TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

2........... Summary of Member states’ contributions....................................................................... 5

2.1........ Qualitative evaluation: Improvements in the financial control and risk management system in order to prevent fraud against the EU financial interest........................................................................................ 5

2.1.1..... Measures taken in the period 2007-2011 which have substantially contributed to better prevention of cases of suspected fraud in the area of the Cohesion Policy or/and improvements in the risk management system. 5

2.1.2..... Description of the outcome of the measures taken in relation to prevention of suspected fraud cases and recovery of misused EU funds....................................................................................................... 5

2.1.3..... 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 Cohesion Policy funds........................................................... 6

2.1.4..... Use of fraud indicators.................................................................................................... 6

2.1.5..... Financial controls systems sufficiently oriented towards detecting fraud............................. 7

2.1.6..... Improvements of the detection record............................................................................. 7

2.1.7..... Cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations......................................... 8

2.1.8..... Has your Member State administration adopted guidelines to distinguish between fraud and irregularities? 8

2.1.9..... How often do you audit the reporting of suspected fraud to OLAF?................................. 8

2.1.10... How often trainings have been given to staff dealing with reporting of suspected fraud to OLAF? 8

2.2........ Statistical elements.......................................................................................................... 8

2.2.1..... Performed anti-fraud investigations and finalised criminal proceedings the end of 2011, related to projects financed under the programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 in Cohesion Policy area....... 8

2.2.2..... Amounts recovered in relation to anti-fraud investigations pertaining to programming period 2000-2006 and 2007-2013.............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2.3..... Personnel assigned and involved in anti-fraud investigations............................................ 10

Annex: Replies of Member States to the questionnaire "Implementation of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2011".................................................................................................................................... 13

Key Developments Concerning The Implementation Of Article 325 Of The Treaty On The Functioning Of The European Union (TFEU).............................................................................................................. 13

3........... Controls To Combat Irregularities And Fraud Against The Financial Interests Of The EU In The Area Of Cohesion Policy........................................................................................................................... 31

3.1........ Qualitative evaluation: Improvements in the financial control and risk management system in order to prevent fraud against the EU financial interest...................................................................................... 31

3.1.1..... Briefly describe three measures (within the national legal framework and or administrative procedures) taken in the period 2007-2011 which have substantially contributed to better prevention of cases of suspected fraud in the area of the Cohesion Policy or/and improvements in the risk management system. These measures could be disseminated as best practices among the MS................................................................ 31

3.1.2..... Describe the outcome of measures you mentioned under previous question on the performed activities in relation to prevention of suspected fraud cases and recovery of misused EU funds terms of:?.......... 56

3.1.3..... Based on the lessons learnt from the findings of the administrative investigations undertaken in the period of 2007-2011 which new control and investigation strategies has 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 fraud in the spending of the Cohesion Policy funds?..................................................................................................................................... 69

3.1.4..... Use of fraud indicators.................................................................................................. 77

3.1.5..... Comparing your Member State's suspected fraud record to the EU 25 average suspected fraud rate of 0.25% (as shown in the Commission report 2010 [8] for the programming period 2000-2006 in the area of Cohesion policy), do you consider your financial controls to be sufficiently oriented towards detecting fraud 86

3.1.6..... How could the detection record be improved................................................................ 90

3.1.7..... Does your Member State apply cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations? 97

3.1.8..... Has your Member State administration adopted guidelines to distinguish between fraud and irregularities? 99

3.1.9..... How often do you audit the reporting of suspected fraud to OLAF?............................. 103

3.1.10... How often trainings have been given to staff dealing with reporting of suspected fraud to OLAF? 104

3.2........ Statistical elements...................................................................................................... 106

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Implementation of Article 325 by the Member States in 2011

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL

Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud Annual Report 2011

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 2011.

This document lists all the answers of Member States to the 2011 questionnaire.

Over the time the report had become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and the European Parliament were concerned that its size was increasing and that its being 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 2011, the questionnaire focuses on one major theme. The aim is to gather information on topics which go beyond the measures taken in the course of a calendar year, thereby allowing a more detailed analysis of these topics. The topics change 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 as for the 2011 questionnaire. Member States are invited to describe two or three "key" measures taken in the year 2011 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 cohesion Policy.

2. Summary of Member states’ contributions

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

2.1.1. Measures taken in the period 2007-2011 which have substantially contributed to better prevention of cases of suspected fraud in the area of the Cohesion Policy or/and improvements in the risk management system.

All Member States reported measures either legislative either administrative that they have taken in the period 2007-2011. In the views of the Member States, these have substantially contributed to better prevention of fraud in the area of the Cohesion Policy and/or to improvements in the risk management system.

These measures concern among other thing the eligibility of rules; on the spot-cheks and control; reporting and processing of fraud and general irregularities, recovery procedures, cross-check mecanisms to detect and eliminate cases of double financing of projects, public procurement procedures, introduction of penalties, actions to counter fraud and corruption, establishment of coordination bodies for combatting fraud affecting the financial interests of the EU, participation by staff in trainigs and seminars and prosecution of the beneficiaries and of anyone person involved in case of suspected fraud and corruption.

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

Member States reported as outcome of the above mentionned measures on the performed activities in relation to prevention of suspected fraud cases and recovery of misused EU funds

· in terms of effectiveness and efficiancy of operations:

– the strong proactive approach with more irregularities detected before payment[1];

– the decreased number of irregularities[2];

– the elimination of cases of suspected fraud[3];

– the reduction of errors in tenders and more effective controls on expenditure and public procurement procedures[4];

– the greater discipline and transparency of the whole process of the project implementation[5];

· in terms of reliability of financial reporting:

– the higher proportion of accepted eligible amounts by the beneficiary to the managing authorities[6];

· in terms of compliance with the applicable rules:

Some Member States[7] mentioned the preventive impact of the Commission Guidelines on public procurement[8], the Commission Note on fraud indicators[9], the national provisions on public procurement, the Irregularities Notification Manual and Guidelines and the provisions of Articles 27 to 36 (Irregularities) of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006.

2.1.3. 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 Cohesion Policy funds

Based on the lessons learnt from the finding, the majority of Member States[10] reported as measures put in place in order to reduce the risk of fraud and to better detect cases of fraud in the spending of the Cohesion Policy funds the establishment of National strategies (e.g antifraud committees, audit activities to prevent and detect irregularities, …) a number[11] the establishment of Regional strategies while a number of Member States[12] use the 'types of operations' (development of various sorts of preventive measures -including preliminary procurement checks, further cooperation with law enforcement officers, performance of broader-scale management checks at the behest of the MA. One Member State[13] reported that the current arrangements for checks appear to serve their purpose and restrict to a satisfactory extent the risk of irregularities while two other Member States[14] reported that no new strategies were put in place or planned during the reporting period as they are satisfied with existing.

2.1.4. Use of fraud indicators

Most of the Member States[15] make use of general and or specific indicators (Categories of irregularities; Categories of economic operators; Categories of operations; Categories of modus operandi; Economic sectors; Geographical areas, of Projects; Transactions; Individual economic operators), that may contribute to fraud detection and to the improvement of the results of anti-fraud control activities. However, they mentioned that consider that fraud is no linked only to certain economic operators, economic sectors or categories of operation. As all cases are different, the rapid exchange of information is used to detect irregularities/fraud schemes.

In addition, the use of general fraud indicators are indentified in certain Member States[16], in a Manual or Guide for Audit of EU Funds, contains fraud indicators providing help and orientation for the Audit Authority employees in their audit activity, system of preliminary checks of procurement.

Most Member States[17] replied that they use general indicators to redirect their controls and that these contribute to detecting fraud and to improving the results of anti-fraud control activities.

Some fraud indicators are identified as:

- non-compliance with legislation in the area of public procurement, corruption practices, undeclared conflict of interests, agreements inconsistent with the law, manipulation of financial results, unusual financial transactions[18]; un –transparent procurement procedure; submission of false date that is difficult to check [19].

A limited number of Member States[20] reported that they do not use fraud indicators as all projects are checked at least once in their lifetime or twice or not applicable due to low level of fraud detected thus far or all working methods are geared to uncovering fraud and identifying irregularities in the early stage of the process.

2.1.5. Financial controls systems sufficiently oriented towards detecting fraud

All the Member States consider their financial control to be sufficiently targeted on detecting fraud.. Most of them consider that the established control structures and mechanisms have strengthened desk checks of public procurement procedures held on the spot checks of project implementation. On double side answer the less positive aspect was regarding the competence of officials which must be improved[21].

2.1.6. Improvements of the detection record

Most of Member States presented concrete aspects through the detection record could be improved. Human, technical and financial resources are proposed mostly for improving fraud detection[22].

- Human aspects – enhancing administrative capacity, training of competent staff[23]

- Financial – increase of financial resources, as to reduce the risk of corrupt attitudes and practices, competitive wage[24];

- Technical - the drawing up of a handbook and compilation of best practices, development of a common platform and databases, database access and checks[25].

