EN    EN 
 
 
 EUROPEAN  
COMMISSION   
Brussels, 26.2.2015  
COM(2015) 89 final  
  
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  
Member States' Replies to the European Court of Auditors' 2013 Annual Report   
{SWD(2015) 18 final}   
 
 TABLE OF CONTENTS  
Member States' Replies  to the European Court of Auditors' 2013 Annual Report  ..........  3 
Executive summary  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................  3 
Member States' Replies to the European Court of Auditors' 2013 Annual Report  ..........  5 
1. SCOPE OF THE REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 
2 KEY FEATURES OF THE ECA  2013  REPORT  ................................ ................................ ..... 5 
3 SUMMARY OF THE MEMBER STATES ' REPLIES  ................................ ...............................  7 
3.1 Main quantifiable errors in shared management  ................................ ..........................  7 
3.2 Enhanced accountability of Member States - sound financial management  ...............  9 
3.3 Enhanced accountabilty of Member States -towards a genuine culture of 
performance  ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  11 
4. Conclusion  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  13 
 
 3 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  
MEMBER STATES ' REPLIES TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS ' 2013  ANNUAL 
REPORT  
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  
This report is an analysis of the Member States' replies to the European Court of 
Auditors' (the Court) annual report for budgetary year 2013 and fulfils the 
obligations defined in Article 162 (5) of the Financial Regulation1. 
The Court's annual report for 2013 stated that the consolidated accounts were free of 
material misstatements and that revenue and commitments taken as a whole were 
legal and regular. The Court's audit also concluded that overall,  payments were 
materially affected by error and that the supervisory and control systems were in 
general, partially effective. The audit results showed that overall the estimated error 
rate was 4.7  %, down by 0.1 percentage points on last year's rate, but still above the 
materiality level. The Court also pointed out that a significant positive factor in 2013 
was the increased impact of corrective measures applied by the Member States and 
the Commission. In addition, the Court's audit also revealed that for a large 
proportion of transactions affected by error in the shared management areas, 
authorities in Member States had sufficient information available to have detected 
and corrected the errors before claiming reimbursement from the Commission. 
Policy areas  rural development, environment, fisheries and health as well as regional 
policy, energy and transport had the highest estimated error rate - 6.7 % and 6.9  % 
respectively.  
During its 2013 audit the Court identified specific categories of quantifiable error s in 
shared management which contributed significantly to the most likely error rate for 
the policy areas concerned. In the policy area "Agriculture: market and direct 
support" (chapter 3), overstated number of eligible hectares or animals and ineligible 
beneficiary/ activity/expenditure together contributed 80  % to the most likely error 
rate.  
In Regional Policy, transport and energy serious errors in public procurement 
accounted for 45  % of all quantifiable errors and made up approximately 39  % of the 
estimated error rate for the policy domain. In the policy area Employment and Social 
affairs errors related to public procurement breaches accounted for 7  % of all errors, 
which shows that the risk of non -compliance with public procurement is still 
relevant.  
In chapter 3 of its annual report the Court reported on the systematic weaknesses in 
the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) stemming from incorrect assessment of 
the eligible land in LPIS databases. The Member States concerned were therefore 
requeste d to provide information on whether databases were updated and additional 
measures taken by them to solve recurrent problems. All Member States concerned 
replied that they could now guarantee that LPIS databases are updated on a regular 
basis and that the LPIS ensures a correct assessment of eligibility of land, and 
systematically detects over -declarations.  
                                                 
1 Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2012 on 
the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union and repealing Council Regulation (EC, 
Euratom) No 1605/2002. OJ L 298, 26.10.2012, p . 1. 
 
