financial risk threshold. Lithuania consider costs incurred for implementing the project. In England and Wales the value and cost of pursuing, a potential offence, encompassing potential alternative penalties and the possibility of improving regulation through the lessons learnt are all considered. Only the Czech Republic, Greece, Spain, Lithuania and Romania replied that they apply public interest[36] as a criterion during the cost benefit analysis. Latvia considers the possibility of a link with criminal offences by civil servants.

Romania reported applying sample-based ex-ante and ex-post checks, carried out according to risk analysis. Human resources indicator are used in France - days and officers are counted for the ex-post EAGF checks carried out by customs. Spain and Slovenia simply investigate all suspicions or allegations of fraud.[37]

The diversity of these answers shows divergent risk analysis both in terms of the methods used and the conclusions drawn.

2.2.6. Has your Member State administration adopted guidelines to distinguish between fraud and irregularities?

Most Member States[38] adopted guidelines to distinguish between fraud and other irregularities and organised internal staff training to clarify the distinction. Belgium, Austria and Poland clarified that they have not adopted such guidelines because the existing regulations and procedures are sufficient to allow distinctions to be made.

Ireland and Austria emphasised the role of national procedure whereby for a fraud to be established, intent to deceive must be proven in a court of law.

2.2.7. How often do you audit the reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF?

Audits of the reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF are conducted by most Member States, either on an annual basis[39], bi-annual basis[40] or more frequently than bi-annually[41]. Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria and Romania reported that they have never audited the reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF.

2.2.8. How often trainings have been given to staff dealing with reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF?

Most Member States provide training on reporting of fraudulent irregularities to OLAF once per year or less frequently.[42]

2.2.9. At what moment does the Member States report cases of fraudulent irregularities and/or other irregularities to OLAF

In terms of implementation of the reporting provisions, many Member States reported adopting guidelines to distinguish between fraud and other irregularities and organised staff training to clarify the distinction. Some Member States stated that they have not adopted such guidelines because the existing regulations and procedures are sufficient to allow distinctions to be made.

Most Member States[43] report cases of fraudulent irregularities at the first detection, whenever the national authority detects the irregularity and reports it to the judiciary or within two months from the end of each quarter in accordance with Regulation (EC) N°1848/2006.

Fifteen of the above mentioned Member States[44] also confirmed that they include the classification "suspected fraud" in a report only after the law enforcement authorities have been informed.

Other Member States[45] declared reporting at the start of their administrative recovery procedures.

Bulgaria and Greece reported fraudulent irregularities at the start of judicial proceedings; Ireland, Luxembourg and Austria do so only after sentencing by the Court of First Instance.

The German authorities emphasised that a case would be submitted before becoming time-barred[46], whether or not this might affect the investigation. Italy answered that they report during the quarter in question, other countries have not clarified their practices on this issue.

Most Member States[47] reported irregularities other than fraudulent, at first detection or within two months from the end of each quarter in the framework of Regulation (EC) N° 1848/2006.

Many Member States[48] also reported at the start of the administrative recovery procedure, i.e. whenever the competent authority reports the violation to the beneficiary and initiates the administrative procedure for recovery of the funds. Only Austria and Finland report at the end of the administrative proceeding for recovery.

Many Member States indicated that the same procedures used for reporting in the agriculture sector are also being applied for reporting under the regulations applicable for cohesion policy, fisheries and Traditional Own Resources. However a number of Member States[49] do not apply the same procedures. Others[50] apply them for Regulations (EC) N° 1848/2006 and 498/2007, where the Ministry of Agriculture bears responsibility, whereas for Regulations 1828/2006, 1681/94 and 1831/94, the reporting is done via different bodies. Latvia for example declared that decisions on reporting are taken at quarterly meetings on irregularities. Spain responded that reporting takes place after primary administrative or judicial findings. Some did not clarify their reporting practices in this area.

The answers received regarding practices of reporting in the framework of Regulation (EC) N° 1848/2006 show that these differ not only from Member State to Member State, but also depending on the body involved. As a result, it has been confirmed that different practices occur not only in federal countries, but also within and/or between policy areas such as Agriculture, Fisheries or Cohesion policy.

2.3. Statistical elements

2.3.1. Performed financial checks (ex-ante, ex-post), administrative anti-fraud checks and criminal investigations in Agriculture area (EAGF, EAFRD and SAPARD) in years (2011, 2012)

Most Member States reported on the total number of checks foreseen by EU provisions. From the set of data it can be concluded that Poland conduct by far the most checks with more than 2 million, followed by Germany with more than half a million, then Hungary and the UK. The large difference between Poland and Germany can be explained by the fact that Poland included in their checks the 100 % on-the-desk checks which are not supposed to be reported as a part of this exercise.

Nevertheless, it is interesting to assess the numbers of checks against the level of funds allocated.[51] The biggest beneficiary is traditionally France (EUR 9.5 billion), followed by Germany (EUR 6.7 billion), Spain (EUR 6.67 billion), Italy (EUR 6.1 billion) and Poland (EUR 4.9 billion).

Nevertheless, the information provided by almost half of the Member States, concerning the number of administrative anti-fraud checks based on national law is not sufficient or includes both, EU and national provisions, this impedes analysis and comparison.

Similarly on the total number of administrative procedures launched for establishment of fraud the data set is insufficient or not always comparable, however on the basis of the information submitted Poland reported the highest number of checks.

Data submitted by a slight majority of the Member States on the number of anti-fraud criminal investigations launched show that Italy, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Denmark launched the highest number of anti-fraud investigations.

However, the data on the number of finalised criminal proceedings with the court decision (guilty or not guilty) provided by Member States implies that the Member States are not monitoring the results of criminal investigations thoroughly and do not keep their own statistics on fraud possibly because so few cases have been brought to court.

2.3.2. Amounts recovered in relation to anti-fraud checks and investigations related to the area of Agriculture (EAGF, EAFRD and SAPARD) in years (2011, 2012)

Only 8 Member States provided data on the amounts recovered in EUR related to fraud following administrative anti-fraud checks (excluding financial penalties and interests). However it can be noted that of the Member States which submitted the data for the years 2011 and 2012, Poland is on top with EUR 73,599,367 recovered in total, followed by Italy with EUR 23,799,994 and Romania with EUR 14,215,047.

Concerning amounts recovered in relation to criminal investigations (excluding financial penalties and interests) the majority of Member States did not provide any data or simply the data does not exist. The same applies to the amounts of financial penalties in relation to criminal investigations.

2.3.3. Personnel assigned and involved in anti-fraud investigations

The set of information provided by Member States gives a useful but incomplete picture of the personnel assigned to these tasks throughtout the different Member States. The highest total number of personnel assigned to EU checks foreseen by EU provisions is in Poland, followed by Germany.

The Member State with the highest total number of personnel assigned and involved in anti-fraud administrative checks is Poland, followed by Greece and Germany.

Finally data on the personnel assigned and involved in criminal investigations, provided by twelve Member States is incomplete, which can be explained by the simple reason given by the Member States that they do not keep such a record.

