EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 15.7.2009 
SEC(2009) 1002 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Annex to the 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO  THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 
Protection of the financial in terests of the Communities – Fight against fraud – Annual 
report 2008 
Implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty by the Member States in 2008 
 
{COM(2009) 372} {SEC(2009) 1003} 
 
EN 2   EN INTRODUCTION 
The protection of the European Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud is 
an area of shared responsib ility between the Community and the Member States.  
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 280 of the EC 
Treaty. This report is addressed to the Euro pean Parliament and the Council and it is 
published. 
The Commission report is drafted on  the basis of the Member Stat es' replies to the" Article 
280" questionnaire. The present questionnaire covers the pe riod from 1 January to 31 
December 2008. 
This document lists all the answers of Member States to the 2008 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 Communities' financial in terests by the Member States. Since 2003, the 
Commission has therefore applie d a new approach. After the traditional question asking 
Members States to report on new measures ta ken in 2008, the questionnaire focuses on a few 
major themes. The aim is to gather informa tion 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 previous years, the first part of this document  presents the main  measures that give 
effect to Article 280 , i.e. measures adopted by the Member States to combat fraud and all 
illegal activities affecting the financial intere sts of the Communities. In order to make the 
answers more concise and useful for the stakeh olders, and at the reque st of several Member 
States, this part is structured differently than in the previous years. Member States have been 
invited to describe two or thre e "key" measures taken in the y ear 2008 in order to implement 
Article 280 of the Treaty, and not to list all measures in  all sectors anymore.  
The second part  concerns the competent national authorities in the field of fight against 
fraud and designated for the cooperation with OLAF . European legislation requires that 
on-the-spot checks be conducted by the Commi ssion in close cooperatio n with the competent 
authorities of the Member State concerned. From this point of view, prio r identification of the 
competent national authority is essential for the success of on-the-spot checks. 
The third part of the questionnaire addressed to the Member States  refers to another 
specific subject, namely the reporting of irregularities . In the fields where the Member 
States implement the budget and for the colle ction of the Community's own resources, 
Community legislation requires th e Member States to report su spicions of fraud and other 
irregularities. Member States have been required  to answer a series of  questions in order to 
allow the Commission a correct and in-depth an alysis of the changing trends and patterns 
related to irregularities in the European Union.  
 
EN 3   EN 1. DESCRIPTION  OF KEY  DEVELOPMENTS  CONCERNING  THE  
IMPLEMENTATION  OF ARTICLE  280  OF THE  EC TREATY 
Maximum three  most important legislative or administ rative measures taken in the course of 
2008 for the protection of the European Community ’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 Community legislation. 
In particular, Member States are asked to indicate:  
• Type of measure (law, regulation, etc.) and re ferences (number, date of adoption and/or 
publication, name of programme, etc.) 
• Its scope (horizontal, specific field) 
• Why it was needed 
• Improvements made to the existing system. 
BE Royal Decree of 29 April 2008 ( M. B.  8 May 2008) 
To set up a body, organised on collegiate lines , to combat fraud, including tax fraud. 
This body is tasked with drawing up a dr aft annual action plan, with making sure 
that the implementation of this plan - approved by the Ministerial Committee for combating fraud, including tax fraud - is prop erly coordinated and with ensuring that 
the legislation is applied uni formly throughout the country.  
Royal Decree of 12 June 2008  
A new measure has been taken on the m odel of the mandatory deposit of periodic 
declarations taking account of the im provements to the tools used by the 
administration and operators in their wor k, namely the electroni c submission of the 
annual list of taxable clients and of the list of exempted intra-Community deliveries. 
This measure not only makes it easier for th e administration and companies to deal 
with such declarations but, above all, enables the supplier lists used for the checks 
made on taxable persons to be drawn up more quickly and more efficiently and 
helps speed up exchanges of informati on with the other Member States.  
The Royal decree gradually obliges taxabl e persons who are requ ired to submit the 
aforesaid documents and who have the necessa ry IT resources available to them to 
submit the documents electronically, that is to  say as from 1 July 2008 in the case of 
those taxable persons who submit periodic VAT declarations on a monthly basis and 
as from 1 July 2009 in the case of taxable persons who submit such declarations on 
a quarterly basis. 
Programme Law of 22 December 2008, ( M. B.  29 December 2008) 
Introduced measures that made for greater efficiency in collecting VAT receipts and 
were designed to improve the collection of  taxes and of excise, customs and other 
duties and such like. In pa rticular, Article 191 repla ces Article 81b) of the VAT 
Code with a view to extending by two y ears the limitation peri od for engaging in 
proceedings for recovering the tax, interest  and fines imposed by taxation authorities 
when the offence referred to in Articles 70 or 71 of this Code was committed with the intention of defrauding or for malicious  purposes. This limitation shall from now 
on become effective at the end of the seve nth calendar year following that in which 
 
EN 4   EN the collectability clause comes into force.  
Articles 194 and 195 are about  assigning the sums to be refunded or paid to those 
persons liable for payment an d this with a view to improving the collection of sums 
payable by the latter in the form of ta x credits and excise and other duties. 
Law of 19 September 2008, (M. B., 22 October 2008) 
Approving the Protocol and Joint Declarat ion, signed in Brussels on 17 April 2007, 
amending the additional Protocol on taxes annexed to the Convention concerning administrative and judicial cooperation in  the field of regul ations relating to 
achieving the objectives of the Benelux Economic Union, signed in The Hague on 
29 April 1969, provided for recognition by the ot her two countries of the system of 
joint and several liability in force in the country in which the VAT is due in order to 
make the resources needed for collecting this tax available to the administrations of the three countries.  
BG Law amending the Law on Public Financial Inspections , (SG, 14.11.2008) 
The Law was amended in order to allow for improved collaboration and cooperation 
with the supervisory bodies of the European Commission. It lays down the procedures for enforcement action in case an economic operator refuses to cooperate 
voluntarily with supervisory authorities, including with the controllers of the 
European Commission. Financial inspectors are given the legal right to perform 
searches and seize documents from inspect ed organisations and persons, subject to 
the sanction of the court, in cooperation w ith the authorities of the Ministry of the 
Interior. The regulation governing the implementation of the Law lays down detailed rules for on-the-spot checks perf ormed by the financial controllers of the 
European Commission. Procedure is establis hed for the implementation of Recitals 
14 and 15 of Council Regulation (EURAT OM, EC) No 2185/96 of 11 November 
1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and insp ections carried out by the Commission. 
Law on the conflict of interest (in force as from 1 January 2009) 
The Law lays down provisions on the definiti on and identification of a conflict of 
interest, its prevention, its legal conse quences and related legal disputes, the 
incompatibility between public service a nd private interests, as well as the 
protection of whistle-blowers who have submitted information on conflict of interest.  
Law amending the Law on public procurement  (in force as from 1 January 2009) 
It lays down procurement principles, condi tions and procedures aimed to guarantee 
effectiveness in spending budgetary a nd non-budgetary resources. A database will 
be established for participants in proc urement procedures for whom there is 
evidence of fraud or irregul arities involving EU funds.  
Council of Ministers Decree No 119 of 30 May 2008  
Laying down the conditions, procedures and mechanism for recovery of undue 
payments and overpayments, and resources unlawfully received or implemented by budget and state enterprises from pre-acce ssion instruments, EU  funds, as well as 
national co-financing or pre- financing. The procedure fo r recovery of debt is 
therefore simplified and shortened. It is envisaged that debt will be recovered through deduction of amounts from subseque nt payments from the national budget 
 