 4 Member States were asked whether they were in a position to state that their control 
system had addressed the recurrent deficiencies identified by the Court in relation to: 
agri-environmental commitments, ineligible beneficiaries, non -respect of 
procurement rules and ineligible support for early retirement. The Member States 
concerned stated that they had addressed all or nearly all the identified recurr ent 
deficiencies.  
Regarding the question on public procurement breaches, nearly half of all Member 
States responded that they had identified systemic issues related to public 
procurement and that they have taken preventive measures in this context.  
The re port examined replies to questions on Member State accountability  with the 
focus on management and national declarations, management verifications and the 
role and importance of the Court's assessments.  
76 % of Member States stated that mandatory managemen t declarations  could have 
a positive impact on the prevention, detection and correction of errors by Member 
States. A sizable proportion of Member States (86  %) regarded the results of the 
Court's assessments as useful and contributing to their own assuran ce of the legal and 
regular use of EU funds. On the subject of the usefulness of national declarations, 
just over half of all Member States responded favourably.  
Finally, in its 2013 report, the Court found that for the 2007 -2013 programming 
generally the focus was more on the need to spend EU funds in compliance with 
rules and that the focus on performance was limited. In this year's questionnaire 
Member States were asked how they ensured that performance  was a key element in 
the use of EU funds and what m easures had been put in place to monitor programme 
and project performance. A significant majority of Member States provided 
comprehensive replies to these two questions. The use of criteria, indicators and 
evaluations are the means by which many countries  ensure performance is a key 
element. In terms of monitoring of performance, progress reports, control measures, 
evaluations and tracking of indicators are among some of the more common 
measures used by Member States.  
 
 5 REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COU NCIL AND THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT  
MEMBER STATES ' REPLIES TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS ' 2013  ANNUAL 
REPORT  
 
1. Scope of the Report  
Article 162 (5) of the Financial Regulation states that as soon as the Court has 
transmitted its annual report, the Commis sion shall inform the Member States 
concerned immediately of the details of that report which relate to management of 
the funds for which they are responsible. Member States should reply within sixty 
days and the Commission then transmits a summary of the replies to the Court, the 
European Parliament and the Council before 28 February of the following year.  
Following publication of the Court's annual report for the budgetary year 2013, the 
Commission duly informed Member States of details of the report. Thi s information 
was presented in the form of a letter and three annexes to be completed by each 
Member State, as well as the accompanying gudielines on the preparation and 
presentation of replies to the questionnaires. Annex I  was a  questionnaire on the 
paragraphs referring to the individual Member States; annex II was a questionnaire 
on audit findings which refer to each Member State and annex III  was a 
questionnaire on topical findings related to shared management for DAS 2013.  
For this year's report, three  main themes have been identified. They are as follows: 1) 
Main quantifiable errors in shared management, 2) Enhanced accountability of 
Member States – sound financial management, and 3) Enhanced accountability of 
Member States -towards a genuine culture of  performance. The report is also 
accompaned by a Staff Working Document (SWD) which comprises Member States' 
replies to annexes I and III.  
 
2 Key features of the ECA 2013 report  
The Court's annual report for 2013 stated that the consolidated accounts were free of 
material misstatements and that revenue and commitments taken as a whole were 
legal and regular. The Court's audit also concluded that overall payments were 
materially affected by error and that the supervisory and control systems were in 
general p artially effective2. The audit results showed that overall the estimated error 
rate was 4.7  %, down by 0.1 percentage points on last year's rate, but still above the 
materiality level. The Court pointed out that a significant factor in 2013 was the 
increas ed impact of corrective measures applied by the Member States and the 
Commission. According to the Court's report if these measures had not been applied 
to transactions sampled, the estimated error rate would have been 1.6 percentage 
points higher3. 
Policy  areas rural development, environment, fisheries and health as well as regional 
policy, energy and transport had the highest estimated error rate - 6.7 % and 6.9  % 
respectively. In addition, the Court's audit also revealed that for a large proportion of 
transactions affected by error in the shared management areas, authorities in Member 
                                                 
2 ECA AR 2013 p. 23.  
3 ECA AR 2013 p. 23.  
 
 6 States had sufficient information available to have detected and corrected the errors 
before claiming reimbursement from the Commission4.  
The graph below gives a breakdown of the contribution by policy area to the 
estimated error rate5. 
 
 
 
With regard to types of errors, the Court's report stated that eligibility errors contributed 
significantly to the overall estimated error rate. Serious errors in public procurement and 
incorrect declarations by farmers also accounted for a large proportion of the errors. The 
graph below provides a breakdown of the contribution of the error type to the overall 
estimated error rate.  
 