2.1.7. Cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations

A limited number of Member States[26] reported that they apply cost benefit analysis when conducting anti-fraud investigations and the majority of Member States[27] replied no as fraud is investigated irrespective of the amount involved, and all incidences of irregularities and fraud detected are pursued.

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

Most of Member States answered positive to this question. Many of them replied that the distinction based on The EU legal framework (PIF Regulation and PIF Convention).

2.1.9. How often do you audit the reporting of suspected fraud to OLAF?

Most of Member Sates replied that they audit the reporting of suspected fraud annually and another part declared biannually.

2.1.10. How often trainings have been given to staff dealing with reporting of suspected fraud to OLAF?

The replies vary from biannually to nover.

2.2. Statistical elements

2.2.1. Performed anti-fraud investigations and finalised criminal proceedings the end of 2011, related to projects financed under the programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 in Cohesion Policy area

All Member States reported on performed anti-fraud investigations and finalised criminal proceedings related to projects financed under the programming periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 in Cohesion Policy area. Some Member States included the obligatory 'on-the-spot-checks' provided for in the EU regulations in the framework of the anti-fraud administative investigations. In a number of Member States, the possibility of cases of fraud is checked by performing on-the-spot checks, payments claim checks, preliminary procurement checks and sample checks of systems audits and experience. If suspicion arises, additional checks are carried out and, where necessary, a report is lodged with the law enforcement. In some Members States, the administrative fraud investigations are treated separatly.

Some large Member States[28] reported a very limited number of ongoing criminal investigations. Some Member States[29] provided valuable data on anti-fraud investigations performed and criminal proceedings completed, but others[30] provided no data concerning the criminal proceedings completed along with the court decisions.

The table 1 bellow summarises the data reported by the Member States:

2.2.2. Amounts recovered in relation to anti-fraud investigations pertaining to programming period 2000-2006 and 2007-2013

The information provided by the Member States concerning the amounts recovered in relation to anti-fraud investigations pertaining to programminig periods 2000-2006 and 2007-2013 indicates that the data are not homogenous and sequentially could not be comparable. In fact, no link could be established between the reported in the Irregularity Management System and those reported under this exercise. Two Member States[31] reported large amounts and only one third[32] reported that amounts above EUR 1 million had been recovered following an anti-fraud investigation. For another third[33] the amounts reported in this exercise are of low value, while some Member States[34] reported no amount at all or indicated as” non applicable”. Two Member States[35] indicate that this is due to the fact that the irregular amounts have been deducted before the payment claim of expenditure conncerned has been presented to the Commission.

The table 2 bellow summarises the amounts recovered reported by the Member States related to admisistative and criminal investigations:

*(figure subject to variation; figure does not include the total value of property seizures by the Guardia di Finanza in the context of criminal proceedings, which is € 322 181 684.00)

2.2.3. Personnel assigned and involved in anti-fraud investigations

Finally the table 3 below summarises the situation with regard to personnel assigned and involved in anti-fraud investigations. The data shows that a number of Member States included all staff involved in systems audits and even in audits of transactions because this staff may be involved in anti-fraud operations. As in the case of point 1.2.2 the reported data with regard to the personnel assigned are not homogenous and sequentially not comparable; hence conclusions are difficult to be drawn.

The table 3 bellow summarises the number of personnel assigned and involved in ant-fraud investigations for the period 2007-2011

In conclusion, the Member States’ responses to the questionnaire point to improvements in the financial control and risk management system to prevent fraud in the area of cohesion policy. These include legal provisions and guidelines, national or regional strategies, use of risk indicators, administrative procedures and cooperation between national authorities.

Conversely, further progress is needed on monitoring the results of the administrative and criminal anti-fraud investigations, including recovery of the amounts concerned[36].

It is also clear that better fraud statistics are necessary so that the Commission and the Member States can focus their efforts in higher-risk areas. In that respect, the Commission intends to put more emphasis in the reporting in this area.

Annex: Replies of Member States to the questionnaire "Implementation of Article 325 TFEU by the Member States in 2011"

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

Maximum three most important legislative or administrative measures taken in the course of 2011 for the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraud. These should be measures adopted at Member State’s own initiative and not measures which simply transpose EU legislation. In particular, Member States are 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. (see Annex).

BE || Prosecution Service: College of Public Prosecutors 1.1. Law of 14 April 2011 on various provisions (including Articles 55-57 on the lifting of bank secrecy in cases where there is evidence of tax evasion) (published 6 May 2011). Since 1 July 2011 the tax authorities have been able to access information held by financial institutions about taxpayers if there is evidence of tax fraud within the meaning of the law of 14 April 2001 amending the 1992 Income Tax Code (CIR 92). This possibility of access to banking information also extends to foreign tax authorities bound by a cooperation agreement with Belgium in the framework of reciprocal exchanges of banking information where there is evidence of tax fraud. In such cases the principle of banking secrecy no longer applies and is no longer enforceable. In its report of 12 September 2011 the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found that Belgium had adopted an adequate legislative framework for the transfer of tax data on foreign taxpayers; its implementation will be discussed in more detail by the OECD in 2012 (www.oecd.org). 1.2. The law of 11 July 2011 amending Articles 216bis and 216ter of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 7 of the law of 6 June 2010 introducing the Social Penal Code (published 1 August 2011). This legislative change enables the prosecution service to offer plea bargaining through the payment to the Federal Public Finance Service of a sum of money proportionate to the seriousness of the charges for all offences, including economic and financial (ECOFIN) offences liable to punishment by imprisonment not exceeding two years or to a more severe sanction, including confiscation, not entailing serious physical damage, at any stage of the proceedings even if the examining magistrate has already started investigations or the case is already in court, if the suspect or defendant expresses a desire to make good the wrong caused to another person, provided that no judgment or decision with the force of res judicata has been issued. This judicial measure should make it easier to act more quickly and more appropriately by shortening proceedings in minor cases of fraud prejudicial to the interests of the European Union. 1.3. (Internal) Memo No 9/2011 of 10 May 2011 from the federal prosecutor's office (parquet fédéral) on international cooperation in relation to collaboration between the Belgian federal prosecutor's office and OLAF. This general memo regulates international cooperation between the federal prosecutor's office and OLAF, and describes the role of each within their respective jurisdictions. It also sets out the principles governing OLAF investigations, taking into account the specific environment in which these investigations are conducted. After setting out the principles of OLAF's powers of investigation in the EU countries, paragraph 8 of this memo provides that the initial processing of a file from OLAF should be carried out by the federal prosecutor's office, which acts as the central contact point for international legal institutions, including OLAF. Notification of files on acts constituting fraud against the interests of the EU should be sent by OLAF to the federal prosecutor's office, which will deal with all those destined for the Brussels prosecutor's office at federal level in the interests of uniformity of prosecution and will deal with those destined for other offices on a case-by-case basis with a view to federalising them as well. This measure to centralise OLAF cases will prevent their dispersion among different national judicial authorities and will mark a significant improvement in the quality of their handling, which will henceforth be standardised at national level by the federal prosecutor's office, including the choice of the police force to conduct the investigation, usually the federal police. On the subject of prosecution policy, point 4.2 of the memo sets out the general principle of 'zero tolerance' in the investigation of 'internal' cases brought by OLAF. This general memo also falls within the framework of the criminal policy guidelines set out in the circular on OLAF from the College of Public Prosecutors of 23 July 2003 (COL 9/2003), which also provides for the sending of a copy of the charges to the main coordinator of the College's ECOFIN experts network.