EN 5   EN to the relevant agency.  
Council of Ministers Decree No 18 of 2003 establishing an Anti-Fraud 
Coordination Service  
Has been amended to extend its compositi on and to allow for timely reporting of 
irregularities and for co llaboration among the institutions fighting fraud and 
irregularities. 
CZ National Strategy for the protection of the European Community’s financial 
interests (Government resolution No 535/2008 of 14 May 2008) 
Action plan  
to implement the priorities of the objectives of the National Strategy for the 
protection of the European Community’s fi nancial interests (Government resolution 
No 1275 of 15 October 2008) 
Act No 140/1961 Coll., the Criminal Act 
Was amended to introduce the paragr aph 129a: "damaging the European 
Community’s financial interests". The amendment entered force on 1 July 2008. 
DK / 
DE / 
EE Government of the Republic Regulation No 125 of 7 August 2008  
Amends the conditions and procedure fo r recovering and re paying aid and for 
providing information on irre gularities arising during th e granting and use of aid. 
The amendment enables aid to be recovere d on the basis of a percentage rate in 
cases where it is impossible to ascertain the sum involved in the irregularity or 
where the cost of this would be prohibitive.  
Instructions of 7 August 2008 fo r dealing with irregularities 
The aim of the instructions is to identify situations where the requirements relating 
to the use of the aid are not fulfilled and to  provide implementers with guidelines for 
recovering amounts in part or in full or for abandoning recovery.  
Instructions concerning the minimum requirements for the supervision of 
structural instruments  
Updated at the beginning of 2008. These instructions lay down in detail those 
aspects of projects which are to be inspected as an abso lute minimum and the way in 
which the inspection process is to be organized  so as to ensure, inter alia, that duties 
are sufficiently separated and that there is a sufficient level of quality control. They 
also lay down more clearly-defined base s (including procedur es) for the managing 
authority to carry out  regular inspections of interm ediate and implementing bodies. 
Previously, inspections were organized more  in the form of cooperation and the flow 
of information was less regulated. The measure is necessary to ensure that the managing authority is informed of the pro cedures and operations of other bodies in a 
situation where the amount of funds and the number of meas ures is soaring and it is 
no longer possible to obtain the necessary information as effectively through less 
formal forms of cooperation. 
 
EN 6   EN IE Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2008  
Provides Revenue Officers with the opportuni ty to question suspects detained in 
Garda Síochána (Ireland’s National Police Service) cust ody. The Section refers to 
offences which Revenue Officers ordinarily  investigate; however, it allows Revenue 
Officers to participate in questioning pers ons who have been detained by the Garda 
Síochána. 
EL 1) Shared management audit: 
Decision 2/49837/0004/2.7.2008 (Government  Gazette II 1334/8.7.2008) “Powers 
and special operation issues of the FCC”; 
Decision 2/49840/0004/2.7.2008 (Government Gazette II 1334/8.7.2008) 
“Internal organization and distribution of  powers among the support services 
of the FCC”; 
Decision 567/ ΕDΕD/2.12.2008 (Government Gazette II 2486/5.12.2008) 
“Establishment of the Private- Sector Expert Register”*. 
As a result of and pursuant to Law 3614/2007 entitled “Management, audit and 
implementation of development interven tions for the 2007-13 programming period” 
(Government Gazette I 267, 3.12.2007), the Mi nister for Economic Affairs and 
Finance issued three decisions  specifying the powers, stru cture and operations of the 
Financial Control Committee. The FCC is the competent body for verifying the operation of the management and audit sy stem for NSRF Operational Programmes 
(OPs) and the Fisheries Operational Progr amme; it carries out inspections of all 
competent management and certificati on bodies. Among other things, these 
decisions established the Private-Sector E xpert Register, from which private-sector 
experts are selected to partic ipate as members of the FCC. 
2) Customs: 
For the purpose of implementing the Convention on Mutual Assistance and 
Cooperation between Customs Administra tions (which was ratified by Law 
2772/1999 (Government Gazette I 282)), the d eclaration referred to  in Article 32(4) 
of the Convention – regarding the temporary validity of the Convention among the Member States having also submitted said declaration – was submitted in 2008 to the Committee of the Council. 
Implementation of the FIDE computer  system following the vote passing Law 
3675/2008 (Government I 137/2008) on the use of IT in the field of customs, as 
regards the creation of an archive for customs investigation files. 
3) Financial crime: 
Law 3691/2008 on the “Prevention and supp ression of money laundering and 
terrorist financing and other provisi ons” (Government Gazette I 166, 5.8.2008). 
Apart from incorporating Directives  2005/60/EC (OJ L 309/2005) and 2006/70/EC 
(OJ L 214/2006) and certain recommendations of the FATF team into Greek law, also introduces some new provision s, the main ones of which are: 
• Recommendation of the Strategy and Policy Committee to tackle money 
laundering and terrorist financing; 
 
EN 7   EN • Recommendation of the Privat e-Sector Consultation Body; 
• Greater powers for authorities responsi ble for combating m oney laundering and 
terrorist financing; 
• Tackling the risks posed by individuals, tr ansaction and activiti es prone to money 
laundering and terrorist financing; 
• Laying down proportionate, effective and dissuasive administrative sanctions and 
streamlining existing penalties. 
ES Law 1/2008 of 4 December for the enfo rcement in the EU of decisions that 
impose financial penalties (B OE (Official Ga zette) 293, 05.12.2008) 
• It governs the way in which the Spanish judicial authorities will recognize and 
enforce a decision requiring the payment of a financial pena lty issued by the 
competent authority of another Memb er State of the European Union. 
• It applies, for instance, to offences cat egorised as fraud, including fraud affecting 
the financial interests of the European Communities.  
• This law transposes Council Framewor k Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 
2005 into Spanish law. 
ORGANIC LAW 2/2008 of 4 December amending Organic Law 6/1985 of 1 
July 1985 on the judicial system, supplem enting the Law for the enforcement in 
the EU of decisions that impose financial penalties (BOE 293, 05.12.2008)  
Amends Law 6/1985 as regards the jurisd iction of the cour ts concerning the 
enforcement of judgments.  
Royal Decree 1804/2008 of 3 November implementing Law 36/2006 of 29 
November on measures to prevent tax fraud (BOE 278, 18.11.2008) 
Aims at identifying possible fraudsters a nd prevent involvement in fraud schemes. 
The following measures to combat tax fr aud are included in this legislation; 
(1) Improves the content of certain notar ial deeds relating to immovable 
property.  
(2) Improves the procedure for revoking th e NIF (tax identification number) by 
the AEAT (Tax Administration Agency ): New cases of revocation and new 
legal consequences of revocation (re moval from the Registers of Intra-
Community Operators and Exporters  and other economic operators). 
(3) Introduces the annual requirement for electricity supply  companies to 
communicate contractor details and th e land register reference of the 
property and its location.  
Royal Decree 2126/2008 of 26 December ame nding the Regulation on Value 
Added Tax approved by Royal Decree 1624/1992 of 29 December. 
Establishes a voluntary monthly VAT ref und system and sets up a monthly refund 
register. 
Adopts two measures in orde r to prevent tax fraud: (i) measures to exclude 
defaulters from the register and (ii) the requirement to present a disclosure statement 
 