 
                                                 
4 ECA AR 2013 p. 83, p. 111, and p. 153.  
5 ECA AR 2013 p. 26.  
39%  
22%  21%  14%  4% 
Ineligible costs included in cost claims
Ineligible projects/activities or beneficiaries
Serious errors in public procurement
Incorrect declarations of agricultural areas
Other error types
 
 7 3 Summary of the Member States' replies  
3.1 MAIN QUAN TIFIABLE ERRORS IN S HARED MANAGEMENT  
During its 2013 audit, the Court identified specific categories of quantifiable errors in 
shared management which contributed significantly to the most likely error rate for 
the policy areas concerned. In the policy are a Agriculture: market and direct support, 
overstated number of eligible hectares or animals and ineligible beneficiary/ 
activity/expenditure together contributed 80  % to the most likely error rate.  
In Regional policy, transport and energy serious errors i n public procurement 
accounted for 45  % of all quantifiable errors and made up approximately 39  % of the 
estimated error rate for the policy group6. In the policy area Employment and Social 
affairs errors related to public procurement breaches accounted fo r 7 % of all errors, 
which shows that the risk of non -compliance with public procurement is still 
relevant7. 
In chapter 3 of its annual report the Court reported on the systematic weaknesses in 
the Land Parcel Identification System (LPIS) stemming from inc orrect assessment of 
the eligible land in LPIS databases8. The Member States concerned were therefore 
requested to provide information on whether databases were updated and the 
measures taken by them to solve recurrent problems. All Member States concerned  
replied that they could now guarantee that LPIS databases are updated on a regular 
basis and that the LPIS ensures a correct assessment of eligibility of land, and 
systematically detects over -declarations.  
Poland reported that since 2009: "it has been con sistently and gradually reorganising 
the method for updating LPIS data. The main change was the introduction in the 
production system of on -line reference database updates by ARiMR9 specialists by 
means of a dedicated GIS IT tool10." Further, the Polish aut horities pointed out that 
"as regards the LPIS -related irregularity found by the Court of Auditors in 2013, it is 
not true that the irregularity is systemic in nature" and that the Court had incorrectly 
recognised a part of a parcel flooded in 2013 as inel igible for payment in 201211. 
Ireland stated that a review of the LPIS database is an on -going iterative process12, 
while France stated that an Action Plan approved by the Commission and on -going 
in 2015 has been established in order to update LPIS13. Romania  mentioned that 
funding for new orthoimages, as well as new staff and training would be needed to 
improve the situation.  
Finally, Germany underlined the fact that in its case, the over -declaration identified 
was an individual case "which did not have any f inancial impact" and that efforts 
have always been made to ensure that the LPIS is updated properly and on a regular 
basis14. 
In Rural development, the Court found serious cases of non -respect of eligibility for 
investment projects rendering certain types o f expenditure ineligible.  
                                                 
6 ECA AR 2013, p. 148.  
7 ECA AR 2013, p. 177.  
8 ECA AR 2013, Box 3.1 and Box 3.4.  
9 Agencja Restrukturyzacji i Modernizacji Rolnictwa (ARiMR).  
10 SWD p.143. .  
11 SWD p.143.  
12 SWD p.118.  
13 SWD Annex 1 and Annex III p33, p106  
14 SWD p.108.  
 
 8 Member States were asked whether they were in a position to state that their control 
system had addressed the recurrent deficiencies identified by the Court in relation to: 
agri-environmental commitments, ineligible beneficiaries , non -respect of 
procurement rules and ineligible support for early retirement.   
The Member States concerned stated that they had addressed all or nearly all the 
identified recurrent deficiencies. The graphs below give an overview of the replies 
received:  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Greece highlighted two areas where it had made significant improvements: an 
amendment to agri environmental payments which involved redesigning the system 
of penalties for certain actions and an amendment to national legislation in the field 
of public procurement15. 
The Polish authorities stated that with regard to ineligibility of support for early 
retirement, they disagreed with the Court and with the Commission that "the 
implementation of the measure ‘Structural pensions’ involved fraud or another illegal 
activity detrimental to the financial interests of the Union" As a result, clarifications 
were submitted and remedial actions were taken by the authorities. The Commission 
has requested a recovery of the unduly paid amounts.  
Regarding the q uestion on public procurement breaches, nearly half of all Member 
States responded that they had identified systemic issues related to public 
procurement and that they have taken preventive measures in this context.  
Scotland (UK) stated that: "Although we have been active in promoting procurement 
compliance, we still need to do more to inform the Managing Authority and 
beneficiaries of the importance of procurement compliance and the impact it can 
have."  
Slovenia reported on three areas of improvement 1) a project group appointed in 
November 2014 specifically for dealing with  questions relating to the field of public 
procurement, 2) an analysis of public contracts, and 3) Administrative competence 
                                                 