Annex

Replies of Member States to the questionnaire "Implementation of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2012"

1. Key Developments Concerning The Implementation Of Article 325 Of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union (TFEU)

Description of key developments: Maximum three most important legislative or administrative measures taken in the course of 2012 in all areas for the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraud. In particular, you are kindly asked to indicate: - Type of measure (law, regulation, etc.) and references (number, date of adoption and/or publication, name of programme, etc.) - Its scope (horizontal, specific field) - Why it was needed - Improvements made to the existing system.

BE || Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries of the Flemish Government (Agentschap voor Landbouw en Visserij (ALV)): improvement action – CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) – area-based aid (pillar 1 and pillar 2 of the CAP) – control approach under IACS (Integrated Administration and Control System) and LPIS (Land Parcel Information System). The grootschalig referentiebestand (large-scale reference database, GRB) is a basic register for terrain objects, accurate to an average of 20 cm; it is compiled by the Agentschap voor Geografische Informatie Vlaanderen (Flanders Geographical Information Agency, AGIV). Five of the GRB terrain objects (buildings, outbuildings, roads, industrial sites and railways) represent precisely digitalised ineligible areas. These areas can never be eligible for European agricultural subsidies. The ALV therefore uses these GRB objects in connection with parcels of land used for agriculture. In particular, overlaps between parcels of land used for agriculture and ineligible GRB objects are eliminated. This means that the ineligible area of the GRB is removed from the agricultural parcel, leading to a reduction in the reference area of the farmland in question. This eventually leads to a recalculation and recovery of any excess aid paid. In 2012 the GRB covered approximately 70% of Flemish territory and by 2015 will cover the whole of Flanders. SPF Finances: Income tax - Article 307, CIR 92 (Code des impôts sur les revenues (Belgian income tax code)) Article 307 CIR 92 was amended by Article 151 of the Programme Law of 29 March 2012 (MB 6 April 2012, Ed. 3). The last sentence of Section 1(2) of Article 307, CIR 92, is replaced by: ‘At the latest at the same time as the submission of the declaration containing information on the existence of foreign accounts as referred to in this paragraph, the central contact point referred to in Article 322(3) must be informed of the numbers of these accounts, in accordance with the detailed rules laid down by the King, unless this information has already been supplied in an earlier tax year. The tax declaration form for natural persons contains the necessary headings for reporting the existence of foreign accounts and for confirming that the numbers of such accounts have been declared to the abovementioned contact point.’ The intention of the amendment of Section 1 of Article 307, CIR 92, is to require taxable persons to provide the central contact point referred to in Article 322(3) CIR 92 with the numbers of their foreign accounts. This puts an end to the implicit discrimination created by the Law of 14 April 2001 laying down various provisions. That law, by amending Article 322 CIR 92, required banks, dealers in foreign exchange, credit institutions and savings institutions operating in Belgium to notify this central contact point of clients’ identities and bank account and contract numbers. This obligation is not binding on such institutions for activities outside Belgium. This provision, together with the provisions of Article 322 CIR 92 and the Savings Directive (all EU Member States except those that levy a withholding tax are required to provide information every year on the capital income earned by residents of the Kingdom in those Member States), forms a conclusive whole in the context of the monitoring of capital revenue of residents of the Kingdom. Entry into force: as of the 2012 tax year. Paying agency for Wallonia (OPW): Restructuring of the agency - The director of the paying agency becomes Inspector General of the ‘Département des Aides’ in place of the Director-General of the Directorate-General for Agriculture, Natural Resources and the Environment (DGARNE - Direction générale de l'Agriculture, des Ressources naturelles et de l'Environnement), who becomes a member of the Paying agency monitoring committee (CSOP) (see next point). Payments signed by someone closer to the management and administration of aid to beneficiaries, better supervision of expenditure – - Reorganisation of a ministerial level CSOP; - Competent authority at ministerial level performs role of monitoring approval by the paying agency. - Delegation of on-the-spot control missions: establishment of control mission delegation protocols. - Greater separation of tasks - reduced risk of conflicts of interest. Point 1a was the subject of a Walloon Government Decision of 17 January 2013 (M.B. of 29/01/2013, p. 4535) following a European Commission audit recommendation. This system is an improvement with horizontal effect on the entire administration of agricultural aid.

BG || Legislative measures: 1. Amendment of the Ministry of the Interior Act (ZMVR) (promulgated in SG 44/2012) and its Implementing Provisions (promulgated in SG 60/2012). These amendments concern the functions of AFCOS Directorate, specialized structure within the Ministry of Interior carring out coordination in the fight agaist infringements, affecting the European Union’s financial interests by operational cooperation, reporting irregularities and administrative checks. The key feature of this measure is that it empowers AFCOS Directorate to perform administrative checks (investigations) for the purpose of identifying irregularities and fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests on its own initiative or at OLAF’s request. 2. Amendment of the Public Procurement Act (promulgated SG 93/2011, in force since 26.02.2012) and repeal of the Regulation on the award of small public procurement contracts (promulgated in SG 17/2012, in force since 26.02.2012). This measure is intended to consolidate public procurement rules in a single act, to remedy flaws in the rules, to bring the rules into line with developments in European law as regards the thresholds for publication of information in the Official Journal of the European Union. Amendments of the Public Procurement Act (promulgated SG 33/2012, in force since 01.05.2012) transposed Directive 2009/81/EC. 3. Amendment of the Regulation laying down procedures for administering irregularities involving funds and programmes co-financed by the European Union, adopted by Council of Ministers Resolution No 285 of 2009 (PMS No 3/13.01.2012, promulgated in SG 6 of 20.01.2012, in force since 20.01.2012). The Regulation sets out the processes for administering of irregularities in a wide range. This includes the administering of reports on irregularities, the checking of which culminates in the issue of an act by the competent administrative authority ascertaining whether or not there has been an irregularity (Article 14(1) of the Regulation). Owing to past confusion about which authority was competent, the Regulation expressly states that competence rests with the Head of the Managing authority and offers the alternative option of bringing the matter to court. The amendment is aimed at harmonising practices with regard toascertaining , registering and reporting irregularities affecting instruments and programmes co-financed by the EU. The Regulation sets out in detail the procedures for handling irregularities at national level and the obligations of all national authorities managing EU funds. The amendment of the Regulation has resulted in a uniform procedure for handling irregularities. Another important amendment to the Regulation concerns the introduction of a three-month time limit for carrying out checks on reported irregularities (Article 21(2) of the Regulation). Administrative measures: 1. In the wake of the amendments to the statutory rules, all Managing authorities updated their manuals and internal rules on ascertaining, registering, reporting, following up and tracking irregularities and fraud. This measure enhances the procedures for ascertaining and reporting irregularities, harmonises the criteria for registering reports of irregularities and ascertaining irregularities and significantly improves management and control systems. 2. Internal rules have been adopted and are now operating for the selection, appointment and vetting of inspectors to carry out first-level checks on Bulgarian partners in projects under territorial cooperation programmes involving Bulgaria. For European territorial cooperation programmes under which the Territorial Cooperation Management Directorate of the Ministry of Regional Development and Public Works is managing authority and national partner authority, Article 108 of Regulation (EC) No 718/2007, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 80/2010, stipulates that checks on the legality and regularity of the expenditure declared by beneficiaries participating in operations are to be performed solely by (outside) controllers specially designated by Bulgaria. The first-level checks performed by the (outside) controllers include checks on the public procurement operations carried out and the resulting contracts. The checks review the legality of the selected public procurement procedure and the proportionality (suitability) of the criteria and requirements to the size, complexity and other characteristics of the public procurement. Should a first-level controller checking a public procurement operation ascertain a breach of the rules, he submits an opinion disapproving all or part of the expenditure concerned. 3. Under a project financed under the Technical Assistance Operational Programme, the AFCOS Directorate carried out five Round tables at the teritory of five planning regions in 2012. The events were attended by 57 police officers from the National Police and the District directorates of the Ministry of the Interior, 25 prosecutors from the Supreme Prosecutor’s Office of Cassation, Prosecutor’s Offices of Appeals, Regional and district prosecutor’s offices, 10 financial inspectors from the Public Financial Inspection Agency, 26 irregularity officers from the Structural and Cohesion Fund’s Managing authorities, 23 beneficiaries and contracting authorities from the city of Sofia and the municipalities, representatives of OLAF and AFCOS from Romania, Poland, Slovakia, Lithuania and Croatia. The participants discussed improving operational cooperation between European, national and regional institutions and ways of making action against fraud affecting the EU’s financial interests more effective. In 2012 three quarterly meetings took place under the project; they were attended by 66 representatives of the AFCOS Directorate and irregularity officers from the Structural and Cohesion Fund’s Managing authorities. At training courses, specific cases of irregularities and difficult cases were addressed, the application of European and Bulgarian rules was discussed and constructive suggestions for improving the reporting of irregularities were made.