EN 8   EN in each assessment period with content of VAT records.  
Tax Fraud Prevention Plan approved in 2005:  
Was updated in November 2008. It is a strate gic planning instrument that focuses on 
the design of preventive measures to avoid tax fraud and investigation as the central 
element of control measures.  
Law 14/2008 of the Catalonia Parliament of 5 November of the Catalonia Anti-
Fraud Office. (DOGC 5256, 12.11.2008) 
Aiming at preventing and investigating po ssible specific cases of illegal use or 
allocation of public funds in the Au tonomous Community of Catalonia. 
FR / 
IT Decree Act No. 112 of 25 June 2008, section 83c(5) (O.G. 147/25 June 2008), 
converted into Act No 133 of 6 August  2008 (O.G. 195/21 August 2008) on the 
fight against VAT fraud damaging nati onal and Community interests.  
Improves the coordination of operations c onducted by the Guardia di Finanza, the 
Revenue Service and the Customs Service, to guarantee more effective prevention and prosecution of fraud and to enable in vestigation reports to  be produced and any 
preventive measures taken in good time.  
Regional Order (Determinazione Dirige nziale) No. 5813 issued by the Emilia 
Romagna regional authorities on 22 May 2008, approving a Manual on 
Procedures for the Managing Authority.  
The procedures covered by the Manual in clude "Procedure No 9 – Management of 
irregularities and recovery," the main obj ective of which is to rationalize measures 
for preventing, identifying and correcti ng irregularities and recovering amounts 
unduly transferred. Moreover, the procedure should guara ntee that irregularities 
discovered during checks on measures co-financed under the ROP 2007-2013 for 
Emilia-Romagna are recorded, reported and notified. 
Decision of the Calabria Regional G overnment D.G.R. No 171 of 3 March 2008, 
amending DGR No. 493/2003  
Transfers the administrative responsibility  regarding irregular ities falling under the 
remit of the Department for National and Community Programming. The Act transfers administrative responsibility fo r notifying irregularities under Regulation 
(EC) No 1681/94, as amended, from the Sec ond Level Control Body to the Sector 
for Monitoring, Controlling and Inspecting Programmes and Projects at the Department for National and Community Programming. The Decision provides for a 
system of management and supervision to codify procedures re garding information 
and the monitoring of irregularities a nd for recovering amounts unduly paid out, 
thereby ensuring that the appropriate nati onal and EU authorities are informed of 
any irregularities correct ly and in good time.  
CY Law 188(1)2007 on the prevention of a nd Fight against Money Laundering Act  
Entered into force on 8 Ja nuary 2008, replacing all the previous laws from 1996-
2004. The main purpose of the Act is to establish and criminalize the laundering of 
money originating from all serious criminal  offences and to provide for the seizure 
 
EN 9   EN and confiscation of said money, deprivi ng criminals of their income. The legal 
framework in this field generally provide s a comprehensive and effective basis for 
the fight against money launderi ng, as it contains  provisions not just to preventing 
and combating money laundering but also for locating, freezing and confiscating 
assets.  
LV Cabinet Regulation No 65 of 5 Febr uary 2008 on the procurement procedure 
and its implementation with regard to projects financed by  the contracting 
authority 
Lays down rules for the implementation of the procurement procedure, if 
implementation of the contract, which is no t referred to in Article 6 of the Public 
Procurement Law, is financed by a person who is the contracting authority within 
the meaning of the Public Procurement La w from his/her own resources, resources 
provided for under an EU policy instrument s, or from co-financing resources. The 
Regulation applies to any person who, in  accordance with a decision taken by the 
competent authority, receives financing, unde r an EU policy instrument or from the 
central or a local government budget for th e purpose of implementing a contract, 
with the exception of financing granted as compensation.  
Amendments to the Criminal Law  
Supplement the Law with Article 194(1) - the dissemination of false data or 
information on the state of the Latvian financial system - entered into force on 12 January, 2008. This Article establishes liabil ity for the disseminati on in oral, written 
or other form of intentionally false data or information on the state of the Latvian 
financial system. Article 194(2)  establishes liability for th e activities referred to in 
Article 194(1), if these activit ies have been performed repeatedly or by a group of 
persons on the basis of prior agreement, or if  in doing so substantial harm is done to 
the State or to a person's legitimately protected rights or interests. Article 194(3) establishes liability for the act ivities referred to in Article 194(1) in cases where they 
have been performed for material gain. Th e amendments were dr awn up in response 
to systematic attempts to destabilize the Latvian financial system by spreading false and distorted information.  
Four sets of guidelines  
Adopted in order to esta blish a common understanding among institutions managing 
EU Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund in Latvia with rega rd to e ligibility 
issues, the performance of on-the-spot ch ecks and the surveillance of monitoring 
indicators, the following guidelines were drawn up for the 2004-06 and 2007-13 
programming periods:  
Set of guidelines  
on for the performance by the Cohesion F und Managing Authority of on-the-spot 
checks in respect of the 2004-06 prog ramming period approved on 16/01/2008; 
Set of guidelines  
for the Cohesion Fund Managing Authority in relation to the eligibility of 
expenditure in resp ect of Cohesion Fund projects  for the 2004-06 programming 
period, approved on 14 January 2008;  
 
EN 10   EN Set of guidelines  
laying down the fundamental working prin ciples of the monitoring system, 
procedures for implementing changes to monitoring indicators and procedures for the surveillance of monitoring indicators  during the 2007-13 programming period, 
approved on 15 July 2008  
Set of guidelines  
on determining eligible a nd ineligible costs for the 2007-13 programming period, 
approved on 14/08/2008; 
The method to be used for implementing Cabinet Regulation No 440 of 26 June 
2007  „Procedures by which the Managing Authority, the Certifying Authority, the 
Co-operation Authority or the Respons ible Authority Conducts On-the-Spot 
Verifications of Projects Financed by Eu ropean Union Struct ural Funds and the 
Cohesion Fund” , approved on 30/09/2008.  
LT Government Resolution No 439 of 29 April 2008 
Improves the rules on the repayment into th e Lithuanian national budget of financial 
assistance disbursed and/or used in contravention of legislation. 
Government Resolution No 1225 of 12 November 2008 
Approves the rules for the administration a nd financing of acti on plans, laying down 
procedures for the administration of 2007–2013 EU structural aid and the 
identification and investigation of infringements.  
LU INTERREG programme:  Clarification of responsibilities for the 1st level control. 
The Directorate-General for Financial Cont rol, the body responsible for monitoring 
the commitment and authorisation of expens es in all Ministries and for monitoring 
the liquidation of non-tax revenue (created  by the Act of 8 June 1999 on the State 
Budget, Accounting and Treasury) will be responsible for all the programmes from 
now on.  
INTERREG programme: Clarification and formalisa tion of procedures (Support 
Committees for Interreg A projects)  
HU Act CXXVII of 2007 on VAT  
Entered into force on 1 January 2008 and was amended on 1 May 2008; sets stricter 
requirements for goods imported for resale to qualify for VAT exemption, and 
therefore provide more guarantees in the fight against VAT-avoidance and VAT-
fraud. Goods resold free of VAT which we re brought into the European Community 
must be dispatched from the country within  a set period of tim e, and evidence of 
shipping must be produced together w ith the customs (export/import) clearance 
declaration, and must be proved by presen ting the appropriate doc uments within 15 
days of shipping. During the procedure th e Customs Authorities establish the Value 
Added Tax and suspend payment of this. Importers are exempted from paying tax 
only if, in addition to the above, they pr ove within 15 days of shipping that the 
declaration obligation in respect of in tra-Community sales has been met. The 
reverse charge procedure defined in Ar ticle 142 of Act CXXVII of 2007 on VAT 
aims to provide simplicity and transparen cy, because in this case the person who 
 