BG || 1. Act Amending and Supplementing the Public Procurement Act (State Gazette (SG) No 93 of 25 November 2011). The adopted law has changed the model for exercising ex-ante control of public procurement procedures that are either fully or partially financed by the EU. The model involves control of the contract notices, the methodology of evaluation of the tenders and, in certain cases, the procedures and decisions for launching procedures. Control will be exercised in two stages: before and after the publication of the contract notice, which will allow a follow-up check of results. The existing practice of exercising joint control by the Public Procurement Agency and the respective Managing Authorities or Intermediate Bodies will be discontinued and only the Agency will be vested with these powers. The anticipated result of exercising ex-ante control is to cover an increased number of procedures and raise their level of compliance with the law. The law envisages a possibility for a contracting authority to appoint a commission to inspect information submitted by the applicants. The commission may request additional details from the applicants as well as from other bodies and persons. Under a new provision an applicant may be disqualified on the grounds of supplying false information to certify compliance with the selection requirements. The new law also introduces a new template for a "decision on change". It allows the contracting authority the possibility to change the terms of the procedure once within 14 days of its opening. It stipulates that every interested party is eligible to request the contracting authority to make changes. This will allow the elimination of infringements and missing information, including those established during the ex-ante control of the Public Procurement Agency, without the need to terminate the procedure. Therefore, time is saved and unnecessary appeals delaying the procedure are avoided. The change does not affect the time schedule of public procurement procedures and does not prejudice the right of the interested party to appeal any decision, action or inaction of the contracting authority. 2. Act Amending and Supplementing the Public Financial Inspection Act (SG No 60 of 5 August 2011). The legislative framework that was in force prior to these changes did not allow the Public Financial Inspection Agency (ADFI), on its own initiative and following an analysis of reports on public procurement activities, to identify contracting authorities subject to control. This prompted a change to the model of ex-post control by the introduction of a new function and regulation of financial controls for awarding and implementing public procurement contracts, conducted periodically by ADFI on the basis of an approved annual schedule. The amendments to the Public Financial Inspections Act and the introduction of a new function of conducting scheduled financial inspections make it possible to identify the specific public procurement contracting authorities, subject to control for the respective year, on the basis of an analysis of reports on their performance and assessment of risk factors. The new law allows for extending the scope of the exercised control so as to focus on the contracting authorities that entail the highest risk. Therefore, more efficient prevention will be ensured and the risk of unregulated disbursement of public finances will be reduced. 3. Act Amending and Supplementing the Customs Act (SG No 82 of 21 October 2011). The amended law vests customs authorities with the following powers: - investigation of customs offences through the establishment of the institute of the investigating customs inspector (Article 10а of the Customs Act); - detention, for a period of 24 hours, of persons for customs, currency and tax offences as set out in Articles 234, 242, 242а, 251, 255 and 256 of the Criminal Code (Articles 16а and 16b of the Customs Act). Paragraph 10 of the Final Provisions of the Act Amending and Supplementing the Customs Act changes the Excise Duties and Tax Warehouses Act (ZADS) and invests police officers with the power to issue statements of administrative infringement, as set out in Article 123(1), (2) and (6) of ZADS (offences related to the sale of goods without excise duty stamps, respectively, forged stamps or ones that have expired or goods that have a DUTY FREE stamp but are sold outside duty free commercial outlets). In these cases the issuing of penal orders and the conducting of criminal proceedings remain within the competence of the Customs Agency. Police authorities will be competent only to institute criminal proceedings (Article 128(3) of ZADS). Administrative measures 1. An order of the Minister of Finance approved a new administrative structure of the Operational Programme Administrative Capacity (OPAC) Directorate under the Ministry of Finance. A new department, Control and Irregularities, has been established to ensure prevention, ex-ante and ex-post control for the purpose of avoiding and reducing irregularities and suspected fraud with regards to OPAC-financed projects. The restructuring covers a specific area and is prompted by the need for additional separation and clarification of the main functions of the OPAC Managing Authority carried out by the respective departments. It is prompted by the European Commission audit report on the OPAC management and control system, recommendations of the Executive Agency Audit of European Union Funds and of the Anti-fraud Coordination Service (AFCOS) Directorate under the Ministry of Interior. The improvements of the existing system are aimed at strengthening the control mechanism at the OPAC Managing Authority, including combating irregularities and fraud, reducing the number of prevented and detected irregularities and attempted fraud within OPAC projects and accelerating the procedures for recovery of unduly received sums. The control mechanism is detailed in the updated Handbook for OPAC Implementation, effective as from 18 May 2011. 2. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Interior and Chair of the Council for Coordination of the Combat of Fraud Affecting the Financial Interests of the EU issued an order on the establishment of a Standing Working Group on Irregularities. The Working Group has two heads and a secretary, nominated by AFCOS under the Ministry of Interior, while its 34 members are nominated by the competent institutions, represented in the Council and involved in the management, audit and certification of the EU funds disbursement. The Working Group carries out analytical activity, resolves problematic and controversial cases involving irregularities, and establishes benchmarks for the settlement of identical problems; discusses errors made on a regular basis by the officers in charge of irregularities; exchanges experience, good practices and information about new practices; analyses and summarises information about more typical irregularities, cases, opinions etc, so as to compile them into a handbook when enough of these are gathered; where necessary, acts on requests for information, on-spot checks or assistance by the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF)/European Commission. 3. Specialised training and exchange of experience between the Italian and Bulgarian authorities in the implementation of the project on sharing of Italian experience in prevention and countering fraud against EU funds with the competent Bulgarian authorities. The project was implemented under the Hercule II Programme. The project beneficiary was Guardia di Finanza and AFCOS Directorate, under the Ministry of Interior, the Bulgarian partner within the project. In the period 23 January to 11 February 2011, 25 prosecutors, investigators, police investigators and experts working in the field of administrative and criminal investigation of fraud involving EU funds were trained under the project at the structures of Guardia di Finanza. The training was conducted in two stages: a theoretical module at the police school of Guardia di Finanza in Lido di Ostia from 23 January to 6 February and practical training in four regional structures of Guardia di Finanza in Italy from 7 February to 11 February. The results achieved during training and the possibilities for the Italian experience to be used by the Bulgarian competent authorities were discussed and summarised during the conclusive module of the project held at the Interior Ministry Academy in Sofia on 17-18 February 2011. The Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Interior, Chair of the Council for Coordination of the Combat of Fraud Affecting the Financial Interests of the EU and the Italian Ambassador in Sofia all took part.

CZ || Amendments to the binding procedures for the award of contracts co-financed from EU resources not covered by Act 137/2006 on public procurement for the 2007-2013 programming period (approved by means of Government Resolution No 48/2009). Table of penalties drawn up in line with COCOF (Guidelines for determining financial corrections to be made to expenditure co-financed by the Structural Funds or the Cohesion Fund for non-compliance with the rules on public procurement) with a view to harmonising penalties relating to the awarding of contracts co-financed from EU resources not covered by Act 137/2006. An amendment to Act 137/2006, which was intended to be a significant improvement in the fight against corruption, is currently going through the legislative procedure (expected to enter into force on 1 January 2012). The major changes introduced by the amendment include a lower threshold of CZK 1 million triggering an obligation to issue a call for tender for supplies and services, and CZK 3 million for construction (the current thresholds are 2 million and 6 million, respectively, excluding VAT). Another change is an obligation to disclose information about the final price. The Act also lays down an obligation to advertise all contracts for a value exceeding CZK 500 000.

DK || No significant new measures were taken in 2011 for the protection of the EU's financial interests and the fight against fraud.

DE || Measures to reduce ineligible expenditure and reduce the risk of corruption: - On 1 June 2001, amendments to the Law on the prevention of conflicts of interest in the activities of State officials entered into force. The amendments provide for the legal protection of individuals who have given information on State officials' conflicts of interest. Pursuant to the amendments, the head of a central or local government authority, person responsible for preventing conflicts of interest and corruption at the relevant authority, or a collegiate body are prohibited from disclosing information that has become known to them concerning which official or member of staff of the relevant central or local government authority has provided information on conflicts of interest. Neither are they permitted to directly or indirectly create unfavourable consequences for the individual without due cause. The prohibition to disclose information does not apply to the provision of information to the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB), State Police, Constitutional Defense Bureau, court or prosecutor's office. Information on conflicts of interest of which a State official is aware and which involve other State officials of the particular government body must be provided to the head of that body or to the KNAB. Information held by a State official employed by the State security services is provided to the Director of the Constitutional Defense Bureau. - On 20 July 2011 amendments to Article 166.33 of the Administrative Infringements Code entered into force. These amendments establish administrative liability relating to the infringement of the aforementioned ban on disclosing information relating to a person who has provided information on the conflicts of interest of another State official, and the creation of unfavourable consequences for the informant without due cause. This legal protection is necessary to ensure the protection of whistleblowers, which could help prevent infringements and make them easier to detect, thereby reducing the risk of corruption and potentially mitigating the threat to the EU's financial interests. - In 2011 amendments were made to Cabinet Regulation No 410 of 26 June 2007 laying down the procedure according to which the bodies involved in the management of the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund prepare programming documents and implement the funds. The amendments state that from now on, preliminary checks of procurement will be intensified, with the aim of preventing procurement-related infringements. It is anticipated that from 2 December 2012 onwards, preliminary procurement checks will be carried out not only by the Procurement Monitoring Bureau (PMB), but also by the Responsible Authorities (RA)/Liaison Bodies (LB). Along with performing the checks, the PMB will also provide methodological guidance. A method has already been devised which the RA/LB have to incorporate into their procedures and apply when carrying out preliminary procurement checks. Furthermore, the PMB has the responsibility of keeping the methodology up-to-date and in line with the latest changes to legislation or EU case law. Beyond this, the PMB will also ensure that regular meetings are held with the persons carrying out the preliminary checks of RA/LB procurement, in order to discuss practices and develop a common understanding of procurement infringements. - To prevent irregularities in projects implemented by State authorities, the issue of making disciplinary penalties more stringent was considered at the Cabinet meeting of 8 March 2011 at the initiative of the Ministry of Finance. In addition a proposal has been made to consider whether to establish a similar system of penalties at the local government level. Measures to recover ineligible expenditure - On 10 January 2011 the Guidelines for reporting irregularities in the implementation of EU funds and the recovery of undue expenditure in the 2007-13 programming period were updated. The guidelines were broadened to cover the identification of cases of fraud, information on potential situations in which the project will need to be the subject of increased scrutiny, in what cases the law enforcement authorities need to be contacted, and other clarifications added. – On 26 June 2011 the Guidelines for applying financial corrections to projects financed from EU Fundwere updated. Annex 2 to the Guidelines was fundamentally updated and supplemented with practical examples, based on experience, of how a proportionate financial correction is applied. Training: on 27 May 2011 the Managing Authority for the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund held a training course for prosecutors, which covered a range of EU-funds-related issues, including the nature and identification of irregularities etc.