CZ || 1) Revision of Act No 250/2000 on budgetary rules for local budgets, applicable from 1 August 2012; 2) Revision of Act No 137/2006 on public procurement (Act No 55/2012) applicable from 1 April 2012; 3) in 2012 legislative work was begun on the revision of Act No 256/2000 on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund and amending certain other acts (the SZIF Act). The draft revision is currently undergoing internal consultation. Area of application: horizontal scope. The revision clarifies the legal framework for the recovery of unlawfully disbursed grants and aims to clarify the application of the existing system for protecting the financial interests of the EU. Furthermore, 2012 saw the release of Methodological guideline 3/2012 on the large debtors ledger and on the recording of data required to monitor, recover and notify debts and irregularities, i.e. reverse flows in the financing of the Common Agricultural Policy. The guidelines include a new procedure for handling suspected intentional breaches. In December 2012 the revision of Act No 320/2001 on financial control was approved at third reading. This governs the performance of control as part of the protection of Czech and EU financial resources. The Methodology Manual on Financial Flows and Control of Programmes Co-financed by the Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and European Fisheries Fund for the 2007-2013 programming period, valid from 1 July 2012 - this governs payment suspension, financial corrections, prohibitions on cancelling deductions, reduced deductions after 1 May 2012, procedures for notifying irregularities in ex-ante payments and inspections of the recovery of resources affected by irregularities.

DK || Administrative measures: The Danish state has implemented a digital signature for all citizens and undertakings, which is used in contacts with the public authorities. The signature uses a system based on a number of codes, like that used by many banks and undertakings for remote logging on (see www.nemid.nu). The universal public digital signature was used for the first time in 2012 for applications to the single farm payment scheme. Until that time applications were made on paper, with a signature, or electronically, using a user name and code. The universal public digital signature brings a number of security improvements and ensures that the person signing the application is identified beyond any doubt.

DE || Legislative measures in the area of agricultural policy have been implemented and are in force. In 2012, no new legislative measures were necessary to improve the protection of the EU's financial interests or to combat fraud. The area of administrative measures is in general marked by a high control density, accompanied by cross-cutting measures such as regular Bund-Länder working groups and discussions between paying authorities, certification bodies and competent authorities. For the German customs administration, it is the case that in the area of administrative measures there is also a high density of controls where no financial damage to the EU can arise since no payments are made on grounds of irregularities established. Related legal disputes have to date been decided before national and EU courts in favour of the German customs authorities. Regular exchanges of information between national experts and within hierarchies ensure that specialist knowledge is evenly shared. In 2012, two audits and two large information sessions were carried out in the form of official meetings. All customs offices were regularly provided with ARGUS information with updated risk profiles and were at all times informed about all risks. The risk analysis system practised by the German customs authorities has proved a success and was also evaluated as adequate by DG AGRI in 2012.

EE || The managing authority and the paying agency strengthened their monitoring operations — further on-the-spot checks to assess system performance in the implementing bodies — checks provide certainty with regard to system performance and highlight shortcomings 2. The managing authority improved the rules of procedure for monitoring — harmonisation of the minimum monitoring requirements applicable to implementing bodies. 3. The paying agency improved the recovery and repayment guidelines — more detail on how implementing bodies are to proceed in the event of bankruptcies and liquidations.

IE || 1. Statutory Instrument No 115 of 2012: makes it an offence for an applicant to knowingly make a false declaration under EU Agriculture support schemes(see 2.1.1 below) 2. Administrative measures: (i) Listing of beneficiaries of CAP direct payments in order to ensure that no payments continue to be made in error to deceased beneficiaries. (ii) Enhancement of access logs for CAP direct payments database held by the Irish Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine (DAFM) (see 2.1.1 below).

ES || 1.-Act 7/2012 of 29 October 2012 amending tax and budget legislation in order to prevent and fight tax fraud. Certain changes were made to the tax authorities' powers and to the procedures for applying tax. Given the general scope of these legal provisions, they are applicable to procedures relating to the EU's financial resources. 2.-Organic Law 7/2012 of 27 November 2012 amending Organic Law 10/1995 on the Criminal Code in respect of transparency, the fight against tax fraud, and Social Security. The reform affects the rules governing tax offences, including those against the EU. 3- Organic Law 2/2012 of 27 April 2012 on Budget Stability and the Sustainability of Public Finances. Responsibility for non-compliance with Community law.

EL || (1) MINISTRY OF FINANCE: (Α) DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR CUSTOMS AND EXCISE: The main administrative measures taken are as follows: 1) Circular Δ33Α 5008099/ ΕΞ2012 24/2/2012 addressed to all the customs authorities in Greece issued guidelines on the imposition of fines for failure to comply with the provisions on the submission of entry summary declarations when goods enter the customs territory of the Community, 2) Circular Δ33Ε 5021061 14/5/2012 addressed to all the customs authorities in Greece issued guidelines on measures to be taken in the case of fraud involving tobacco products. These circulars ensure that national and Community legislation and EU agreements are applied correctly. (B) DIRECTORATE FOR THE COORDINATION AND CONTROL OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS PROVISIONS: The main legislative measures taken are as follows: 1) Legislative provision [Article 45(11) of Law 4071/2012 (Government Gazette, Series I, No 85)], applicable to the government and public bodies. The provision was needed because of the impossibility to revise money orders for the payment of expenditure already authenticated by the Court of Auditors at the screening stage, but which prove to be unlawful during subsequent administrative checks. Improvements made: use of the findings of administrative supervisory bodies on payment of unlawful expenditure, 2) Legislative provision [Article 1 of Law 4081/2012 (Government Gazette, Series I, No 184)] and issuing of Ministry of Finance Decision 2/70212/0004/8-10-2012 (Government Gazette, Series II, No 2871), applicable to the government and public law bodies, private law bodies and other general government entities. The provision was needed to deal with problems relating to the implementation of Law 3492 (Government Gazette, Series I, No 210) that prevented the activation of the general government bodies' audits stipulated in the Law. Improvements made: start-up of the competent departments of the G.D.D.E. from 1 November 2012 and activation of the financial audits of Law 3492/2006. C) FINANCIAL AUDIT COMMITTEE: The main administrative measure taken is as follows: Signing of a protocol on cooperation between the Financial Control Committee (EDEL) and the Internal Audit Service of Public Administration (SEEDD). The purpose of this cooperation between EDEL and SEEDD is to combat corruption and fraud in the areas covered by all general government entities responsible for managing and implementing EU programmes. To achieve this aim, rules for cooperation between EDEL and SEEDD were established based on exchange of information and two-way communication of their audit findings, by setting up an information, communication and cooperation network. (2) MINISTRY OF JUSTICE: Law 4055/2012 (Government Gazette, Series I, No 51) improved and specified the criminal procedure relating to the criminal liability of ministers.