EN 11   EN sells or provides the services is not ta xable; the customer is responsible for 
calculating and paying th e tax. The reverse charge pro cedure is applied in two types 
of transaction: when the party required to meet the obligations has no commercial 
establishment in Hungary a nd in transactions between taxable persons in Hungary. 
The act broadened the range of the domestic  transactions with the aim of preventing 
undue VAT recovery. Under the reverse charge  procedure it is no longer possible to 
apply for undue tax deductions for transac tions on the basis of accounts of unclear 
origin. The provisions implemented incr ease Hungarian VAT revenue, so they 
indirectly contribute to the fight against the violation of EU financial interests.  
Act CLXXXI of 2007 on the transparency  of assistance from public funds 
Came into force on 1 April 2008; aims to provide for transparent operation of the 
institutional system for deciding on the gr anting and use of development funds. It 
regulates questions of conflict of intere st in respect of Hungarian and EU-funds 
through stricter rules and in  a clearer, more transparent manner. The Act and the 
Government Decree on its implementation regul ate the rules on conflicts of interest 
in connection with the eval uation of assistance from pub lic funds, the corresponding 
reporting obligation and the rule s governing the disclosure of  data of public interest 
in connection with assistance. They also include widespread exclusion criteria and 
lay down reporting and disclosure rules fo r compliance. The law provides strict 
sanctions against anyone who obtains subs idies despite a conflict of interest. 
MT National Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy, presented on 19 November 2008 
Aims at setting up a normative, institutional and operational framework for the 
effective and efficient fight against fra ud and corruption in Malta, reflecting both 
local requirements and international obliga tions. It enables the fight against fraud 
and corruption to be more pervasive and organised, and allows joint efforts by the 
actors involved. The main thrusts of th e Strategy are prevention, deterrence, 
detection, investigati on and prosecution of fraud and corruption.  
The Strategy will enable the national actors to work as a group and co-ordinate their 
initiatives in a strategic manner, thus enab ling the mitigation of the highest risks in 
an effective manner. It has four main  objectives, namely: Capacity Building; 
Communication Strategy; Maximisation of National Co-operation; Maximisation of 
International Co-operation.  
Act No. XXI of 2007 (Constitution of Malta (Amendment) (No. 2) Act, 2007), 
entered into force on 15 January 2008  
A number of investigative and coercive  measures were introduced when the 
underlying offence was that carrying a puni shment of a maximum of one year 
imprisonment or more. This legislative instrument introduced, inter alia, the said measures in the Criminal Code (Cap. 9) and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act. Moreover, various measures to enhance mutual legal assistance were also catered for through the same legislation. Th ese measures have ge neral application, 
therefore, covering also fraud affecting the Communities' financial interests.  
With regard to the Attorney General's pow er to collect eviden ce under the Criminal 
Code, where the Attorney Gene ral has reasonable ca use to suspect that a person is 
guilty of a relevant offence, he/she may apply to the Criminal Court for a 'monitoring order' under Article 435AA of th e Criminal Code (Cap. 9), requiring a 
 
EN 12   EN bank to monitor for a specific period th e banking operations being carried out 
through one or more accounts of the suspected person.  
Customs Department – Risk manageme nt of Import/Export Declarations 
A review of the Risk Management stru cture was carried out to ensure better 
exchange of information between customs st aff dealing with the scrutiny of import / 
export declarations and officers effecting physical controls.  
Up to mid-2008, Risk Management rega rding import/export declarations was 
managed by one officer who oversaw th e monitoring of declarations in the 
electronic systems, affected documentary checks and also updated risk profiles.  
Work in the Risk Management office has si nce been split in two separate areas. A 
leader was appointed to take care solely  of updating risk profiles while another 
leader is now responsible for business operations. These improvements aim to ensure more effective targeting of cu stoms declarations and thus enhanced 
protection of the EU's financial interests.  
NL / 
AT / 
PL A document ("Guidelines") for the ca lculation of financial corrections for 
infringements of public procurement law relating to projects co-financed from 
EU funds  
Was drawn up at the Ministry of Regional Development. The document was sent, in 
the form of recommendations, to the ma naging authorities and intermediary 
institutions involved in implementing ope rational programmes. The schedule is 
applicable to operational pr ogrammes implemented with structural funds under the 
2004-2006 financial perspective and operati onal programmes implemented with 
structural funds and the Cohesion Fund unde r the 2007-2013 perspective. Its aim is 
to harmonise the procedure in  the event of infringements of public procurement law 
and to improve the process of making fina ncial corrections in respect of such 
infringements. 
PT Decree-Law No 60/2008 of 27 March 2008 
Lays down the organisational arrangement s, the powers of the scrutinising and 
monitoring bodies and the procedures to be complied with by the national entities 
when implementing Regulation (EC) No 485/08 and which sets out administrative 
offences in the event of failure to comp ly with the obligations relating to the 
registration, keeping and availability of in formation specified in the Regulation with 
a view to making them more effective and binding.  
Council of Ministers Resolution  No 2/2008 of 7 January 2008  
Created the operational structure for th e Mainland Rural Development Programme 
(PRODER) and provides th at this management aut hority is responsible for 
managing and implementing the PRODER in an efficient and effective manner in 
accordance with the principles of good financ ial management. To th is end, it states 
that the regional agricultural and fisher ies directors have the technical and 
administrative support of the respective regional directorates and perform the 
monitoring and control functions fo r operations financed by PRODER.  
 
EN 13   EN Council of Ministers Resolution No 79/2008 of 16 May 2008  
Set up the Management Authority for the Fisheries Oper ational Programme 
(PROMAR) and provides that it is res ponsible for managing and implementing 
PROMAR in an efficient manner, in accordance with the principles of good 
financial management. 
RO Own resources sector 
Law 99/29 April 2008 approving Emerg ency Government Ordinance No 
25/2007 laying down certain measures  for the reorganisation of the 
Government working apparatus (O.J. No. 340/2 May 2008, part 1) 
Extends the operational powers of the Fight  Against Fraud Department (DLAF) to 
cover the revenue part of the EU budget. As  a result, as ascert aining body within the 
meaning of art 214 of the Code of Cr iminal Procedure, DLAF carries out 
administrative investigations to detect irregularities and suspected fraud that damage 
the financial interests of the European Union in Romania by illegally reducing the 
own resources of the EU budget.   
National Strategy for the fight agai nst Intra-Community Organised VAT 
Fraud 
Was drawn up under the coordination of the Directorate-General for Tax Inspection 
of the National Tax Administration Agen cy (ANAF). The Strategy was deemed 
necessary in order to strengthen the fight against tax fraud taking into account that, 
although the Community legal framework has been improved, it is not being 
sufficiently exploited, and administrative c ooperation is insuffici ent given the scale 
of intra-Community trade. The strategy has the following objectives: Prevention - 
checks on access to the Register of Intra- Community Operators, checks on high-risk 
taxpayers who access the Register of Intr a-Community Operators, detection and 
checks on economic operators "in waiting", th at is registered operators with no 
visible activity or with ve ry low activity, waiting for an opportunity to commit 
carousel fraud; Detection (rapid detection of fraud and immediate action) - 
establishing the information available to  ANAF and further information needed to 
eliminate the fraud, development of data -processing instruments, collection of 
specific information for the detection of fraud, concluding agreements with 
taxpayers who operate in sectors with a high risk of fraud; Monitoring and 
inactivating persons who commit fraud - estab lishing a protocol of combat activities, 
initiation of legislative proposals, change s to the processing of VAT reimbursement 
applications; Debt recovery - applying sa feguard measures, developing conditions 
for the application of joint liability, cons olidating administrativ e cooperation in the 
recovery of taxes. 
SI Criminal Code (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No 66/08, 
published on 1.7.2008, entered into force on 1.11.2008) 
Scope: horizontal 
Why measure was needed: Fraud agains t the European Community financial 
interests was not specifically defined as a criminal offence 
Improvements: Inclusion of a specific article – Article 229 (Fraud against the 
European Community): 
 