EE || 1.Government of the Republic Regulation No 278 'Conditions and procedure for recovering and repaying aid and for providing information on irregularities arising during the granting and use of aid'. Amendments entered into force on 8 July 2011, in part on 1 January 2012. - The Act further specified the requirements for public procurements below the public procurement threshold. - The amendments standardise the rules, comparable errors will result in equivalent recoveries. - Irregularities in public procurements are increasingly being detected, sanctions have been harmonised https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13348007?leiaKehtiv 2. On 13 February 2011 amendments to the 2007-2013 Structural Assistance Act entered into force. Expenditure must be linked to the supported project and may not already have been reimbursed from EU funds; restriction on the granting of funds to local governments whose debt obligations exceed the permitted threshold; stopping aid payments by the implementing body, i.e. where there is doubt as to the continued viability of the project for further information to be requested and investigation to be carried out - Amendments further define and harmonise the rules - Emphasising the ban on double-financing helps reduce the risks and encourages the implementing bodies to carry out more thorough checks https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/103022011002

IE || N/A

ES || Law 6/2011 of the 30th of June, which amends the Law of 12/1995 of the fight against contraband (Ley Orgánica 6/2011, de 30 de junio, modifica la Ley Orgánica 12/1995 de represión del contrabando) To guarantee proper and fair trading and to protect EU financial interests, Spanish legislation classifies certain types of associated conduct as smuggling. In particular, and in line with this objective, Spain classifies as an offence actions intended to illicitly introduce goods, in complement to the regulation of offences affecting EU finances provided for in the Penal Code and amended in 2010. As a result, the reform undertaken is likely to have an impact on EU financial interests, and specifically the duties of the customs authorities as regards the avoidance of customs controls and the payment of EU resources. The key points of the reform in relation to the part directly concerning the illicit introduction of goods are as follows: - Increase in the quantitative assessment threshold of goods for the re-classification as an unlawful offence as opposed to an administrative infringement. - Increase in the maximum sentences for the offence and the maximum pecuniary fines for committing offences and for administrative smuggling infringements. - Regulation of the system of criminal responsibility for legal persons similar to that provided for in the Penal Code for offences affecting national or EU public finances. - Specific inclusion in the concept of civil responsibility arising from the offence of unpaid tax and customs liabilities, which the authorities have not been able to clear for any legal grounds provided for in national or EU legislation. - Specific introduction by the tax authorities of an assistance mechanism for judges and courts to impose fines and civil responsibility. - Introduction as an aggravating factor of the sanction for an administrative smuggling infringement of the filing of an incorrect customs statement with the intention of avoiding the computerised control thereof. Decision of 2 February 2011 of the Directorate-General of the State Tax Authority establishing new wording for the general guidelines of the general plan for tax control The introduction of these guidelines is intended to promote and give greater visibility to the action against fraud in 2011 so as to optimise their use as a tool in the prevention of and fight against tax fraud Ley 6/2011, de 23 de marzo, de Subvenciones de la Comunidad Autónoma de Extremadura [Law No 6 of 23 March 2011 on grants of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura]. In the Autonomous Community of Extremadura (administrative measures): boosting physical or material inspections of subsidised projects or assets to obtain sufficient evidence of the investment having been carried out.

EL || (1) Articles 1 and 2 of Law 3932/2011 (Government Gazette 49/10.3.2011) established the ‘Authority for the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism and for Control of Declarations of Assets.’ In this way the pre-existing Committee under Article 7 of Law 3691/2008 was upgraded to an Authority for combating three particularly harmful types of criminal behaviour: (a) money laundering, (b) the financing of terrorism, and (c) unlawful enrichment. (2) Law 3961/2011 (Government Gazette 97/29.4.2011), revised the existing law on the responsibility of ministers. It provided for the following: • The extension of the time limitation of crimes of ministers, in line with what applies to ordinary citizens; • The possibility of imposing restrictive conditions on ministers, such as a ban on leaving the country; • The compulsory seizure of the financial gains associated with the criminal offence under investigation, by decision of the Parliamentary Committee; • The possibility of freezing accounts, securities and financial products. (3) Under Law 3843/2011 amending the National Customs Code (Law 2960/01), Article 157(1)(C) of Law 2960/01 was replaced; as a result for large cases of duty and tax evasion of over €150 000, the penalties are more severe and punishable by the competent criminal courts as serious crimes, with no upper limit on sentencing.

FI || Government Decree No 501/2011 on the eligibility of expenditure co-financed by the structural funds. Under this Decree, a percentage of the indirect expenditure on structural fund projects may be reimbursed on the basis of an application, thereby making it easier for eligible indirect expenditure to be verified, checked and certified.

FR || As regards the CICC for EU funds (ERDF-ESF-EFF), Law No 2011-900 of 29 July 2011 on amending finances for 2011 reinforced the national audit authority (ERDF-ESF-EFF) by linking general economic and financial audits (audit bodies of financial ministers) We would remind you that the CICC for EU funds is responsible for notifying any irregularities detected (systems audits and audits for ERDF-ESF and EFF transactions) to OLAF.

IT || 1) Lombardy Region: Review and approval by decree n. 7258 of 02/08/2011 of the irregularity manuals and on-site inspections (new check list for on site control and implementing the new procedures IMS) and review of approval of "Operational models for functioning of the Group of Verifiers on site for control activities in Level I of Operational regional Programme ERDF Competitiveness 2007-2013 "adopted by decree no. Of 3317 12/04/2011. 2) Marche Region: Regional Law No 29 April 2011. Article 7. 55 "Revocation of company support interventions." It is a law of horizontal scope, which was necessary to regulate better the manner of calculation of interest and any sanctions for revocation, even partial, of the benefits granted in connection with operations of the Region to support the companies where, as a result of checks carried out for whatever reason, are detected irregularities or breaches of contracts for acts which are attributable to the beneficiary and not remediable 3) Calabria Region: Circular no. 2274 of 14/04/2011 concerning the Recoveries of irregular amounts, to put into effects the Article. 70 b) of EC Regulation 1083/2006 about the obligation of Member States to correct irregularities and recover amounts properly paid. With this Circular are defined the persons in charge for the initiation of the recovery procedures (Arrangement of the revocation, decree, injunction decree, etc..) and communication with the Managing and Certification Authority

CY || No important measures have been taken in 2011

LT || The Rules for the administration of European Union Cohesion Fund resources in Lithuania, approved by Resolution No 1026 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 24 August 2001 (Official Gazette 2001, Nos 74-2596; 2008, 87-3483), as amended by Resolution No 905 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 24 August 2011 (Official Gazette 2011, No 105-4914). The main amendment makes it clear that irregularities are investigated by the implementing bodies or, if the suspected irregularities relate to public procurement carried out by the implementing bodies, by intermediate bodies, the latter taking decisions on any irregularities detected. Arrangements for notifying suspected and detected irregularities and suspected criminal acts and for recording information in the computerised information management and monitoring system for EU structural assistance (SFMIS) have also been revised.

LU || EU legislation applied fully in second-level controls by the audit authority, which include taking additional samples if necessary.