15 SWD p.112.  

 
 9 (additional employment and training in the public procurement  field) has been and 
will be implemented as part of technical assistance16. 
Other Member States have undertaken certain measures to try to limit and prevent 
public procurement breaches. Romania has put in place legislative and systems based 
measures and the  Czech Republic has taken national preventive and corrective 
measures. Croatia has taken numerous preventive actions including workshops and a 
training programme of 50 classes leading to the award of a certificate in the area of 
public procurement, valid f or three years17. Portugal and Hungary have established 
Action Plans to improve public procurement, while in Estonia the management and 
control system in relation to procurements have been "seriously enhanced" in the last 
few years18. 
Some Member States howe ver affirmed that they had very few systemic problems 
with regard to public procurement. Spain asserted that:  
"Although various issues have been identified with regard to public procurement, 
their type varies from body to body and usually affects specific contracts… 
Furthermore, problems identified in public procurement are not considered to be 
systemic and in all cases where public procurement irregularities have been 
identified, the affected expenditure has been withdrawn so that the EU budget will 
not be  affected."19 
Finland noted that "Compliance with the procurement rules is monitored more 
closely for aid co -financed from EU funds than in national aid programmes20." 
Finally, Germany stated that it had not "identified any system -related problems in 
terms o f the European Social Fund (ESF) in conjunction with public procurement" 
but had nonetheless in certain cases taken "precautionary measures"21. 
Member States' replies to issues related to the main quantifiable errors underline the 
fact that they have been u ndertaking a series of preventive and remedial actions. In 
addition, there seems to be a commitment to tackling the systemic weaknesses, 
thereby reducing the number of quantifiable errors.  
3.2 ENHANCED ACCOUNTABIL ITY OF MEMBER STATES - SOUND FINANCIAL 
MANAG EMENT  
In its 2013 report, for shared management, the Court found that in many cases the 
national authorities had sufficient information to prevent, detect and correct the 
errors, before declaring the expenditure to the Commission22. The Court has 
underlined  the fact that the EU spends its budget, but there is still significant room 
for further improving how those funds are spent. Funds should be spent in 
conformity with the rules while at the same time getting the results expected23. This 
subsection of the re port examines replies to questions on Member State 
accountability with the focus on management and national declarations, management 
verifications and the role and importance of the Court's assessments.  
                                                 
16 SWD p.173.  
17 SWD p.90.  
18 SWD p.103. .  
19 SWD p.177.  
20 SWD p.104.  
21 SWD p.110.  
22 ECA AR 2013 . p. 83, p. 111, and p. 153.  
23 Speech – Presentation of the 2013 Annual reports to the Committee on Budgetary control of the European  
Parliament - President Caldeira.  
 
 10 76 % of Member States stated that mandatory managemen t declarations could have a 
positive impact on the prevention, detection and correction of errors by Member 
States. Hungary affirmed that management declarations have been put in place and 
that the declarations must be forwarded to the Minister responsible  for the State 
budget24. 
Scotland (UK) and Latvia both responded that management declarations would have 
a positive impact, thereby increasing Member State accountability.  
When questioned on the subject of the usefulness of national declarations, just over  
half of all Member States responded favourably. Denmark and the UK, both 
participants in the inter -institutional working group concerning national declarations 
made statements in support of national declarations. Denmark remarked that:  
"One of the conclus ions was that the purpose of national declarations is to ensure 
greater political responsibility for ensuring the correction of errors in national 
payments of EU funds. We in Denmark believe that this is an important concept to 
disseminate and the recommen dations form a good starting point for countries which 
do not yet have a model for this in place. In Denmark, the political level is held 
accountable, as the Public Accounts Committee annually submits a report on the use 
of EU funds in Denmark… The Danish model thus ensures accountability regarding 
the use of EU funds at national political level"25. 
The UK stated that it supported the recommendations of the working group and that:  
"we welcome that these recommendations are suitably flexible, to take into acc ount 
national circumstances and processes, meaning that Member States have discretion 
when producing such a voluntary document. We also welcome that these 
recommendations underline the importance of good reporting to improving the 
management of EU funds"26. 
However, criticism of management declarations focused on the fact that they 
provided no added value, since existing systems were adequate and possibly there 
would be an increased administrative burden27. 
Member States not in favour of the idea of national declarations (Latvia and Estonia, 
for example) made reference to the fact that there may be overlaps with other annual 
reporting and added bureaucracy28. In addition in decentralised (France) and federal 
countries (Germany) national declarations were regard ed as ineffective.  
A sizable proportion of Member States (86  %) regarded the results of the Court's 
assessments as useful and contributing to their own assurance of the legal and regular 
use of EU funds. Slovakia stated:  
"Assessments by the Court of Audito rs can deliver relevant stimuli to revise national 
rules applied by individual entities providing contributions from EU funds. In 
relation to assessment results regarding systemic or horizontal issues, this is a direct 
and valuable resource for the impleme ntation of the necessary adjustments and 
corrective measures at national level29." 
                                                 