EN 14   EN Act Amending the Criminal Liability of Legal Entities Act (Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Slovenia No 65/08, publis hed on 30.6.2008, entered into force on 
1.11.2008) 
Scope: horizontal 
Why measure was needed: more effective penalties 
Improvements: introduction of two additional penalties, as follows: 
According to Article 15a- Ban on particip ation in public invitations for tender: 
(1) As an additional penalty for criminal offences under Chapter 24 and for criminal 
offences under Articles 260, 262, 263 and 264 of Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code, 
the court may prohibit legal entities from taking part in  public invitations to tender 
for a period of three to ten years. 
(2) Contracting authorities must exclude from public invitations to tender any 
candidate or bidder which as a legal enti ty has received an additional penalty under 
this Article. 
Article 15b: Ban on trading in the legal entity's financial instruments on the 
regulated market: as an additional penalty  for criminal offences under Chapter 24 
and for criminal offences under Articles 260, 262, 263 and 264 of Chapter 26 of the 
Criminal Code, the court may prohibit trad ing in the legal entity's shares, other 
securities or financial inst ruments on the regulated market for a period of between 
one and eight years. 
SK Act No 528/2008 on aid and support gran ted under EC funds (in force as from 
1 January 2009) 
Prior to the adoption of the Act, this ar ea was governed by legal instruments ranked 
lower than acts. The Act governs the systems for the management and control of EC 
funds and lays down the rights and obligat ions of the entities involved in the 
implementation of the funds. It also defi nes the status of the Authority for the 
Protection of the EC's Financial Interests, the obligations of other entities in the 
context of the protection of the EC's financ ial interests and the arrangements for the 
settlement of financial relations. 
Guideline No 16/2008-U concerning irregular ities in the financial management 
of the Structural Funds and the Cohe sion Fund for the programming period 
2004-2006 and 2007-2013 
Provides instructions for assessment, clas sification, recording and notification of 
irregularities, addresses th e updating of the related me thodological guidelines and 
procedures for the programming period 2004 – 2006 and lays down the 
methodology to be applied to irregulariti es in financial management in the 
programming period 2007–2013. 
3. Act No 10/1996 on controls in public administration was amended by Act No 
164/2008 (entered into force on 1 June 2008) 
It lays down detailed provisions on th e powers of the OLAF contact point. 
4. Act No 502/2001 on financial controls and internal audits and amending 
certain acts was amended by Act No 165/ 2008 (entered into force on 1 June 
 
EN 15   EN 2008) 
Covers controls to be performed at firs t-instance and second-instance level. The 
amendment primarily aimed to harmonise pr ocedures, perform controls in a more 
efficient way and improve the overall quality of independent verification and 
assessment.  
FI Financial crime prevention develo pment plan (Document No 28/850/2008)  
Drawn up at the National Board of Customs' crime prevention unit. The basis for the 
development plan for the prevention of tr ade-related financial crime is the National 
Board of Customs' crime prevention act ion plan for the years 2009-2012. This 
details the main changes to the (interna l and external) operating environment as 
regards crime prevention. As stated in the action plan, serious crime targeting 
Finland is becoming increasingly prof essionalised. For the activities of the 
authorities, this entails the need to broaden and deepen professional skill, develop stringent crime prevention methods, build up the resources required for individual 
crime prevention operations and extend the time frame. The vigorous growth in 
Russian trade has meant that, for certain aspe cts, the logistics chain of Russian trade 
is controlled by the type of  parties which the Customs cannot be sure in advance 
present no risk. In addition, recent phenomen a linked to financial crime, such as 
criminal activity via e-commerce and large-s cale criminal activity linked to (transit) 
transport companies, have made its prev ention more challenging then before. In 
addition to the main changes to the extern al operating environmen t described above, 
the action plan also describes the strategi c guidelines for crime prevention for future 
years as regards the prevention of trade-related criminal activity and serious and organised crime. It attaches priority to  improving the prevention of trade-related 
criminal activity in cooperation with the customs inspectors and to cooperating with 
the police and the tax administration in acco rdance with the decision in principle on 
reduction of the grey economy and financ ial crime (financial crime prevention 
programme).  
The objective under the plan is  for the Board of Customs to be, in its own area of 
activity, a leading player in  financial crime prevention, and particularly in the 
prevention of trade-related crime. Acco rding to the Board of Customs' crime 
prevention action plan, the Board of Cu stoms will prepare, in particular, a 
development plan for the prevention of trad e-related financial crime, which will be 
put into effect during the peri od of results planning. With  the aid of the development 
plan, the aim will be to organise the financ ial crime prevention to be carried out at 
the customs authorities at operational level into as well-defined a whole as possible and, at the same time, to commit all cu stoms districts to long-term, planned 
development work.  
SE 1. For the 2008 budget year, the Swedis h Government will for the first time 
supply national certification regarding  the management of EU funds.  
This national certificati on process will take place on an  annual basis and will be 
submitted by the Government to the Riksdag (Parliament), with a copy to the European Commission and the European C ourt of Auditors. Certification will be 
part of the Central Government Annual Re port and will be submitted for the first 
time in April 2009 (for the 2008 budget year ). The certification will contain an 
assessment of whether the compilati on of EU accounts, including profit/loss 
statements, balance sheets and cash-based accounting, gives a correct picture in all 
 
EN 16   EN important respects, and will ensure that the Government has a system (internal 
control framework) in place to secure sa tisfactory internal control of EU funds. 
The Government's certification will be based on the certifications and assessments 
of the authorities responsible, and the opinions and observations of the auditors. 
Responsibility for ensuring satisfactory  internal controls and sound economic 
management lies with the authority responsible for managing each respective programme. 
The EU funds covered by the certification are those managed in partnership between 
Sweden and the Commission and reported under the appropriations and revenue 
headings of the central government budget.  The funds concerned are the European 
Agricultural Guarantee Fund, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European Fisheries F und, European Regional Development Fund 
(including European territorial programm es), the European Social Fund and the 
funds managed within the framework progr amme on Solidarity and the Management 
of Migration Flows. 
National certification is expected to have a positive impact on the financial 
protection of EU funds in Sweden. 
2. The mandate of the EU Anti-Fraud Council has been extended at the 
Economic Crime Authority, which is the national contact point for OLAF in 
Sweden.  
The composition of the Council ha s also been changed to en sure that the authorities 
responsible for the current programme pe riod are represented. On 1 March 2008, the 
Council changed its name to the 'Council for the Protection of EU Financial 
Interests' (the SEFI Council). The Council  is tasked with promoting efficient and 
correct use of EU-related funds and w ith combating fraud, misuse and other 
irregular use of such funds in Sweden. The new Council replaces the earlier EU 
Anti-Fraud Council. 
UK National Fraud Strategic Authority (NFSA) 
Established on 1 October 2008;  it is a non statutory body. 
Key priorities are: 
• A Criminal Justice system that focuse s on the needs of victims by bringing 
fraudsters to swifter justice,  efficiently and effectively; 
• Stronger deterrence to fraudsters through a tough, multi agency law enforcement 
and regulatory response and 
• Greater public confidence in  the response to fraud, and greater capability of 
individuals and organisations  to protect themselves. 
Its role includes working with private, public and third sector  organisations to 
initiate coordinate and communicate counter fraud activity across the UK. 
The NFSA is also undertaking a resear ch on victim support for fraud victims. 
Newly established National Lead Police Force on Fraud supports the delivery of 
NFSA strategy as well as to reinfor ce the police response to fraud through the 
provision of essentia l counter fraud specialist traini ng, best practice and support the 
 
EN 17   EN 43 Police forces in England and Wales th rough the recruitmen t of 50 additional 
officers and specialists. The lead force will conduct some serious fraud investigations on behalf of other police fo rces. The intention is not to replace other 
police forces fraud investigatory unit. Th e objective will be to persuade/encourage 
other police forces to bolster their counter fraud inve stigatory capacity. 
National Fraud Reporting Centre (NFRC) 
Anticipated to be in operation from late  2009. It is being managed and developed by 
City Of London Police (COLP). It will info rm the NFSA assessment of the fraud 
threat to UK. 
It will provide a telephone and web ba se reporting service, which will enable 
individuals and companies to make conf irmed reports on fraud and attempted fraud 
and receive advice and information to protect themselves from future attacks by fraudsters. 
They will mainly deal with high volum e fraud and attempted fraud confirmed 
reports. Frauds/attempted frauds requiring an  urgent response should still be directed 
to the local police force. 
Crimes reported to NFRC will not automatic ally be allocated for investigation. 
Confirmed reports on fraud/attempted fraud will be used for intelligence purposes. 
Civil recovery (pursuant to Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) 
In cases where it is not po ssible to initiate criminal proceedings against corporate 
bodies, steps may be taken in the civil co urts against them to recover property 
resulting from unlawful criminal conduct as well as introduce compliance system 
conditions which are subject to external m onitoring so to avoid a repetition of such 
conduct again  
 