HU || 1.In order to detect and handle irregularities in a quicker and more efficient manner and to implement corrections Government Decree 4/2011 of 28 January 2011 on the rules governing utilisation of the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and Order 24/2011 of 6 May 2011 of the Minister for National Development on the Common Operational Handbook were introduced in the programming period 2007-2013. In accordance with the new rules, the Public Procurement Supervisory Department set up within the National Development Agency examines the public procurement of the beneficiaries by audits integrated in the process and by ex-post audits. If infringements are detected it may turn to the Public Procurement Arbitration Board. Appeals against the decisions of the institutional system have been introduced. Upon request the National Development Agency examines at second instance the lawfulness of the decision made at first instance. The right of the inspecting authority to establish irregularities, the setting up of the simplified irregularity procedure to assess simple instance the lawfulness of the decision made at first instance. The right of the inspecting authority to establish irregularities, the setting up of the simplified irregularity procedure to assess simple cases, and the possibility of suspending payments at any time throughout the whole inspection period have been introduced. 2. Section 122 of Act XXXVIII of 1992 on the state budget has been in force since 1 January 2011. Section 122(1) of the State Budget Act, referring to the supervision of aid, states that any person receiving aid from the national budget or from EU sources shall cooperate with the organisations participating in and supervising the aid procedure and shall assist the representatives of the inspecting bodies – in particular the European Court of Auditors, the competent services of the European Commission, the State Audit Office, the state audit body, the audit bodies of the chapters, the treasury, the authorities managing EU aid, the paying, certifying and inspection authority - in the audit by making available the relevant documents, invoices, certificates and reports proving accomplishment and by assisting with on-the-spot inspection of physical performance. If, in the course of the inspection, the beneficiary obstructs the work of the inspection bodies through conduct attributable to him/her, the aid decision shall cease to be valid, the aid agreement shall be terminated and no further aid shall be disbursed to the beneficiary, and the beneficiary shall be obliged to repay the aid used to that date. (2) The bodies conducting external and internal financial audit of the state budget shall cooperate with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) investigating the lawfulness of the utilisation of aid from EU resources. (3) The inspection powers of the body appointed by the Government to examine EU and other international aid shall apply to inspection relating to aid granted from resources laid down in a separate Government Decree (a) of the institutions involved in settlement, (b) of the legal entities, organisations without legal personality, and natural persons receiving aid, (c) of procurements relating to the aid, the performance of contracts concluded for this purpose and, in this connection, of contracting parties responsible for the performance of the contract or collaborating in it. 3. Section 310 of Act IV of 1978 on the Criminal Code (in force from 1 January 2012). In connection with budget fraud, Section 310 states: (1) It is an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to two years (a) to mislead, deliberately foster misapprehension or conceal facts in respect of budgetary payment obligations or budgetary funds, (b) to use unlawfully any benefits connected to budgetary payment obligations, (c) to use budgetary funds for a purpose other than that approved, and thereby cause financial loss to one or more budgets. (2) Imprisonment shall be for up to three years if (a) the budgetary fraud causes greater financial loss, (b) the budgetary fraud referred to under paragraph (1) is committed (ba) in a criminal organisation, (bb) for gain. (3) Imprisonment shall be for up to five years if (a) the budgetary fraud causes significant financial loss, (b) the budgetary fraud causing greater financial loss as referred to in (2)(a) is committed in the manner specified in paragraph (2)(b), subpoints (ba) and (bb). (4) Imprisonment shall be between two and eight years if (a) the budgetary fraud causes particularly large financial loss, (b) the budgetary fraud causing significant financial loss as referred to in (3)(a) is committed in the manner specified in paragraph (2)(b), subpoints (ba) and (bb). (5) Imprisonment shall be between five and ten years if (a) the budgetary fraud causes major financial loss, (b) the budgetary fraud causing particularly large financial loss as referred to in (4)(a) is committed in the manner specified in paragraph (2)(b), subpoints (ba) and (bb). (6) Any person who produces, acquires, holds, places on the market or sells excise goods in the absence of the conditions laid down in the act on excise duties and special rules governing the distribution of excise goods and in the legislative act based on the authorisation of the latter act or without an official permit, and thereby causes financial loss to the budget, shall be punishable in accordance with paragraphs (1)-(5). (7) Failure to comply with or to comply fully with the accounting or reporting obligation laid down for budgetary funds, the making of an inaccurate statement or use of inaccurate, false or falsified documents constitutes an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. (8) Punishment may be reduced without limitation for any person who repays the financial loss caused by the crime specified under paragraphs (1)-(6) before the indictment is submitted. The unlimited reduction may not be used if the offence specified under paragraphs (1)-(6) has been committed in a criminal organisation or for gain. Section 310/A states that a manager, member with supervisory powers or employee of a business organisation shall commit an offence punishable by imprisonment of up to five years, if he/she fails to comply with the supervision or control obligations in connection with budgetary fraud, and a member or employee of the business organisation commits a crime punishable under Section 310 in the interests of the business organisation, which could have been prevented by the such supervision or control.

LV || Measures to reduce ineligible expenditure and reduce the risk of corruption: - On 1 June 2001, amendments to the Law on the prevention of conflicts of interest in the activities of State officials entered into force. The amendments provide for the legal protection of individuals who have given information on State officials' conflicts of interest. Pursuant to the amendments, the head of a central or local government authority, person responsible for preventing conflicts of interest and corruption at the relevant authority, or a collegiate body are prohibited from disclosing information that has become known to them concerning which official or member of staff of the relevant central or local government authority has provided information on conflicts of interest. Neither are they permitted to directly or indirectly create unfavourable consequences for the individual without due cause. The prohibition to disclose information does not apply to the provision of information to the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau (KNAB), State Police, Constitutional Defense Bureau, court or prosecutor's office. Information on conflicts of interest of which a State official is aware and which involve other State officials of the particular government body must be provided to the head of that body or to the KNAB. Information held by a State official employed by the State security services is provided to the Director of the Constitutional Defense Bureau. - On 20 July 2011 amendments to Article 166.33 of the Administrative Infringements Code entered into force. These amendments establish administrative liability relating to the infringement of the aforementioned ban on disclosing information relating to a person who has provided information on the conflicts of interest of another State official, and the creation of unfavourable consequences for the informant without due cause. This legal protection is necessary to ensure the protection of whistleblowers, which could help prevent infringements and make them easier to detect, thereby reducing the risk of corruption and potentially mitigating the threat to the EU's financial interests. - In 2011 amendments were made to Cabinet Regulation No 410 of 26 June 2007 laying down the procedure according to which the bodies involved in the management of the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund prepare programming documents and implement the funds. The amendments state that from now on, preliminary checks of procurement will be intensified, with the aim of preventing procurement-related infringements. It is anticipated that from 2 December 2012 onwards, preliminary procurement checks will be carried out not only by the Procurement Monitoring Bureau (PMB), but also by the Responsible Authorities (RA)/Liaison Bodies (LB). Along with performing the checks, the PMB will also provide methodological guidance. A method has already been devised which the RA/LB have to incorporate into their procedures and apply when carrying out preliminary procurement checks. Furthermore, the PMB has the responsibility of keeping the methodology up-to-date and in line with the latest changes to legislation or EU case law. Beyond this, the PMB will also ensure that regular meetings are held with the persons carrying out the preliminary checks of RA/LB procurement, in order to discuss practices and develop a common understanding of procurement infringements. - To prevent irregularities in projects implemented by State authorities, the issue of making disciplinary penalties more stringent was considered at the Cabinet meeting of 8 March 2011 at the initiative of the Ministry of Finance. In addition a proposal has been made to consider whether to establish a similar system of penalties at the local government level. Measures to recover ineligible expenditure - On 10 January 2011 the Guidelines for reporting irregularities in the implementation of EU funds and the recovery of undue expenditure in the 2007-13 programming period were updated. The guidelines were broadened to cover the identification of cases of fraud, information on potential situations in which the project will need to be the subject of increased scrutiny, in what cases the law enforcement authorities need to be contacted, and other clarifications added. – On 26 June 2011 the Guidelines for applying financial corrections to projects financed from EU Fundwere updated. Annex 2 to the Guidelines was fundamentally updated and supplemented with practical examples, based on experience, of how a proportionate financial correction is applied. Training: on 27 May 2011 the Managing Authority for the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund held a training course for prosecutors, which covered a range of EU-funds-related issues, including the nature and identification of irregularities etc.

MT || 1a. (Value Added Tax) Act IV of 2011 (an act to implement budget measures for the financial year 2011 and other administrative measures) was published on 22/3/2011. This Act amended (amongst others) sub-article 77(d) of the Value Added Tax Act. (Article 77 of the Value Added Tax Act deals with irregularities in records, etc. and false represenatations). This addition states that it is a criminal offence possessing or supplying to another person software used to erase, destroy, damage or conceal any stored information, records, documents or accounts (with the intent of concealing any evidence which he/she knows is relevant for the purposes of the Value Added Tax Act).1b. (Value Added Tax) Act IV of 2011 also provides for increased fines regarding sub-articles 77(c) and (d) of the afore mentioned Value Added Tax (VAT) Act, for falsifying records, documents, or accounts required to be kept by the VAT Act, and for destroying, erasing, damaging or concealing information or records or documents or accounts relevant for the purposes of the VAT Act.

NL || No important legislative or administrative measures were taken in the course of 2011.

AT || OP Phasing Out Burgenland acc. MA: The management and control system for the programme Phasing Out Burgenland 2007-2013 ESF is structured to guarantee a high degree of security and avoid cases of fraud.

PL || 1. Amendment of the 'Guidelines of the Minister for Regional Development on the audit process under the responsibility of the Managing Authority for the Operational Programme'. The amendment covered, inter alia, the drafting of a separate section laying down the conditions for carrying out horizontal cross-checks against projects implemented under the 'Sustainable development of the fisheries sector and coastal fishing areas 2007-13' OP, which should help increase the effectiveness of checks on the double financing of expenses paid using resources from the aforementioned programme and the programmes of the National Strategic Reference Frameworks. 2. Adoption of instructions on the principles and methodology for establishing irrecoverability or for deeming traditional EU own resources from customs duties to be irrecoverable and for removing the value of such duties from the TOR report. The instructions were approved by the Head of the Customs Service in December 2011. 3. Adoption of a document entitled 'Imposing financial corrections for infringements of public procurement law connected with the implementation of projects cofinanced by the EU from the External Border Fund, the European Refugee Fund and the European Return Fund under the General Programme 'Solidarity and Management of Migration Flows''. The procedure was introduced in January 2011 by decision of the Chairman of the Interministerial Team for the Schengen Fund, the Norwegian Financial Mechanism, the European Refugee Fund, the External Border Fund and the European Return Fund. In the event of infringement of the rules governing the award of public contracts in respect of projects cofinanced by the above funds, the Implementing Authority for European Programmes will implement the procedure for imposing financial corrections in accordance with the aforementioned document.