FI || As of 1 January 2012, the Government Decree amending the Decree on the eligibility of costs co-financed by the Structural Funds (1295/2011) made it possible to grant funding to certain ESF and ERDF projects as a lump sum (‘lump sum procedure'). The aim of introducing a lump sum payment system is to simplify the setting of the eligible costs of projects under the ERDF and ESF and the payment, monitoring and checking of these. We believe that simplifying the eligibility criteria will reduce eligibility errors, as it removes the requirement for eligibility of expenditure. The amendment to the Decree will apply to aid decisions made after its entry into force.

FR || As part of a very elaborate Community agricultural funds scrutiny system which they set up in line with Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 of 26 May 2008, the French authorities adopted two regulatory measures in 2012 in order to protect further the financial interests of the European Union. These measures are: 1. Assistance for international recovery: in 2012, France adopted Decree No 2012-93 of 13 January 2012 on the detailed rules for the implementation of Articles L.612-1 to L.612-6 and L.621-13 and L.621-14 of the Rural and Maritime Fishing Code. These articles created by Act No 2011-1978 of 28 December 2011 relate to assistance for international recovery of financial claims concerning the EAGF, the EAFRD and the common organisation of the market in sugar. The text entered into force the day following its publication in the JORF (Official Journal of the French Republic) on 27 January 2012. It transposes Council Directive 2010/24/EU concerning mutual assistance for the recovery of claims relating to taxes, duties and other measures. The decree sets out the content of the various requests for recovery assistance from EU Member States for financial claims concerning the EAGF, the EAFRD and the common organisation of the market in sugar. It also lays down the language arrangements, the timeframe in which the competent authorities must respond to the requests and the detailed rules for implementing exchanges between the requested and applicant authorities. 2. Decree of 20 July 2012 amending the Decree of 16 February 2009 on the conditions for the implementation of the promotion measures in third countries eligible for financing under the national budgets set out in Council Regulation (EC) No 479/2008 of 29 April 2008 on the common organisation of the market in wine. The purpose of this Decree is only to amend the previous Decree of 12 August 2009 and the new scheme is much stricter for the most serious cases of deliberate false declarations.

IT || 1) Prime Minister’s Office: Law No 234 of 24 December 2012 'General rules on Italy’s participation in drafting and implementing EU legislation and policies’ On the subject of preventing fraud against the European Union, Article 54 provides for: - Confirmation of the National Antifraud Committee, which has been renamed ‘Committee for the prevention of fraud against the European Union’ (COLAF); - Exemption of COLAF from Article 29(2)(e-bis) of Decree-Law No 223, meaning that the Committee is no longer subject to periodic reconfirmation by the government. - a requirement for COLAF to submit an annual report to Parliament on its activities. 2) Customs authority: Article 9(3) of Decree-Law 16/2012 (converted into law by Law No 44/2012), to guarantee equal treatment for Community and national credits, incorporated a provision into the Civil Code (Article 2783-ter) whereby Traditional Own Resources are included among the State credits given preferential treatment. Article 9(3-bis) of Decree-Law 16/2012 also provided for: the introduction of automatic enforcement following establishment of amounts of traditional own resources (and VAT import duties). The new law lays down that acts of enforcement issued by customs officials shall be immediately enforceable ten days after notification to the taxpayer, with subsequent recovery by the collection agency following enforcement. 3) On 5 June 2012, a new Technical Memorandum of Understanding was signed governing cooperation between the Guardia di Finanza and the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), replacing the previous memorandum of understanding signed in 1996 with the Unit on Coordination of Fraud Prevention (UCLAF) which was no longer in line with the EU and Italian legislative and organisational frameworks. In brief, the agreement: a. provides that cooperation between the Guardia di Finanza and OLAF should target: - preventing fraud, corruption and any other unlawful activity which falls into the area of responsibility of the two entities; - preventing and combating serious irregular behaviour by persons who work in any capacity within the EU institutions and bodies. b. covers: - the exchange of information, including strategic information; - procedures for operational or technical assistance; - the conditions under which it is possible to take Community action; c. possible future training initiatives and staff exchanges. In accordance with the mission statement of the Guardia di Finanza, as laid down in Legislative Decree No 68/2000, and its pre-eminent role in preventing and combating fraud against the EU budget, assigned to the Force by the Decree of the Ministry of the Interior of 20 April 2006 in relation to the “Reallocation of police forces’ areas of competence”, the Memorandum of Understanding strengthens and improves the current system of cooperation with the Commission in combating any unlawful activity harmful to the financial interests of the Union. Besides consolidating the international dimension of the role attributed to the Force by Article 4(1) of Legislative Decree No 68/2000, the update of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Guardia di Finanza and OLAF highlights the benefit of a common point of reference for Member States in the fight against fraud, given the transnational nature of the organisations commonly involved in fraud. It is thanks to OLAF they can streamline their action and have access to specialist knowledge in a highly technical operational areas. The initiative has therefore been carried out as part of a wider strategic approach to offences which are harmful to the financial interests of the European Union.

CY || 1. A decision was taken for the Organisation to start drawing up, in 2013, a new policy for the fraud-proofing of legislation and of the management and control systems to combat fraud and irregularities, 2. A new flagging practice was introduced in the Agricultural Payments Organisation's software (NAVISION) with regard to payments in the applications, whereby applications where irregularities have been detected are flagged. More or less the same flagging also applies to all CRM software used to manage the applications of most of the agricultural development measures. In other words it also includes a separate section which shows whether or not an application contains an irregularity.