EN 18   EN 2. COMPETENT  NATIONAL  AUTHORITIES 
Article 4 of Regulation 2185/961 establishes that “on-the-spot checks and inspections shall be 
prepared and conducted by the Commission in  close cooperation with the competent 
authorities of the Member State concerned”. Th e notion of “national au thority” is defined by 
national law. Member States may have a central authority and/or a multitude of authorities dealing with on-the-spot checks. In order to allow OL AF to organise on-the-spot checks in a 
more efficient way and to update OLAF contact li st, this questionnaire as ks Member States to 
provide some information about their national au thorities and their areas of competence. The 
answers will also allow the Commission to  compare the powers and organisation of 
competent national authorities. Since the field of  direct expenditures ha s proven to be rather 
complex, the questionnaire contains some sp ecific questions related to this field.  
                                                
 
1 OJ L292/15.11.1996. 
 
EN 19   EN 2.1. CENTRAL COORDINATING AUTHORITY 
Member 
State 2.1.1. Does your Member State have  a central coordinating 
authority responsible for provi ding operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  
BE Yes: 
WALLOON REGION: External Affairs Public Service 
(concerning the European Stru ctural Funds) – Permanent 
Representation of Belgium to the EU 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 
AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): External Affairs Public Service 
(concerning the European Stru ctural Funds), Permanent 
Representation of Belgium to the EU 
FPS ECONOMY: FPS Economy is unofficially the central 
coordinating authority and the authority with administrative competences extending to include direct expenditure. 
No: 
FPS FINANCE: There is no central  coordinating authority for 
own resources and expenditure. Where, however, own resources are concerned; the Standing Committee to Combat Tax Fraud (CAF) is designated to provide any operational support required 
by OLAF. This committee is placed under the authority of the General Administrator of Taxes and Tax Collection. 
FLEMISH COMMUNITY:  
• Leader+  
 
EN 20   EN Member 
State 2.1.1. Does your Member State have  a central coordinating 
authority responsible for provi ding operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  
• EFRO Vlaanderen 
• (BEVLGECO) (Flemish Community – Economy, Science and 
Industry - EFRO) 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: / 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: / 
BG Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
CZ Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
DK Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) - Public Prosecutor for 
Special Economic Crime 
DE Yes Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Referat E A 6 
EE Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
IE No (there is no central coor dinating authority, but several 
authorities can be contacted depe nding on the type of financial 
resources being investigat ed: Office of the Revenue 
Commissioners, Dept. of Agricult ure, Fisheries and Food, Dept. 
of Finance)  
EL No (In accordance with the opinion of the Greek Court of 
Auditors (which we adopt), there is indeed no central 
coordination authority, as responsib ility is shared equally between 
the Court of Auditors, the comp etent Public Prosecutor, the 
Financial Control Committee, the Special Audit Office (formerly the Financial Crime Unit), financial inspectors and inspectors  
 
EN 21   EN Member 
State 2.1.1. Does your Member State have  a central coordinating 
authority responsible for provi ding operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  
from other ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Health).) 
ES No  
FR   
IT Yes COMITATO PER LA LOTTA CONTRO LE FRODI 
COMUNITARIE (C. O. L. A.F.) at  the Prime Minister’s Office, 
Community Policies Department, Co mmunity Fraud Office, Guardia 
di Finanza 
CY Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
LV Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
LT Yes The Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of 
Internal Affairs 
LU No  
HU Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
MT Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) - Internal Audit and 
Investigations Division 
NL Yes (Not a central coordinating authorit y, but a central Douane Informatiecentru m – DIC (Customs Information Centre): 
 
EN 22   EN Member 
State 2.1.1. Does your Member State have  a central coordinating 
authority responsible for provi ding operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  
coordinating contact point) Only for funds in shared management 
AT No2   
PL Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordinati on Service) - Department for 
Protection of EU Financial Interest s within the Ministry of Finance 
PT Yes Inspecção Geral de Finanças 
RO Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
Fight Against Fraud Department (DLAF) 
SI Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordinati on Service) - Budget Supervision 
Office of the Republic of Slovenia 
SK Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
                                                 
2 The Anti-fraud department in the Ministry of Finance is the central coordinating authority for own resources inspections under  mutual assistance on customs and 
agricultural levies under the EAGF. The Austrian Ministry of Finance does not, however, have any cross-departmental powers.); N B (Austrian Ministry of Justice): BGBL I 
109/2007 set up the Anti-corruptio n Office (KSTA), which is respon sible throughout Austria, in accordance with Article 20a(1) o f the Code of Crimin al Procedure (STPO), 
for prosecuting the following criminal offences which do not fa ll within the jurisdiction of the regional courts: 1.Criminal ab use of office and related criminal activities 
under Section 22 of the Criminal Code (STGB). 2. Abuse of trust in carrying out official duties (Article 313 of the Criminal Co de), acceptance of gifts by authorities or 
misuse of aid under Articles 153 to 153b of the Criminal Code. 3. Anti-competitive agreements in contract award procedures unde r Article 168b of the Criminal Code. 4. 
Acceptance of gifts by officials under Article 168c (2) of the Criminal Code. 5.  Money laundering under Article 165 of the Crim inal Code where the proceeds originate 
from a criminal act or activity described in point 1, 2 or 4, a criminal association or organisation under Articles 278 and 278 a of the Criminal Code or an association or 
organisation with a view of committing the crimes or omissions described in points 1, 2 and 4. Under Article 20a (3) of the sto p, the KSTA is also responsible for mutual 
assistance in administrative and criminal matters with the releva nt EU institutions and Member State judicial authorities in su ch cases, and it is the national coordinating 
authority along with OLAF and Eu rojust in the case of proceedings  undertaken as a result of crimes under Article 20a(1) of the STOP as well. KSTA carries out the central 
duties of judicial assistance and cooperation with  the relevant EU institutions in such cases. 
 
EN 23   EN Member 
State 2.1.1. Does your Member State have  a central coordinating 
authority responsible for provi ding operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  
FI No  
SE Yes AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 
UK Yes: Rural Payments Agency (RPA), HM Revenue & Customs 
(HMRC), Department for Trans port (DFT), Wales & Northern 
Ireland (NI) 
No: (Scotland) DFT for TENS Programme only 
 
2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central au thority to take action / pr ovide assistance to OLAF? Member 
State Type of legal instrument (e.g. law, 
regulation, decree) Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official Gazette): 
BE    
BG    
CZ    
DK Circulars issued by the Director of 
Public Prosecutions who is the highest prosecuting authority in Denmark. Notice concerning the insp ection scheme for EU 
fraud cases. A copy of the Notice is enclosed for information. Director of Public Prosecutions – Notice No 4 
of 8 April 1998. 
DE N/A N/A N/A 
 
EN 24   EN 2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central au thority to take action / pr ovide assistance to OLAF? Member 
State Type of legal instrument (e.g. law, 
regulation, decree) Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official Gazette): 
EE    
IE N/A N/A N/A 
EL N/A N/A N/A 
ES N/A N/A N/A 
FR    
IT Act No 142 of 19 February 1992 
and Presidential Order No 91 of 14 May 2007 Presidential Order N o. 91/2007 renewed the 
mandate of COLAF, assigning to it new consultancy and steering functions in connection 
with the coordination of the fight against fraud and other irregularities involving tax, the CAP and the Structural Funds. Official Gazette No 42 of 20 February 1992- 
Official Gazette No 159 of 11 July 2007 
CY    
LV    
LT 1. Resolution 
2. Law 1. Government Resolution No 747 of 24 May 
2002 on designation of the body responsible for cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) 
2. Law No IX-816 of 28 March 2002 on the 
Financial Crime Investigation Service. 1. Valstyb ės žinios (Official Gazette) 2002, No 
33-1250; 
2. Valstyb ės žinios 2002, No 53-2092 
LU N/A N/A N/A 
 