PT || (A) During 2011 a new import declaration system came in, which will allow for an interface with the Automatic Selection System (SSA). Risk analysis and assessment will become fully automated and customs controls will become more effectively focused on high-risk consignments while customs clearance times will be reduced for regular goods. (B) In 2011, in connection with the PROMAR programme, the managing authority applied the law prohibiting access to PROMAR funding for project organisers with any links to fishing vessels included on the Community or regional lists. (C) In 2011 the PROMAR managing authority improved its template for reports of on-site monitoring visits to operators, to be conducted at the latest by their closure, involving more detailed checks of operations to verify compliance with organisational, financial, accounting, technical and physical elements of public procurement rules and with rules on information and publicity. This will allow irregularities to be identified and corrected, and in future, avoided.

RO || 1. Consolidation of the anti fraud regulatory framework In 2011, the anti fraud regulatory framework has been consolidated through the adoption of Act No 61/2011 on the organisation and functioning of the Anti Fraud Department (DLAF), published in Official Gazette of Romania Part I No 331 of 12 May 2011, and Government Decision No 738/2011 approving the rules governing the organisation and functioning of the Anti Fraud Department (DLAF), published in Official Gazette of Romania Part I No 553 of 4 August 2011. The new institutional framework ensures independent decision making and institutional stability, has extended and consolidated the control powers and has endowed DLAF with legal personality. The legislative framework has also been supplemented by the introduction of penalties for non compliance with a specific duty in carrying out control tasks as regards the protection of the financial interests of the European Union. These amendments have strengthened, from an administrative point of view, DLAF’s functional independence and institutional stability, and have created a solid and predictable legal framework for the organisation and functioning of DLAF. 2. Improving the public procurement system Government Decision No 801/2011 amending Government Decision No 525/2007 on the organisation and functioning of the National Regulatory and Monitoring Authority for Public Procurement (ANRMAP), published in Official Gazette of Romania Part I No 563 of 8 August 2011, has introduced the task of verifying the documentation on the awarding of public procurement contracts with an estimated value of more than the RON equivalent of €15 000, representing the threshold above which it is mandatory to apply a public procurement procedure in accordance with Government Emergency Order No 34/2006. Thus, ANRMAP will be able to verify that the documentation complies with the legislation applicable in the field of public procurement. That check does not cover the technical aspects of the tender specifications. The same package of measures relating to public procurement also included Order No 313/2011 of the President of ANRMAP on interpreting certain provisions concerning the procedures for awarding public procurement contracts, concession contracts for public works and concession contracts for services. That interpretation refers in particular to legal entities that do not act as contracting authorities and do not fall within the scope of Article 9(c) and (c1) of Government Emergency Order No 34/2006 as amended, and which can also be financed/subsidised through the structural instruments. The National Authority for Regulating and Monitoring Public Procurements (ANRMAP) has concluded cooperation agreements with the Managing Authorities, the Unit for Coordinating and Verifying Public Procurements, the National Trade Register Office, the Competition Office, and the Directorate-General for Public Records 3. Measures aimed at protecting revenue for the budget of the EU The National Tax Administration Agency (ANAF) has developed the software application called ‘Traffic Control’ for managing information concerning transports of goods representing intra Community acquisitions. The application enables the monitoring and risk analysis of suspect intra Community acquisitions, thus contributing to the efficient control of amounts representing revenue for the national budget and for the budget of the EU. Order No 1984/2011 of the Minister for Public Finances on criteria applying to registration for VAT purposes has been drawn up in order to reduce fraud and fiscal evasion in the field of VAT (a key source of revenue for the budget of the EU). That regulatory act has established a new procedure and the criteria applying to the registration of companies for VAT purposes, in accordance with Article 153(1)(a) and (c). Under the new procedure, registration for VAT purposes consists of two steps: (i) documentary check; (ii) factual check carried out by the Financial Guard at the request of ANAF.

SE || European Fisheries Fund (EFF) Fisheries Project On 1 July 2011 the Swedish Board of Agriculture (Statens Jordbruksverk) took over the administration of the EFF from the Swedish Board of Fisheries (Fiskeriverket). The move has meant that there will be opportunities for synergies through coordination with the Board of Agriculture's existing work and the systems available there. On 11 April 2011 the Board of Fisheries adopted a quality assurance system, the purpose of which is to monitor whether the Managing Authority is operating according to the rules and complying with established administrative procedures. By extension, this will ensure that the Managing Authority can guarantee that the content of a particular declaration of expenditure is truthful, correct and complete. The quality assurance system includes a quality control of the procedures of the Provincial Administration and the Board of Agriculture/Fisheries which is carried out by an official who was not involved in the aid measure to be verified. The Board of Agriculture will follow up all of the control reports for the control period up until 31 August 2011. The quality assurance system also includes physical checks on projects receiving support. The planning of the changes, which will lead to the development of administrative measures aimed at protecting the EU's financial interests and preventing fraud, will take place in the course of 2011. With the transfer of the EFF to the Board of Agriculture, the processing of EFF matters will be coordinated with other forms of aid dealt with by the Board of Agriculture, which means that attention has been focused on the potential for developing EFF operations. The quality assurance system will be updated, follow-up to quality controls will be improved, the selection of targets for physical controls will be reviewed and a data system for procedures with different versions will be introduced.

SI || The Commission for the Prevention of Fraud has launched a web application called Supervizor (available at: http://supervizor.kpk-rs.si/) for monitoring the expenditure of public institutions. This web service allows the general public, media, businesses and State bodies to view expenditure by public institutions on goods and services. Transparency in the flow of money between the public and private sector makes holders of public office more responsible for using public funds efficiently and effectively, facilitates debate on adopted and planned investments, reduces the risk of mismanagement and the abuse of authority, and, in particular, limits systemic corruption, unfair competition and clientelism. Progress is also apparent in the latest reports on the reporting of irregularities to OLAF which show more reporting of IRQ5s and IRQ3s, thus ensuring more coherent and effective oversight of all national institutions.

SK || 1. The document "Problematic areas of implementation of operational programmes and horizontal priorities of the National Strategic Reference Framework", adopted by Government Resolution No 323/2011 of 18 May 2011. Its purpose is to provide comprehensive information on problematic areas of implementation. For each problematic area identified, the facts of the situation and the specific tasks required to improve it are described. Successful completion of the specified tasks is expected to make the implementation of the operational programmes and horizontal priorities both faster and more effective. 2. By Resolution No 689 of 2 November 2011 the Slovak Government approved a proposal for a new register of projects financed through recoverable and non-recoverable financial assistance from public funds. The register enables information on projects on Slovak territory financed from recoverable and non-recoverable financial assistance to be coordinated and shared, the aim being to prevent duplicate project financing. The deadline for completing the register of projects financed through recoverable and non-recoverable financial assistance from public funds is twelve months from the adoption of the Government Resolution. 3. Update No 3 to Ministry of Finance Guideline No 16/2008-U on irregularities in the financial management of the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund lays down the detailed procedure for eliminating financial-management irregularities in the 2007-2013 programming period, concerning the data processing of irregularities and reconciled funds via interconnecting IT systems (the ITMS monitoring system and the ISUF accounting system) and the calculation of net reciprocal obligations from a non-recoverable financial contribution; the Irregularities Notification Manual Version 4.0 addresses inter alia the recording and reporting of irregularities in the IMS system, which has operated at national level since 2009, and the methodology for classifying irregularities that are the subject of criminal proceedings.

UK || SG: No significant changes for 2011. DCLG: No significant changes in 2011, DFPNI: The Bribery Act came into force on 1 July. The aims of the Act are to reduce the levels of corruption across the UK without being burdensome to business. There are four key offences under the Act: General Offences: bribery of another person (section 1); accepting a bribe (section 2) Commercial Offences: bribing a foreign public official (section 6); failure of a commercial organisation to prevent bribery (section 7). A revised copy of the NI Civil Service's Managing the Risk of Fraud Guide was issued to all departments in NI in December 2011. "Dear Accounting Officer" letters were also issued to departments alerting them to the introduction of the Bribery Act; highlighting the risk of supplier details changes leading to fraudulent loss; and outlining arrangements for departments to notify the NI Charity Commission where potential fraud issues are identified within charitable bodies. WG: Last year we identified the appointment of a new Head of Counter Fraud for the Welsh Government, the development and acceptance of our new Counter Fraud Strategy and the planning and preparation for new legislation in relation to Bribery for 2011. Building on from this the Welsh Governments, Counter Fraud Branch has introduced separate Fraud and Corruption Risk Assessments authorised and supported by the Corporate Governance Committee, for each area of the business, including European Funding. These risk assessments identify and grade the risk areas and identifying the measures to minimise, erradicate or manage the risk on a regular basis. Each area of business within the Welsh Government has ownership of their identified risk areas and those with a greater risk must reviewed quarterly. They are submitted to the Head of Counter Fraud who identifies the higher risk areas for a Welsh Government Corporatel Fraud and Corruption Risk Register. They are discussed with IAS and EFAT to take recognizance and influence the Audit Plan for the next 12 months. They also enable us to identify and target higher risk areas such as procurement and grant funding including the EU's financial interests. No fraud risk assessments were in place prior to this. The Bribery Act 2010 went live on the 1st July 2011 and has created two new offences of bribing a foreign official and allowing bribery to occur unless you have adequate precautions in place. The Act also gives guidance from the Secreatary of State on what is likely to be acceptable business practice and acceptable corporate hospitality. Anything outside of the guidance is likely to be a criminal offence under the Act. We have and continue to be proactive in communicating and raising awareness of the new and existing legislation across all parts of the Welsh Government.