24 SWD p.117.  
25 SWD - p.102.  
26 SWD - p.181.  
27 SWD - Germany, Ireland, Belgium - p.82, 111, 119.  
28 SWD Latvia and Estonia - p.123, p.103.  
29 SWD - p.169.  
 
 11 Croatia also noted that: "The results of the Court's assessment are taken into 
consideration and they contribute to the improvement of existing legislation and the 
prescribed  procedures for the use of EU funds30." 
On the subject of improvement of management verifications, 72  % of Member States 
responded positively. The Czech Republic and Spain31 both stated that they had 
drawn up Action Plans with a view to improving management verifications and in 
the case of Spain, "as a result of applying these plans, the error rates indicated in the 
Audit Authority annual control reports have fallen considerably."  
Luxembourg listed improved measures which included: working groups with 
benefic iaries, establishing guidelines and 100  % control of all justifying documents 
by the Managing Authority, before submitting a payment request to the 
Commission32. 
Latvia stated that the Managing Authority regularly draws up a certificate for the 
Certifying A uthority and that the verification system in place is robust. As a result, it 
has been able to withhold expenditure declarations from two beneficiaries and refer 
the respective cases to its national fraud office33. 
Other Member States declared that their ve rification systems in place were sound as 
evidenced by a low error rate and therefore there was no need for improvement. This 
was the case for the Netherlands and Austria34. 
Concerning accountability, replies from the Member States demonstrate a heightened 
awareness of the need to be accountable, which is reflected in actions such as the 
measures undertaken to improve management verifications. Nonetheless, there are 
concerns about the added value and excessive administrative burden of management 
and national  declarations.  
 
3.3 ENHANCED ACCOUNTABILT Y OF MEMBER STATES -TOWARDS A GENUINE CU LTURE 
OF PERFORMANCE  
In its 2013 report, the Court found that for the 2007 -2013 programming generally the 
focus was more on the need to spend EU funds in compliance with rules and that the 
focus on performance was limited35. 
 
In this year's questionnaire Member States were aske d how they ensured that 
performance was a key element in the use of EU funds and what measures had been 
put in place to monitor programme and project performance. A significant majority 
of Member States provided comprehensive replies to these two questions . 
 
The use of criteria , indicators  and evaluations  are the means by which many 
countries ensure performance is a key element. The Netherlands reported that under 
the ERDF assessment criteria are used in the selection of projects. These include: 
"contributi on to the OP, degree of innovation, quality of the business case and/or 
                                                 
30 SWD - p.90.  
31 SWD - p93, p.177.  
32 SWD - p.131.  
33 SWD - p.121.  
34 SWD - p.78,136.  
35 EC AR 2013, p. 257.  
 
 12 business plan, quality of the project and sustainability. Checklists are also drawn up 
jointly for this purpose"36. 
 
Poland stated that it used "weighted criteria" under the Rural Devel opment 
Programme 2007 –2013  and that "t he application of the selection criteria is to ensure 
that projects most likely to contribute to the achievement of the objectives and results 
set out in the Rural Development Programme are chosen for funding".  For th e 2014 –
2020 period, projects will be chosen by applying the "selection criteria".  
Romania  (AM POSCCE )  has combined evaluation with a selection grid and scoring 
system,  thereby ensuring that the best -performing projects receive funding37. 
Belgium (Wallonie ) has set up a Task Force of independant experts from the 
academic and industrial worlds to evaluate the quality of projects proposed. The 
performance of these projects is also analysed via SMART objectives38. 
 