LT || 1. The project administration and financing rules approved by Lithuanian Government Resolution No 1443 of 19 December 2007 have been amended by Resolution No 510 of 9 May 2012. The main amendments are the following: 1) irregularities can be established where there has been a failure to achieve planned monitoring indicators and physical activity implementation indicators for projects co-financed from EU funds; 2) responsibility for decisions adopted with respect to identified irregularities is more clearly laid down, and the related appeal procedure is also clearer, i.e. a decision relating to an irregularity is not adopted by a ministry or another government body (hereinafter 'a ministry'), but by the implementing body that carried out the investigation into the irregularity (hereinafter 'IB'), and once the decision has been adopted this body submits proposals regarding the established irregularity to the ministry responsible. When the ministry has received a decision and a proposal relating to an established irregularity, it cannot independently amend the decision adopted by the IB; however, it can present a reasoned request for the IB to reopen the investigation into the irregularity, but only where the ministry establishes new circumstances, or new circumstances emerge which had not been assessed during the investigation. 2. The methodological recommendations for the investigation and identification of irregularities, approved by Order no 1K-173 of 29 May 2009 of the Minister for Finance of the Republic of Lithuania, have been amended by means of new Order No 1K-451 of 24 December 2012. These recommendations include provisions on irregularities relating to a failure to achieve planned monitoring indicators and/or physical activity implementation indicators for projects co-financed from EU funds, and on irregularities involving the encumbrance of project assets and the infringement of Article 57 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 of 11 July 2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999, as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 423/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012; they also lay down the procedure for identifying these irregularities and the principles for calculating the financial corrections applicable where these irregularities occur. Furthermore, provisions are included relating to systemic irregularities identified and the procedure for opening an investigation of the irregularity where new circumstances, which had not been examined during the investigation of the irregularity, come to light. 3. The EU structural support computerised management and monitoring system (SFMIS) for the 2007–2013 programming period has been updated, enhancing functionalities related to the prevention of duplicate financing of expenses. The introduction of new functionalities enables information on other (non-EU structural support) financial instrument projects to be stored in the SFMIS.

LV || Legislative measures: 1) The Ministry of Justice has made amendments to the Criminal Procedure Law (by the Law of 24 May 2012 amending the Criminal Procedure Law, publication reference LV 92 (4695), 13.06.2012, in force from 1 July 2012). A new paragraph 5.1 is inserted into Section 392.1, 'Decision to terminate the criminal proceedings', stating that if the person conducting the criminal proceedings takes a decision terminating the proceedings they are to send or deliver a copy of the decision to the supervisory or monitoring body that originally reported the possible criminal offence, if that body has so requested. This enables supervisory or monitoring bodies, and in particular those that supervise the use of EU financial resources, to study the decision to terminate the proceedings. If they do not accept the decision they can then react, for example by sending objections to the public prosecutor monitoring the criminal proceedings, and asking him to cancel the decision. 2) Since 1 January 2011 (Law of 21 October 2010 amending the Criminal Procedure Act, publication reference LV 178 (4370), 10.11.2010, in force from 1 January 2011), Section 373(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act entitles a supervisory or monitoring body which originally reported a possible criminal offence to challenge a decision not to initiate criminal proceedings to the public prosecutor, if the decision was taken by an inspector, or to a public prosecutor of higher rank, if the decision was taken by a public prosecutor. These cross-cutting amendments facilitate more effective protection of EU financial resources, because the body supervising and monitoring the use of European Union resources is entitled to receive information on the progress of the criminal proceedings and in case of necessity can contest decisions taken there. 3) The Law of 21 June 2012 amending the Public Procurement Law entered into force on 1 August 2012. It imposes an obligation on the customer to discontinue the purchase if only one candidate or tenderer meets all the selection criteria; it establishes a new provision for the exclusion of tenderers on grounds of their avoidance of payments of taxes; it imposes an obligation on customers themselves to verify whether a tenderer is caught by the exclusion criteria, in so far as the information is accessible in public databases; and it supplements the rules on the designation of staff and subcontractors. 4) In 2012 the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) drew up draft regulation amending Government Regulation No 326 of 8 May 2012 on an internal audit system in direct state administrative institutions. In addition to the general rules in force up to now, the draft makes provision for special procedures for the prevention of corruption and conflicts of interest in state administration bodies. It provides for special rules for the determination, analysis and assessment of risks of corruption, and defines minimum control measures for the prevention of corruption and conflicts of interest. It lays down procedures for the prevention of corruption and conflicts of interest in such things as decision-making, personnel management, and the organisation and supervision of work. Accordingly, the draft provides for preventive measures for the anticipation, determination and prevention of conflicts of interest in stated functional areas of the authorities, and for preventive measures to minimise the possiblity of conflicts of interest. Among the preventive measures the draft provides for the fixing of a proportion between income and debt that is assigned to persons working in posts exposed to a high risk of corruption. 5) The Act of 15 December 2011 amending the Law on Excise Duties entered into force on 1 January 2012; it imposes tighter limits on the exemption of goods from excise duty. From 1 January 2012 the exemption from excise duty on the import of dutiable goods into Latvia will be applied if the natural person imports the volumes of dutiable goods laid down in the Act no more than once in seven days. Since the introduction of the seven-day restriction on the import of dutiable goods there has been a great change in the number of travellers and a decrease in the number of natural persons importing dutiable goods in order to sell them on the illegal market. Administrative measures: 1) In its investigatory work the State Police gives priority to criminal offences relating to fraud involving EU funds. There is close cooperation with the bodies administering EU funds. In the period under review the criminal proceedings initiated were classified under Section 177(3) of the Criminal Law, i.e. they were particularly serious offences. It has been established that the bulk of offences of this kind are committed by organised groups of former and current business people. Investigation is rendered considerably more difficult by the careful masking of offences behind various accounting documents (agreements, contracts of purchase or sale, loan agreements etc.). In 2012 The Economic Crime Department (Ekonomisko noziegumu apkarošanas pārvalde) of the State Police arrested members of three organised groups that had been engaging in criminal activity in order to defraud EU funds. A total of 10 people were arrested; all of them had precautionary mesures applied to them, but they were not held in custody. From the findings of the investigation it can be concluded that the fraud schemes developed by the members of an organised group committing offences aimed at defrauding EU funds most often involve business people from Poland, Estonia, the UK, Germany, Canada and tax-free or low-tax offshore companies. 2) In 2012, under point 16 of its programme, the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB) launched an analysis of the risks of corruption in the granting and receiving of financing from the EU and other international institutions, using administrative infringement files in its own records and materials from criminal proceedings initiated in the period from 2007 to 2013. As a result, a report was drawn up in 2013 which identifies the problems and shortcomings whose existence has given rise to specific infringements or criminal offences, and makes proposals aimed at overcoming them. 3) In its day-to-day work the Customs Department of the State Revenue Service exploits the possiblities of IT resources - it enters information from its reports in the OWNRES system and has OWNRES user rights for the European Community own resources internet user programme OWNRES with the case reference 'fraud'. 4) The EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund Managing Authority ('VI') has updated the general guideines for the detection of irregularities and reporting at national and EC/OLAF level. The guidelines have been amended essentially in order to take account of the questions raised by the bodies involved in managing EU funds and of problems that were not clear. 5) In 2012 judges and public prosecutors received training with a view to improving cooperation between the institutions involved in managing EU funds and the law enforcement authorites in cases where there is suspicion of fraud or organised crime.