EN 25   EN 2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central au thority to take action / pr ovide assistance to OLAF? Member 
State Type of legal instrument (e.g. law, 
regulation, decree) Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official Gazette): 
HU    
MT N/A N/A N/A 
NL Regulation No 2185/1996 
transposed in nati onal legislation in 
the Douanewet (Customs Act), as far as customs investigations are concerned. Algemene Douanewet (General Customs Act)   
AT N/A N/A N/A 
PL    
PT DL No 79/2007 of 29 March 2007 Organic Law of the Inspectorate-General of 
Finance Official Gazette, Seri es 1.a, No 63, 29 March 
2007 
RO    
SI Government Decision The Slovenian Government has designated as 
the responsible authority (AFCOS – Anti Fraud Coordination Service) the Budget Supervision Office attached to the Ministry of Finance. 
The Slovenian Government has set up an 
interdepartmental workin g party for cooperation 
with OLAF comprising representatives of the following institutions: State Prosecutor's Office, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Interior Government Decision No 245-24/2002-1 of 
4.7.2002 
 
EN 26   EN 2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central au thority to take action / pr ovide assistance to OLAF? Member 
State Type of legal instrument (e.g. law, 
regulation, decree) Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official Gazette): 
(Criminal Police Directorate), Office for Money Laundering Prevention, Customs Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Tax Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Corruption Prevention Commission 
SK    
FI N/A N/A N/A 
SE    
UK  DFT: Regulation (EC) No 680/2007of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 
June 2007 laying down general rules for the granting of Community fina ncial aid in the field 
of the Trans-European transport and energy networks. 
RPA & Wales: The general power under the law 
of England and Wales is in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. Under Section 8, a Justice of the Peace may grant a police constable power to enter and search any premises in connection with the commission of a 
serious arrestable offence. Where a person is under arrest for an arrestable offence, a 
constable may enter and search premise DFT: Official Jour nal L 162, 22/06/2007 P. 
0001 – 0010 
RPA & Wales: OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, P1 
 
EN 27   EN 2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central au thority to take action / pr ovide assistance to OLAF? Member 
State Type of legal instrument (e.g. law, 
regulation, decree) Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official Gazette): 
occupied or controlled by  the person under arrest 
in order to obtain evidence relating to that offence. Theft and Fraud are arrestable offences – see Sections 1 and 15A of the Theft Act 1968, for example. 
The sectoral powers giving domestic force to EU 
Regulations are in variou s Statutory Instruments. 
For the Single Payment Scheme, the powers of entry and search are in the Common Agricultural 
Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes (Integrated Administrati on and Control Scheme) 
Regulations 2005 [SI 218/2005]. In England and Wales, an authorised person may at any reasonable time, on producing the necessary authorisation, enter land other than any building 
used only as a dwelling, for example, in order to establish whether an offence has been committed under these Regulations. One of the offences specified in these Regula tions is the obtaining of 
a payment by furnishing information known to be false or misleading or  recklessly furnishing 
such information. An authorised person, when entering premises under these powers may take any representative of the European Commission 
acting for the purpose of  Article 27 of the 
 
EN 28   EN 2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central au thority to take action / pr ovide assistance to OLAF? Member 
State Type of legal instrument (e.g. law, 
regulation, decree) Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official Gazette): 
Council Regulation. 
HMRC: EU Council Regulation 515/97.  
Northern Ireland: as per England 
 
EN 29   EN  
2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 
Investigative Powers (according to  national procedural rules) Member 
State Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses with their 
consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses under 
caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative investigations Tracing 
people, telephones and mail Other 
BE          
BG          
CZ          
DK   X X X X X X  
DE X         
EE          
IE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
ES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
 
EN 30   EN 2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 
Investigative Powers (according to  national procedural rules) Member 
State Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses with their consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses under caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative investigations Tracing 
people, telephones and mail Other 
FR          
IT X X       X3 
CY          
LV          
LT X X X X X X X X  
LU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
HU          
MT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
NL X X        
                                                 
3 The Committee gives advice and guidance on the coordination of the fight and fraud and other irregularities involving tax, the  CAP and the Structural Funds. Notification of 
the irregularities in their particular sectors is given by the Prime Minister’s Office, Community Policies Department, Communit y Fraud Office, the Guardia di Finanza, the 
Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry, and by the Customs Service, all of which are represented on the Committee. It shou ld be pointed out that Italy’s Court of 
Auditors assists OLAF under a memorandum of understanding signed in July 2006. 
 
EN 31   EN 2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 
Investigative Powers (according to  national procedural rules) Member 
State Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses with their consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses under caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative investigations Tracing 
people, telephones and mail Other 
AT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
PL          
PT X X X  X X    
RO          
SI X X X X X    X4  
                                                 
4 The Budget Supervision Office has the power to perform many tasks, divided among separate internal units. Coordination and har monisation of public internal financial 
control (PIFC), in the context of which AFCOS tasks are also ca rried out, in particular: direc ting the preparation of a nationa l anti-fraud strategy in connection with the 
protection of the European Community's financial interests and coordination of the strategy's implementation; detecting possibl e weaknesses in the system of management 
and control of Community funds;  initiating the necessary legislative or organisa tional changes to protect the European Communit y's financial interests more effectively, 
including proposals for networking with other bodies or instituti ons involved in protecting the European Community's financial interests, and the establishment of joint 
structures and mechanisms; informing the bodies and organisations responsible for managing Community funds (both revenue and ex penditure) of their obligations and of 
the procedures they must follow for the purposes of protecting the Community's financial interests; coordinating the assessment  of the training needs of bodies and 
organisations involved in protecting the Community's financial interests; cooperating with OLAF in running special training pro grammes, including temporary training in 
other Member States; providing organisational support for training; providing support and advice for other bodies and organisat ions involved in protecting the Community's 
financial interests. 
a. Performance of the tasks of an indepe ndent audit body for the use of  EU funds, which means it has unrestricted access to pre mises, persons and documents in the 
performance of its tasks. 
 
EN 32   EN 2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 
Investigative Powers (according to  national procedural rules) Member 
State Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses with their consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses under caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative investigations Tracing 
people, telephones and mail Other 
SK          
FI N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
SE          
UK X X X X X X X X  
 
Member 
State 2.1.5. Does the central 
coordinating authority operate on a basis of annual programming? 2.1.6. Is the Central coordinating 
authority obliged to draw up a report on the objectives to  be pursued in its 
monitoring activity? 2.1.7. How many people work in the central competent 
authority full time? (Staff that is effectively in charge of 
relations with OLAF, excluding supporting personnel (secretariat, archives); figure s based on an estimate of 
manpower in full-time equivalent.) 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
b. Budget inspection: the budget inspector carries out his allo tted task of independently inspecting the legality of the use of  budget funds (funds from the Community budget 
are an integral part of the national budget), issues reports and decisions under the administrative procedure and decrees other  measures for which he is authorised; the budget 
inspector also examines notifications, appeals, reports and ot her applications submitted in matters falling under his remit and , on request, informs the applicant of the action 
taken; to support the Budget Supervision Office in performing AFCOS tasks the Slovenian Government has set up an interdepartmen tal working party comprising 
representatives of the following institutions: State Prosecutor's Offi ce, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Interior (Crimin al Police Directorate), Office for Money 
Laundering Prevention, Customs Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Tax Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Corr uption Prevention Commission. 
 