2. Controls To Combat Irregularities And Fraud Against The Financial Interests Of The EU In The Area Of Cohesion Policy

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 three measures (within the national legal framework and or administrative procedures) taken in the period 2007-2011 which have substantially contributed to better prevention of cases of suspected fraud in the area of the Cohesion Policy or/and improvements in the risk management system. These measures could be disseminated as best practices among the MS.

BE || ERDF Wallonia: Decree of the Walloon Government laying down common eligibility rules for the ERDF and setting up a First-Level Documentary Control Directorate ESF Agency Flanders (ESF-VL): Procedure for MA on-the-spot checks adapted, basic risk analysis of financial reports submitted, so that the check takes place before payment on the basis of the relevant reports. European Social Fund (ESF) Agency: Establishment of a recurrent procedure for the detection of double financing of expenditure within the CPAS financed by the ESF, the Federal government (in the form of the SPP IS, the Federal Public Planning Service for Social Integration) and the Walloon Region (ESF Agency). (2008-2013 Competitiveness Programme for the CPAS or CPAS associations cofinanced by the two Belgian bodies). ERDF Wallonia: Sharing information with administrations functionally responsible at coordination meetings, information meetings with beneficiaries, and reminders about constraints at meetings of the OLAF inter-administrative working party on the importance of adherence to the applicable rules for preventing irregularities and fraud. Emphasis on adhering to public procurement rules, the list of eligible expenditure, the risk of double financing, etc. in documentary and on-the-spot checks. D2 EFRO VL (ERDF Obj. 2 Flanders): increased focus on compliance with public procurement rules (ex ante through practical guidelines and requirement to submit procurement plan before project approval, ex post by carrying out thorough documentary and on-the-spot checks) ERDF Brussels Capital Region: 1) development of a standard procedure with a checklist and a standard report for on-the-spot checks, plus implementation of on-the-spot checks (achievements, administrative and financial/accounting checks) as soon as project implementation starts and at least once per project before the end of programming; 2) double first-level control for each payment request (accounting + R1); 3) development of tools/procedures for beneficiaries (e.g. providing for the obligation to enter an ERDF stamp on the original invoices).

BG || Legislative measures: 1. The State Financial Inspectorate Act has been amended (by SG No 98 of 14 November 2008) to reinforce control of the allocation of EU funds and improve coordination and cooperation with the European Commission's control authorities for the implementation of Articles 14 and 15 of Council Regulation (Euratom, EC) 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. It ensures that the Commission's auditors can count on the assistance of the Public Financial Inspection Agency (ADFI) when performing audits or on-the-spot checks under the Regulation in the event that the event that the organisations and persons being audited refuse to provide access voluntarily to premises and/or documents for the purpose of controls. For the effectiveness of cooperation, AFI also disposes of appropriate instruments, including means of coercion for gathering information and securing evidence. 2. Under subparagraphs 22 and 24 of the Article 19(2) of the Public Procurement Act, in force since 1 January 2009, the Public Procurement Agency (AOP) performs two types of ex ante control. The first concerns procedures for the award of contracts financed wholly or partly by European funds (the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund). The terms and conditions for such control are laid down in a Regulation on ex ante control over public procurement procedures wholly or partly financed by European funds. The second type of ex ante control concerns contracting procedures without publication initiated under subparagraphs 3-9 and 12 of Article 90(1) ZOP by contracting authorities referred to in subparagraphs 1-4 of Article 7 ZOP (Article 19(2)(24) ZOP). Control is performed with a view to establishing the legality of the procdedure's selection and covers the contracting authority's decisions to initiate the procedures, the invitations to tender adopted and the documents sent out. 3. Amendments to Council of Minister’s Decree No 18/2003 (SG No 39 of 26 May 2009; SG No 71 of 4 September 2009; SG No 97 of 8 December 2009; SG No 54 of 15 July 2011) establish the Council for Coordination of the Combat of Fraud Affecting the Financial Interests of the EU. They also create a uniform mechanism for reporting irregularities and fraud at national level, which ensures high-level coordination of all structures that administer EU funds and improved coordination and performance when detecting and monitoring irregularities. Furthermore, the powers of AFCOS to carry out administrative checks, ascertain infringements and make recommendations for their elimination, as well as to provide methodological instructions enhances the efficiency of the systems for administration and reporting of irregularities and countering fraud. 4. Council of Ministers Decree No 285 of 30 November 2009, which was published in SG No 97 of 8 December 2009 and entered into force the same day, adopted a Regulation laying down the procedures for handling irregularities under funds and programmes cofinanced by the European Union. 5. Council of Ministers' Decree No 134/2010 (SG No 53 of 13 July 2010) on the adoption of a methodology for applying financial corrections to expenditure, related to the implementation of the operational programmes co-financed by the structural instruments of the European Union, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development and the European Fisheries Fund. The methodology aims at detecting irregularities in the implementation of grant contracts and those stemming from non-compliance with the provisions of the Public Procurement Act, the Regulation on Awarding Small Public Procurement Contracts and Council of Ministers' Decree No 55/2007. The main objective of Decree No 134/2010 is to enhance project management, reduce irregularities and recover unduly disbursed sums. It also ensures uniformity between the type of infringement and the respective size of financial corrections set by the competent control bodies. Administrative measures/procedures: 1. Internal rules concerning some of the programmes provide for 100% on-the-spot and document checks, including checks on a sample based on risk analysis for the purposes of management checks. 2. Instructions have been issued by the Minister for Finance concerning implementation of the operational programmes cofinanced by the Structural and Cohesion Fund (Annex 1 - list of current departmental circulars (DNF): -- - National Fund Directorate (NFD) No 4 of 26 July 2010 ¬– Instructions on the terms and procedure for the payment of grants under the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds and the respective national co-financing; - NFD No 5 of 21 October 2010 – Instruction on certification of expenditure under the operational programmes co-financed by the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds; - NFD No 6 of 13 December 2010 – Instructions on the organisation of the accounting process of the Managing Authority/Intermediate Bodies, managing the funds under the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds and the respective national co-financing; - NFD No 7 of 22 December 2010 – Instructions on the write-off and recovery of unduly paid or overpaid amounts and unduly received and disbursed amounts within projects financed by the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds. 3. The IT system for the management and monitoring of EU structural instruments in Bulgaria has been set up and an interface built in for exchanging data with ISAC and Popeye for the centralised storage of data on registered applicants, project proposals and grant agreements concluded under the operational programmes cofinanced by the EU's Social and Cohesion Funds, the Rural Development Programme cofinanced by the European Regional Development Fund and the Fisheries Operational Programme cofinanced by the European Fisheries Fund.- National Fund Directorate (NFD) No 4 of 26 July 2010 ¬– Instructions on the terms and procedure for the payment of grants under the EU Structural and Cohesion Funds and the respective national co-financing;

CZ || Legislative measures: An amendment to Act No 218/2000 is being drawn up and will include measures against corruption in the granting of subsidies and refundable financial assistance aimed at fulfilling the task set out in the "Government's Anti-Corruption Strategy for the period 2011-2012"; Act No 141/1961, the Code of Criminal Procedure; Act No 40/2009, the Criminal Code (Section 212 – Definition of Fraud); drafting of an amendment to Act No 320/2001 on financial control in public administration. Administrative measures/procedures: National Strategy to protect the European Communities’ financial interests; Methodology of financial flows and the control of programmes co-financed from the Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund for the 2007-2013 programming period (the most recent version in force since 1 January 2011); Methodological guidance - Irregularities (published by the National Coordination Authority, the most recent version - October 2011); checks on tenders in the period between the selection of the most suitable tender and the conclusion of a contract with the successful tenderer; Advertising of small-scale contracts and contracts not covered by the Procurement Act. Ministerial orders – monitoring of risks in connection with fraud, corruption, etc.; manual for beneficiaries – measures against double-financing – beneficiaries have to indicate on each invoice its relation to a particular project. In 2011 the system of checks was reinforced, including financial and public administration checks, on-the-spot checks and monitoring visits. The Code of Conduct was also revised, in relation to both MA staff and subcontractors. Irregularities continue to be analysed (in line with the working procedures) and corrective measures will be taken based on the conclusions drawn from the analyses, in the form of revisions and updates of project manuals and guidelines, and in particular of checklists.(that comment was not from CZ)

DK || In the programming period 2007-2013 for the Regional Fund and the Social Fund, reports have been made bi-annually to the managing authority concerning the status and accounts of the projects. Cooperation has been established with an external auditor, who is responsible for auditing all status reports and accounts issued under the Regional Fund and the Social Fund. The external auditor must visit all projects at least once during their lifetime. In addition, the managing authority carries out verification visits for the Regional Fund and the Social Fund for at least 10% of the commitments made.