Indicators are used by several Member States. The Czech Republic has established  
harmonised basic/horizontal rules that cut across operational programmes and a 
National Code List of Indicators, which contains indicators for all programmes in 
order to track their progress; Spain makes reference to the  Regulation (EU) No 
1306/2013 which establishes indicators for the evaluation and monitoring of 
European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) as well as European 
Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) funds.  
 
Luxembourg provides a clear description of how it ensures that performance remains 
a core issue. It states that the Managing Authority monitors the operational 
programme based on clear indicators which are regularly updated. These indicators 
are reported on in an Executive report. In addition, t he application form for projects 
is designed to verify whether even at the early stage of submission the project is 
likely to meet  the operational programme objectives of the ESF.  
 
In terms of monitoring, progress reports , control measures , evaluations  and 
tracking of indicators  are among some of the more common measures used by 
Member States.  
 
Malta clearly outlines the measures it uses for monitoring. They are as follows: 1) 
structural funds database regularly updated by benficiaries, 2) project prog ress 
reports submitted twice yearly to the Managing Authority, 3) physical spot checks, 
and 4) project progress meetings with all parties concerned39. 
 
The Netherlands, Austria, Latvia and Slovenia all make reference to progress reports 
or annual reports an d reviews as a key means of monitoring performance40. 
 
Denmark (Danish Agri -Fish Agency) refers to its comprehensive control measures in 
place  concerning the payment of EU funds for area schemes and non -area schemes, 
These control measures cover both an adm inistrative and a physical control41. 
 
                                                 
36 SWD - p.136.  
37 SWD - p.152.  
38 SWD - p.80.  
39 SWD - p.133 - 134. 
40 SWD - p.77, 120, 136, 171.  
41 SWD - p.98.  
 
 13 Bulgaria (OPRD) lists its control measures and states that the general terms in 
agreements for granting financial support include the following requirements  1) the 
beneficiary shall carry out and document three inspect ions on the physical condition 
of investments, 2) the beneficiary shall report the results of such checks to the 
Contracting Authority,and 3)  the beneficiary shall not transfer its ownership of the 
facility built with the investment under this Agreement.  
 
The Czech Republic states that at least one project indicator must be tracked and 
projects without indicators are inadmissable.  
 
Overall Member States have affirmed their commitment to performance. The lessons 
learnt as well as the best practices from the previous programming period are already 
being put into action during this new programming period. The Czech Republic 
states that it will put in place a "new development" for 2014 -2020 which will entail a 
more detailed project description clearly reflecting  the likely projected results while 
Estonia will place a "special focus" on performance indicators for the new 
programme period.  
 
4. CONCLUSION  
In its report for the DAS year 2013, the Court remains critical of the high number of 
quantifiable errors in shared management. As in 2012, the Court has again 
underlined the fact that for a large proportion of transactions affected by error, 
Member Sates authorities had sufficient information to have detected and corrected 
these errors before claiming reimbursement. In addition, the Court emphasised the 
need for more attention to be paid to getting the best results possible with limited 
funds. The Court re commends greater emphasis on performance.  
In their replies to the three questionnaires, Member States provided evidence of their 
continued actions to reduce the number of errors in shared management. Action 
Plans in both the policy areas Agriculture and C ohesion have been established by 
several Member States in partnership with the Commission. Regarding procurement 
many Member States admitted to be affected by systemic issues, but they also 
emphasised that there have been many preventive and corrective act ions.  
Member States have in general embraced the concept of greater accountability. 
Generally management declarations are considered as having a positive impact, 
while national declarations, although less popular, have been regarded as beneficial.  
Finally , the commitment to performance at Member State level can be illustrated by 
Denmark's closing comment:  
"It is Denmark’s belief that a pivotal aspect of a satisfactory implementation of the 
EU budget is that results are achieved. It is therefore important t hat a framework is 
created for a results -oriented system which focuses to a greater extent on the results 
and effects of EU projects. We in Denmark also believe it is important to create 
transparency concerning the EU added value that the funds create. Den mark wishes 
the discussions concerning the attainment of results to help strengthen the link 
between the result evaluations and the budget -related and legal regulation of the 
various policy areas42." 
 
                                                 
42 SWD - p.182.