LU || Type of measure: The Regional Policy Directorate, which is the managing authority for the ERDF, did not introduce any legislative or administrative measures in 2012 to combat fraud. However, in the course of its monitoring of projects jointly financed by the ERDF it is careful to check the eligibility of the expenditure and, more generally, the legality of the operations carried out by recipients of structural fund support, in order to detect any irregularities or fraud. In the case of the European Social Fund, the following improvements were made in the managing authority: - Improvement in the ESF management and control system: changes to the user guide (April 2012 version), better project monitoring (steering committee and implementing committee), tighter control procedures; - First-level controls: detailed check-list for on-the-spot checks; - Clarification of ambiguities relating to eligibility criteria and certain concepts; - More precise definitions of eligibility criteria, direct support for operations via interactive committees. These measures apply to the entire management system for the European Social Fund. They aim to simplify control, clear up certain ambiguities and clarify certain definitions to reduce the potential risk of error and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the system as a whole and of the use of Community funds. These are internal measures within the managing authority which do not require any legislative amendment. The ESPON 2013 Programme aims to comply with the Commission’s Anti-Fraud Strategy and has put in place ad hoc administrative procedures for financial management and internal control designed to prevent and detect irregularities and errors. The management and control system being introduced makes it possible to check the legality and regularity of transactions. Should a fraud case be detected inside the programme, cooperation with OLAF will be ensured. The ESPON Programme improves knowledge of fraud cases and raises staff awareness of the importance of fraud prevention: two staff members from the financial unit attended the Interact Seminar on “Irregularities and frauds in ETC programmes”, on 16 February 2012, which included a presentation by OLAF on fraud notification, the grounds for instituting an OLAF investigation and the follow-up of findings.

HU || Type of measure: Law: Act C of 2012 on the Criminal Code, in force as of 1 July 2013. It repeals the frequently amended Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code. Scope: The purpose of codifying budgetary fraud as a new type of offence (entering into force on 1 January 2012) was to make Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code (Btk) more consistent and easier to apply in respect of criminal offences damaging public finances. Why the measure was necessary: The most recent amendments only made certain adjustments to the new Section 396 of the Btk, and did not fundamentally change the existing elements constituting the crime of budgetary fraud laid down in Section 310, which is still in force. Compared with Section 310 of the earlier Btk, the new Act introduces making false declarations in connection with budgetary payment obligations or with funds deriving from the budget as a form of criminal conduct. The intention is to make it clear that deception through the provision of false data when completing tax returns or reporting requirements electronically is included within this offence definition so that any form of false statement counts as a criminal offence. Budgetary fraud results in economic loss, and the penalties applicable reflect the extent of that loss. Improvements the measure has made to the existing system: In order to make subsidies more transparent, the new definition ensures protection under criminal law against failure to comply or to comply fully with the obligation to provide information in respect of funds derived from the budget and against the provision of false information. The purpose of this is to ensure that funds derived from a public financed budget (central, EU, etc.) are used appropriately for their intended purpose, and that this is demonstrated by documents of realistic content. Type of measure: Decree No 141/2008 of 30 October 2008 of the Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development on the detailed conditions governing aid granted to local rural development communities and LEADER local action groups under Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, and the act replacing it, Decree No 30/2012 of 24 March 2012 of the Minister for Rural Development on the detailed conditions governing rural development aid granted from the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development to support the activities of the LEADER local action groups Scope: LEADER Why the measure was necessary: This legislation was necessary, as a precautionary measure, to ensure that operational resources are transparent and used lawfully. Improvements the measure has made to the existing system: More effective distribution and use of resources. The LEADER local action group is subject to an annual auditing and reporting requirement.

MT || To add value to the current administrative structure, the Paying Agency sought to adopt the following measures: - A clear statement in the General Guidance Notes presented to potential beneficiaries indicating that payments should only be issued on presentation of valid invoices and documentation; and - A representative of the Paying Agency has been nominated to attend the Interministerial Coordinating Committee bi-lateral meetings in order to discuss claims/tenders/invoices in-hand, with the aim to prevent double funding. This Committee falls under the Office of the Prime Minister. - In relation to the VAT Department, a committee was set up and meetings held to examine the recommendations of a study which was commissed to evaluate the current situation regarding the use of phantom-ware and zappers in Malta and to decide on a way forward on how to implement these recommendations. (Phantom-ware and zappers are programmes which are used by fraudulent traders to modify sales records with the intention to defraud the Government). In relation to the Customs Department, the initiative to revise the penalties for infrigements of Customs Legislation launched in Year 2010 came into effect in Year 2012. Additionally, another initiative to revise penalties for infringements of Customs legislation was launched in Year 2012.

NL || An Act implementing Council Regulation No 2185/96 of 11 November 1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission in order to protect the European Communities' financial interests against fraud and other irregularities came into force on 16 October 2012 (Wet op de verlening van bijstand aan de Europese Commissie bij controles en verificaties ter plaatse, Act on providing assistance with on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the European Commission).

AT || The Unit for Anti Fraud Measures and Mutual Assistance in the Federal Ministry of Finance (Anti Fraud Unit) acts according to the Reg (EC) no 485/2008 on ex post controls in the field of EAGF payments as the so called special department to coordinate the respective ex post controls carried out by the control officers of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Agriculture. In addition the Anti Fraud Unit acts since autumn 2011 as the AFCOS (anti fraud coordination service) according to art 3(4) of the draft new OLAF regulation in order to exchange information, carry out checks of invoices and supporting OLAF in organising on spot controls in the field of direct expenditures. The unit acts as coordination body between several Ministries which are in charge of handling of different EU funds. Therefore there were no changes in the national legislation. In the Ministry of Agriculture there were also no changes in legisation.

PL || Amendment of the Ministry of Regional Development's Guidelines on the use of technical assistance (inclusion of a detailed procedure to be followed in cases where beneficiaries award contracts worth less than € 14 000, i.e. those not subject to the strict rules of the Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004. Supplementing the Guidelines in that way should help to prevent irregularities concerning the equal treatment of contractors and increase transparency and competition in contracts being performed. The Guidelines are a horizontal document. An additional mechanism for controls on public procurement that also covers the payment application. This mechanism was introduced by the MA for Mazowieckie Province's ROP and should help to reduce the number of irregularities. The mechanism is being used for all projects under the ROP in respect of which public procurement procedures are being implemented. The Customs Service action strategy to combat the smuggling and illegal circulation of tobacco products 2012-2015 approved by the Head of the Customs Service on 22 March 2012. This strategy should limit the supply on the domestic market of tobacco products from illegal sources, particularly as regards the manufacture of such products in the 'grey economy', and also reduce the extent to which illegal tobacco products transit through Poland on their way to other EU markets. The principles of that document also envisage the introduction of organisational solutions that will help increase the effectiveness of the Customs Service's activities.

PT || 1. Legislative procedure: Decree-Law No 198/2012 of 24 August 2012 (DR No 164 – Series I) establishing controls on the issuing of invoices and other documents with fiscal relevance, rules for reporting such information to the tax and customs authorities, and establishing a tax incentive for individuals to request such documents. Reason this measure is needed: it encourages requests for invoices for all transactions, thereby reducing the potential for tax evasion associated with the failure to issue invoices. Improvements to the system: establishment of an effective instrument to combat the black economy, extension of the tax base and reduction of unfair competition. 2. Administrative measures: self-auditing tool created and implemented by the Instituto de Gestão do Fundo Social Europeu (IGFSE) and available on the website and 'NEWS FSE' – IGFSE electronic newsletter. Reason these measures are needed: to ensure that irregularities do not arise through a lack of knowledge of the applicable rules and procedures on the part of managers of ESF projects, to explain the applicable rules and procedures to beneficiaries and to disseminate good practices, thereby raising awareness of the ESF. Improvements to the system: the self-audit tool makes it possible to reduce the rate of error by enabling ESF project managers and those responsible for the technical, training, accounting and financial aspects of projects to audit their own ESF projects, thereby helping to prevent errors through judicious management. This tool allows staff to take corrective measures when an a procedure is found not to be in line with national or EU regulations, thus effectively reducing the number of irregularities. The new electronic newsletter published by the IGFSE is aimed at all beneficiaries of ESF funding, their representatives, ESF project managers and other interested parties. It is an effective tool of major importance in managing ESF projects. As regards the prevention of irregularities, the section 'Atingir o erro zero' ('How to achieve a zero error rate'), has played a decisive role in reducing errors. 3. Administrative procedure: Implementation of the 'Strategic Plan for the Prevention of Fraud and Tax Evasion 2012-2014', which sets out the broad medium-term strategic plans of the tax and customs authorities, and aims to significantly improve the prevention of tax evasion and to combat highly complex fraud schemes and the black economy in particular. The following measures are of particular importance (points 2.2, 2.5 and 2.6 of the Strategic Plan): - Social perception of fraud and the evasion of tax and customs duties; the specific case of customs fraud and evasion of duties; measures and expected impact