DE || Legislative measures: 1) Cabinet Regulation No 740 of 10 August 2010 laying down the procedure according to which the bodies involved in the management of the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund prepare programming documents and implement the funds. Pursuant to this Regulation a meeting of the Managing Authority (MA), Audit Authority (AA), Certifying Authority (CA), Paying Authority (PA), RA and LB is held every quarter to discuss the irregularities detected that quarter and take a decision on which irregularities to report to the European Commission. 2) Pursuant to Cabinet Order No 168 of 24 March 2010 on the composition of the Council for Coordinating the Protection of EU Financial Interests and Cabinet Regulation No 269 of 23 March 2010 laying down the Statutes of the Council for Coordinating the Protection of EU Financial Interests, a Council (AFCOS) has been established, which functions as a consultative collegiate body with the aim of facilitating the implementation and development of a common national policy for the protection of EU financial interests. Law enforcement authorities are also represented on the Council; these present recommendations on improving the protection of EU financial interests and, together with staff involved in the EU funds system, examine unclear issues related to suspected fraud. See replies under Section 1. Administrative measures/procedures: 1) An EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund Risk Management Group has been established at the Ministry of Finance. The Group identifies, assesses, confirms and manages the risks associated with conflicts of interest and fraud, including corruption, identified by the EU funds MA. To mitigate and prevent these risks, many EU funds management procedures employ declarations of impartiality. Representatives of the MA, State Treasury (CA) and RA are involved in the working group. 2) Effective staff training courses are being run using funding from the Technical Assistance Project. The State Chancellery runs seminars presented by specialist lecturers, including from OLAF, and staff involved with the EU funds system can upgrade their knowledge by participating in training and workshops organised by various authorities (e.g. the EC and OLAF). 3) On 27 May 2011 the MA organised training for prosecutors on various issues related to EU funds, including the nature and identification of irregularities, among others. See replies under Section 1. In accordance with Regulations (EC) Nos 1083/2006 and 1828/2006, the Commission was sent the operational programmes (OP) and descriptions of the management and control systems (MCS), which provide information about the structures and procedures of the administrative authorities, certifying authorities, and intermediate bodies, and about the structure and procedures of the audit authority and other bodies carrying out audits under the responsibility of the authorities. The OP and MCS were approved, and changes to the OP, the MCS or audit strategies are reported regularly through the ordinary procedure. Recent reports have been based, inter alia, on the European Commission's 'Guidance Note on Annual Control Reports and Opinions' of 18 February 2009 (COCOF 09-0004-01-EN) and 'Guidance on treatment of errors disclosed in the Annual Control Reports' of 7 December 2011(COCOF 11-0041-01-EN), which supplement Regulations (EC) Nos 1083/2006 and 1828/2006. The effective functioning of management and control systems are constantly monitored, also taking into account the 'Guidance document on a common methodology for the assessment of management and control systems in the Member States (programming period 2007 - 2013)'.

EE || Legislative measures: 1) A Section 26(4) was added to the Structural Assistance Act (entered into force on 14 June 2008) under which the administration is required to make the recovery request subject to an enforcement procedure if the beneficiary fails to pay on time the request sent to it. This means the aid is recovered from the beneficiary through a bailiff who has the right to seize the beneficiary's goods in order to satisfy the recovery request. Under the Code of Enforcement Procedure a bailiff is required to take immediately all measures permitted by law in order to enforce an enforcement instrument. 2) Government of the Republic Regulation No 278 'Conditions and procedure for recovering and repaying aid and for providing information on irregularities arising during the granting and use of aid' as amended. Administrative measures/procedures: 1) Seminars are organised twice a year for officials dealing with infringements and recoveries; these also involve partners (the police, Prosecutor's Office, Tax and Customs Board). 2) AFCOS Estonia advises/trains implementers and each quarter compiles statistical overviews of infringements. 3) Partners' contact details are available to implementers - consultation is possible if there is suspicion of fraud.

ES || Law No 6 of 23 March 2011 on grants of the Autonomous Community of Extremadura], which is adapted to the organisational structure of this autonomous community, contributing to the improvement of the recovery processes of public interests and prevention by establishing certain guarantees with regard to regulating state aid awards, the financial control procedures and the regulation of the infringement and sanction system. This law will come into force from 25 June 2011. Orden de 10 de noviembre de 2009 de la Consejería de Economía y Hacienda de Canarias, por la que se establecen normas para la gestión, seguimiento y control de las operaciones cofinanciadas con Fondos Estructurales [Order of 10 November 2009 of the Canary Islands Regional Ministry of Economy and Public Finances establishing rules on the management, monitoring and control of the operations co-financed by the structural funds], published in the Canary Islands Official Gazette No 227 of 19 November. Decreto 36/2009, de 31 de marzo, por el que se establece el régimen general de subvenciones de la Comunidad Autónoma de Canarias [Decree No 36/2009 of 31 March 2009 establishing the Canary Islands general system of aid], published in the Canary Islands Official Gazette No 68 of 8 April. Creation of the Oficina Antifrau de Catalunya [Antifraud Office of Catalonia], set up since the third quarter of 2009 to investigate all public funds. Llei 14/2008 [Law 14/2008]. Creation of the Comisión General de Coordinación [General Coordination Committee], made up of the Intervención General de la Administración del Estado [State Public Accounts Department] and the Autonomous Communities’ audit departments, whose main purpose is to discuss and approve the rules, plans and procedures used to set up an integrated system that allows the Audit Authority to carry out the functions established by Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006. An audit guide on management and control systems and an operational guide have been drawn up for all of Spain. Development of a computerised tool that allows the selection of operations to be controlled, the inclusion of data and information on the controls already carried out and serves as a database to obtain the information required by the Audit Authority to meet the obligations laid down by the Regulations and the Commission. In the Autonomous Community of Extremadura: 1.- Strengthening of cross checks, with the aim of detecting inconsistencies in the expense declarations; 2.- Standardisation of the information required from third persons, whether or not they are involved in the subsidised project (suppliers, clients, financial entities, tax authorities): In the Autonomous Community of Valencia: Circular de 15 de marzo de 2010 sobre Régimen Jurídico del control y tramitación de informes de control financiero [Circular of 15 March 2010 on the legal arrangements for the control and processing of financial control reports]. In the Autonomous Community of the Canary Islands: Implementation of permanent financial control with the objective of performing ongoing analysis and assessment of the economic and financial management of public sector bodies in order to verify if this is being carried in accordance with the principles of legality, effectiveness, efficiency, quality and other sound management principles, and to propose, if necessary, the adoption of corrective measures for unsound practices that are detected, of preventive measures and of improvements to public management. - Resolución de 13 de junio de 2011, de la Intervención General, [Decision of 13 June 2011, of the Public Accounts Department] issuing instructions on the coordination, the implementation measures and the establishment of criteria and action for recovery procedures proposed by the Public Accounts Department, arising from the audits and financial controls of aid.

IE || Administrative measures/procedures: 1. New National IT certification system for 2007-2013 EU Structural Funds assists in tracking all irregularities (including fraud cases). 2. Increased level of independent audit on ESF co-financed activities compared to the 2000-2006 period. 3. A more systematic procedure to follow up all irregularities (including fraud cases) has been introduced for the 2007-2013 ESF and ERDF co-financed activities. See also Footnote 1 - which explains the inbuilt irregularity protections in terms of binding administrative agreements through the cascade structure (see note 1 below).

EL || 2007: Publication of Law 3614/2007 ‘Management, audit and implementation of development interventions for the 2007 13 programming period.’ Detailed reference was made to this law in the questionnaire for the 2007 Article 280 Report. 2008: Pursuant to Law 3614/2007 the following three Decisions were issued: (1) Decision No 2/49837/0004/2.7.2008/Government Gazette II 1334/8.7.08 laying down the responsibilities of the Committee on Financial Control - EDEL, and also specific matters of procedure; (2) Decision No 2/49840/004/2.7.2008/Government Gazette II 1334/8.7.08 laying down the internal organisation, structure and distribution of responsibilities in the individual support Directorates of EDEL; and (3) Decision No 567/EDEL/2.12.2008/ Government Gazette II 2486/5.12.08, which established, in the Directorate-General for Management and Control of Programmes co-financed by the EU of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Private-Sector Expert Register, from which