RO || 1. Consolidation of the anti-fraud legal framework through legislative measures: Government Emergency Order (GEO) No 66/2011 on preventing, detecting and penalising irregularities in the granting and use of European funds and/or the corresponding national public funds, a legislative act applying to all non-reimbursable EU funds, has been amended by GEO No 26/2012 on certain measures aimed at reducing public expenditure and strengthening financial discipline and amending certain legislative acts, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 392 of 12 June 2012. The purpose of adopting this legislative act was to introduce certain support measures to ensure effective management of EU funds by the relevant authorities, by updating and amending certain procedures for detecting and correcting irregularities. Government Order (GO) No 22/2012 amending GEO No 66/2011 on preventing, detecting and penalising irregularities in the granting and use of European funds and/or the corresponding national public funds, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 621 of 29 August 2012. The purpose of adopting this legislative act was to introduce additional provisions relating to the measures to be taken by the authorities responsible for managing EU funds in cases of suspected fraud, and measures referring to postponement, interruption or suspension of certification, to be taken by the certifying authority, in order to protect the financial interests of the European Union and apply EU regulations. GEO No 75/2012 amending GEO No 66/2011, published in Official Gazette of Romania No 806 of 30/11/2012. The main purpose of adopting this legislative act was to introduce national provisions imposing obligations relating to financial reporting by the authorities responsible for managing EU funds and the certifying authorities, and provisions that make it possible to apply specific procedures for definitive or temporary percentage deduction of amounts representing financial corrections also to current declarations of expenditure transmitted to the European Commission. 2. Administrative measures for protecting the financial interests of the EU: 2.1 Code of Conduct for the staff involved in managing programmes financed from non-reimbursable EU funds, to avoid situations of incompatibility and conflicts of interest, drawn up by the Ministry of European Funds in cooperation with other relevant Ministries. The Code was approved by a Memorandum signed by the Prime Minister in December 2011. Implementation of the Code by the authorities responsible for managing non-reimbursable EU funds started in 2012, on the basis of an action plan. The aim of the Code of Conduct is to clarify the application of the general principles and rules relating to incompatibilities and conflicts of interest, as laid down by the national and EU legislation in force, in the case of staff involved in managing non-reimbursable EU funds, taking into account the specific processes and activities for implementing programmes financed from such funds. It also serves as a guide for avoiding any situations of conflict of interest and/or incompatibility which could affect the abovementioned category of personnel. 2.2 In order to prevent irregularities and fraud, and given the need to put into operation a mechanism for verifying conflicts of interest/fraud, the Managing Authorities have improved the checklists for public procurements, and have drawn up and incorporated into the working procedure checklists for conflicts of interest at every stage of the public procurement procedures.

SE || Agricultural funds: The Swedish Board of Agriculture has carried out a review of its organisation with the aim of separating the authority's various functions. The new organisation is intended to improve good internal governance and control at the authority, which will lead to even more correct disbursements, clearer rules and payments being made at the right time. Starting from the new year 2012, the Board introduced the LB system (a computer system for the Rural Development Programme) to manage support paid from the European Fisheries Fund. Cases involving support from the EFF and which have not had any disbursements have been successively entered into the processing system. The LB system is not a new processing system; it has been used before by the Board, inter alia for enterprise aid and project aid within the Rural Development Programme. A number of the problems that have come to light during audits were solved by introducing the LB system for use in processing support from the EFF. For example: more controls have been entered than in the old system "Stöd 3", which entail that the case officer cannot proceed in the system until certain information has been checked. When the processing system for support from the EFF was set up, case officers were also provided with a new help module explaining how the regulations work and how cases should be processed in the LB system. Regional funds: Revision of guidelines for irregularities, recovery and OLAF reporting pursuant to Article 98 of Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 was initiated in 2012, and will be adopted and brought into use in 2013.

SI || The Act amending and supplementing the Agriculture Act (ZKme-1A; Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No 57/12, published 27.7.2012), which amends Articles 37a, 42 and Article 45 of the Agriculture Act (ZKme-1, OG RS No 45/08), improving the procedures for recovering irregularly granted funds by simplifying the recovery procedure and extending the time limits for carrying out recovery procedures from 6 months to one year in the event that the decision was made automatically using the information system and the actual situation has been established incorrectly or the material provisions have been misapplied in the system, or for an overall period of 5 years in all other cases.

SK || 1. Act No. 111/2012 Coll. amending and supplementing Act. No. 528/2008 Coll. on the assistance and support provided from the European Community funds, as amended (with effect from 1 April 2012). Scope of the measure: horizontal; reason why the measure is necessary: to improve the efficiency and transparency in the spending of EU funds in the 2007 -2013 programming period and simultaneously to modify the provisions necessitated by the practical application of the Act, in particular, to clarify the exercise of powers and competences of the authority that ensures the protection of the financial interests of the EU; to enhance and specify the provisions on financial corrections and settlement of financial irregularities; to adjust financial corrections in case of infringement of the procurement rules and procedures. 2. Updating of the System of SF and CF management, version 4.5, in effect as of 30 March 2012 - incorporation of the managing authority's obligations to continuously monitor the publicized reported cases. To carry out the adopted provisions, a methodological guidance was issued by the CCA (Methodological guidance of 5 June 2012 for the managing authorities' procedures applied in the ongoing monitoring and reviewing publicized reported cases, or cases reported by others, and in taking measures to correct deficiencies, including ensuring the awareness of the certifying authority, audit authority and authority ensuring the protection of financial interests). Ensuring adequate monitoring and review of publicized reported cases complement the mechanisms of early detection of irregularities and risk aspects of the project. Early detection of certain facts, their examination and adoption of adequate measures has the ambition to significantly contribute to the protection of EU financial interests. Improvements following the adopted measure: incorporation of the mechanism for regular monitoring of publicized reported cases into managment documentation of the managing authority and taking necessary measures to investigate and eliminate the weaknesses. It can also be concluded that the level of awareness of stakeholders has increased. That update also includes incorporated provisions of the amendment of the Act. 528/2008 Coll. on the assistance and support provided from the EC funds with a positive impact on the protection of EU financial interests (in particular, the extension of the scope of published information concerning the applications for NFP); Scope: horizontal; 3. In 2012, the Slovak Republic adopted, within the policy of the fight against tax fraud so-called "Action Plan to combat tax evasion" (the first stage is in effect as of 1 October 2012). The objective of the Action Plan to combat fraud is to take measures for effective legislative support of the fight against fraud in the area of taxes, and also a series of operational tools for preventing the escalation of the nature of fraudulent activities of taxpayers, resulting in a comprehensive penalisation of tax fraud; preventing fraudulent activities during the dissolution of companies, increasing the liability of persons, who, at the time before the dissolution of the company, are statutory authorities; reviewing the effectiveness of the current Criminal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code into which new bodies of the crime related to tax offenses were introduced. Within the Action Plan to combat fraud, measures to prevent the possibility of committing tax fraud and also to effectively penalise these activities are already in place, namely: modifications to the Act No. 300/2005 Coll. (Criminal Code) as amended (in effect as of 1 October 2012) (introducing a new body of the crime obstruction of administration of taxes introduction of new body of the crime related to tax fraud; setting mandatory penalty - for 5-10 years - of disqualification in case of comitting a tax offense; tightening of penalties for committing tax offenses in case of a significant and large-scale offences; decriminalisation concerning the small-scale damages of up to EUR 2660). Legislative amendments to the Commercial Code (limited liability company can be established only by a person who has no tax arrears; transfer of majority ownership interest in a limited liability company will be allowed only upon confirmation, issued by the tax authority, that neither the transferor nor tranferee who acquires the majority of the shares have no tax arrears). Legislative amendments to the Value Added Tax Act No. 222/2004 Coll., as amended, (The introduction of a financial security obligations of risk individuals at the time of VAT registration, amounting min. EUR 1000 EUR, max. EUR 500 000. In case of ready-made companies, there is a lump sum surcharge of EUR 3000 to the security. The amounts of the security are calculated by means of a separate software application "Cancelation of VAT registration" for persons who are non-contact, non-communicating with the tax authority or fail to comply with legal obligations. Tax administrations continually repeal the VAT registration, till October 2013 registrations of approximately 2000 current non-contact companies with "white horses" should be cancelled, and other measures). The scope of the measures: horizontal

UK || In Wales, Grant Funding is the Welsh Governments most significant risk of fraud. 2012 has seen the set up of the Welsh Grants Project Team and Grants Centre of Excellence. Within this project due diligence and a Central Repository of grant applications has been a significant part of the teams work, linking in with the sector's and Counter Fraud Branch. This work is ongoing into 2013 and will be enhanced with training of every grant manager including some fraud training with the Head of Counter Fraud. This will promote due diligence, appraisal, governance and monitoring and review in relation to grants. Governance in the third sector has been problematic in some cases and the Welsh authorities look to increase awareness raising with managers. Some fraud investigations have identified significant issues with false or fictitious invoices and the Welsh authorities are looking to promote proportionate risk based awareness raising and identification around invoices and grant claims. In Scotland and England, no changes have been made to the current, robust controls they have in place. When any fraud is suspected, immediate contact is made with the appropriate dedicated Fraud Teams which have the required expertise, contacts and procedures in place.

2. CONTROLS TO COMBAT IRREGULARITIES AND FRAUD AGAINST THE FINANCIAL INTERESTS OF THE EU IN THE AREA OF AGRICULTURE

2.1. Qualitative evaluation: Improvements in the financial control and risk management system in order to prevent fraud against the EU financial interest

Member State: || 2.1.1. Briefly describe maximum three measures (within the national legal framework and/or administrative procedures) taken in the period 2011-2012 which in the area of the Agricultural Funds have substantially contributed to better prevention of suspected fraud cases or/and improvements in the risk management system. These measures may be disseminated as "best practices" among other MS (Legislative measures, Administrative measures/procedures).

BE || Administrative measures/procedures: BIRB: 1 – Two new risk analyses: Processing of out-of-quota sugar and distribution free of charge to the most deprived. 2 – Second-level control: check that the control has in fact been carried out in accordance with procedures. ALV: see question 1. SPF Finances: 1 - Administrative measures/procedures: Improved risk management following automation of the search filter (CSP bis), i.e. specific selection lines for computerised declarations in the agricultural sector. 2 – In SPF Finances, the role of the Special Tax Inspectorate covers not only the investigation and prevention of serious and organised tax fraud but also imposing penalties. Priority is given to dismantling specific mechanisms and complex structures often involving an international dimension, and specific mechanisms in very specific sectors or relating to particular thematic issues. Subject to adjustment in the light of developments and government requirements (Crombez and Vanackere action plans), plans include action in the fields of ‘portage salarial’ (temporary salaried work for the self-employed), the CP42 customs scheme, the activities of foreign insurance companies in Belgium, international organised VAT fraud, fictitious relocation of persons, services and companies, risk capital deduction, subsidy fraud (at all levels), abuses of all kinds, fictitious relocation of profits abroad, and Internet commerce. As part of these measures it will be necessary to consolidate and prioritise information on potential cases of fraud. The information is enriched in particular by risk analysis and data cross-checking. Where the fraud mechanisms involve so many operators that it is physically impossible for the Special Tax Inspectorate to examine all the files itself, all the relevant information (identification, tax model, specific manual, etc.) is sent for processing to partner administrations (AGFISC, DOCPAT, etc.) who then provide the ISI with feedback. Paying agency for Wallonia 1. Introduction of an accounting application (FINOP); improvements to procedures and debtor management software. 2. Agricultural investment aid files submitted via Internet portal; saves time and therefore speeds up file handling. Makes more working time available for optimised checking.

BG || 1. In 2009 a Regulation laying down procedures for administering irregularities involving funds and programmes co-financed by the European Union was adopted by Council of Ministers Resolution No 285 of 30 November 2009 (promulgated in SG 97 of 08.12.2009, in force since 08.12.2009). The Regulation has been amended a number of times: SG 5 of 19.01.2010., SG 90 of 16.11.2010, SG 7 of 21.01.2011 and SG 6 of 20.01.2012. The 2012 amendments are intended to improve national legislation in this area and harmonise it with EU legislation on reporting irregularities and fraud. In 2012 a number of major amendments were made to the Regulation which directly affect the administering of irregularities, namely: the introduction of the requirement for an act establishing an irregularity; insertion of further reasons for terminating an irregularity; others. 2. In 2011 all regulations concerning the Rural Development Plan were amended to make it obligatory to complete a declaration of irregularities in which the Programme’s potential beneficiaries declare that they are acquainted with the definitions of irregularity and fraud and how to report suspected or ascertained irregularities or fraud. These amendments were borne of experience with the implementation of the Rural Development Programme measures and are aimed at improving the legislative basis for combating irregularities and fraud.

CZ || Administrative measures/procedures: Individual legal assessment of cases for which on-the-spot checks yield control findings such as recreational areas, etc. Thse cases are assessed and evaluated in relation to whether the control finding is a repeat finding, the type of control finding and the extent of the control finding (in ha). After the evaluation criminal charges are made against the applicant; in less serious cases applicants are warned not to include the plot in the grant application for the following year (the grant is not awarded for the plot in question in the year of the control finding, of course).

DK || Administrative measures/procedures: Inter-agency cooperation: In 2010 a group of farmers were suspected of evasion of duty on imports of commercial fertiliser and in the excessive use of fertiliser. As a consequense the cas