EN 33   EN Member 
State 2.1.5. Does the central 
coordinating authority 
operate on a basis of annual programming? 2.1.6. Is the Central coordinating 
authority obliged to draw up a report 
on the objectives to  be pursued in its 
monitoring activity? 2.1.7. How many people work in the central competent 
authority full time? (Staff that is effectively in charge of 
relations with OLAF, excluding supporting personnel (secretariat, archives); figure s based on an estimate of 
manpower in full-time equivalent.) 
BE    
BG    
CZ    
DK No No Approx. 2 annual work units 
DE No No ca. 1800 
EE    
IE N/A N/A N/A 
EL N/A N/A N/A 
ES N/A N/A N/A 
FR    
IT No Yes  
CY    
LV    
LT No No 4 
LU N/A N/A N/A 
HU    
 
EN 34   EN Member 
State 2.1.5. Does the central 
coordinating authority 
operate on a basis of annual programming? 2.1.6. Is the Central coordinating 
authority obliged to draw up a report 
on the objectives to  be pursued in its 
monitoring activity? 2.1.7. How many people work in the central competent 
authority full time? (Staff that is effectively in charge of 
relations with OLAF, excluding supporting personnel (secretariat, archives); figure s based on an estimate of 
manpower in full-time equivalent.) 
MT N/A N/A N/A 
NL Yes Yes 4 
AT N/A N/A N/A 
PL    
PT Yes Yes 20 
RO    
SI Yes No 1 
SK    
FI N/A N/A N/A 
SE    
UK No Yes: DFT 
No: HMRC, RPA, NI DFT – TEN-T team / 2 people. 
HMRC & RPA – 3 each NI - 1 
 
EN 35   EN 2.2. NATIONAL AUTHORITY WITH ADM INISTRATIVE ATTRIBUTIONS 
EXTENDED TO THE FIELD OF DIRECT EXPENDITURE 
"Direct expenditure" means any Community expenditure from funds managed by the 
Community institutions (e.g. administrative expe nditures of the institutions, programmes like 
Leonardo, Erasmus, the 7th Framework Programme for research and technological 
development, European Development Fund, etc) . According to article  53 of the Financial 
Regulation5, this part of the budget can be implemente d on a centralised basi s, directly by the 
Commission services, or by delegating implementi ng tasks to third countries (decentralised 
management) or to international or ganisations (joint management). 
The forth type of management for European funds  is shared management with Member States 
(for structural actions funds, for the agricultural f unds), which is not included in sections 2.2., 
2.3. and 2.4. 
It must be underlined th at, through this set of qu estions, it is not intend ed to identify national 
authorities responsible for the management  of direct expenditure, wh ich is a competence of 
the Commission; instead, it is intended to cl arify whether Member States have a single 
authority that OLAF can contact when conduc ting on-the-spot checks and whether Member 
States have an investigation service, as well as  a judicial authority (prosecutor's office) with 
responsibilities extended to the field of direct expenditure. 
                                                 
5 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605 of 25.06.2002 (OJ L 248, 16.9.2002), as amended by 
Regulation EC, Euratom) No 1995 of 13.12.2003 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006). 
 
EN 36   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
BE No: German-speaking community 
Yes: where EFRO [ERDF] in Flanders is 
concerned Flemish community: 
EFRO Vlaanderen 
Decision of the Flemish 
Government Flemish community: 
EFRO Vlaanderen 
Decision of the Flemish 
Government approving Operational Programme Objective 2 EFRD Flanders and designating the Europe Economy department as the managing authority Flemish community: 
EFRO Vlaanderen 
Decision of the Flemish 
Government of 16 May 2007 
BG No N/A N/A N/A 
CZ No    
DK Yes: Public Prosecutor for Special Ec onomic Circulars issued by the Notice concerning the Director of Public 
 
EN 37   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
Crime Director of Public 
Prosecutions who is the highest prosecuting authority in Denmark.  inspection scheme for EU 
fraud cases.  Prosecutions – Notice No 
4 of 8 April 1998. 
DE No N/A N/A N/A 
EE Yes: The Prosecutor's Office Act Section 30 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure. The Prosecutor's Office in criminal proceedings: "(1) The Prosecutor's Office shall direct pre-trial proceedings, ensure the legality and efficiency thereof and represent the public prosecution in 01.07.2004. RT I 2003, 83, 
558, RT I 2008, 35, 212 
 
EN 38   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
court." 
IE No N/A N/A N/A 
EL No N/A N/A N/A 
ES No N/A N/A N/A 
FR     
IT Yes: COMITATO PER LA LOTTA CONTRO 
LE FRODI COMUNITARIE (C. O. L. A.F.) at the Prime Minister’s Office, Community Policies Department, Community Fraud Office, Guardia di Finanza; Act No 142 of 19 February 
1992 and Presidential Order No 91 of 14 May 2007 Presidential Order No 
91/2007 renewed the mandate of COLAF, assigning to it new consultancy and steering functions in connection with the coordination of the fight against fraud and Official Gazette No 42 of 
20 February 1992- Official Gazette No 159 of 11 July 2007 
 
EN 39   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
other irregularities involving tax, the CAP and the Structural Funds. 
CY No N/A N/A N/A 
LV No N/A N/A N/A 
LT Yes: The Financial Crime Investigation Service 
under the Ministry of Internal Affairs Law Law No IX-816 of 28 
March 2002 on the Financial Crime Investigation Service Valstybės žinios 2002, No 
53-2092 
LU Yes: The National Authority for the 
implementation of the community action 
programme Jeunesse en Action  [Youth in 
Action]; Nico Meisch, Senior civil servant, Ministerial Directive Mini sterial Directive of 15 
December 2006 
concerning the national implementation of the   
 
EN 40   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
adviser to the Minister community action 
programme Jeunesse en  
action  [Youth in action]. 
The Directive governs the respective rights and duties of the national authority and the national agency in terms of the implementation of the programme. 
HU No N/A N/A N/A 
MT N/A N/A N/A N/A 
NL No N/A N/A N/A 
 
EN 41   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
AT No (However, if OLAF ma kes such a request to 
the Anti-corruption Office at the Austrian 
Ministry of Finance, it will forward this request to the relevant department. It should be noted that 
the Anti-corruption office  is not a coordinating 
authority in the same way as AFCOS as it does not have cross-departmental powers, simply acting as the single point of contact at OLAF's 
request.) N/A N/A N/A 
PL No N/A N/A N/A 
PT Yes: Inspecção Geral de Finanças DL No 79/2007 of 29 
March 2007 Organic Law of the 
Inspectorate-General of 
Finance Official Gazette of the 
Republic, Series 1.a, No 
63, 29 March 2007 
 
EN 42   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
RO Yes: DEPARTAMENTUL PENTRU LUPTA 
ANTIFRAUD Ă (FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD 
DEPARTMENT) Emergency Government 
Ordinance Emergency Government 
Ordinance No 3/2009 
amending and supplementing certain legislative acts relating to the organisation and functioning of certain structures in the working apparatus of the Government. Official Journal of 
Romania, Part I, No 84 of 
11 February 2009 
SI Yes: Budget Supervision Office Government Decision The Slovenian 
Government has designated as the responsible authority (AFCOS – Anti-Fraud Government Decision No 
245-24/2002-1 of 4.7.2002 
 
EN 43   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
Coordination Service) the Budget Supervision Office attached to the Ministry of Finance 
SK Yes: Government Office department of 
protection of the EC's financial interests and fight 
against corruption (Odbor ochrany finan čných 
záujmov Európskej únie a boja proti korupcii 
Úradu vlády SR) Act of the Slovak National 
Council; Resolution of the 
Slovak Government Act No 10/1996 on 
controls in public 
administration; Resolution of the Slovak Government No 1133/2001 on the proposal to establish the OLAF Central Contact Point for the Slovak Republic. Note: The name of the department has been changed to "Department of 10/1996 (published on 11 
January 1996), 1133/2001 
(adopted on 28 November 2001) 
 
EN 44   EN 2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single  authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in th e field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? Member 
State 2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in th e field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 
E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is suspected of having committed a fraud when implementing a humanitar ian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  
Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at th e EU representation in 
your Member State. Type of Instrument (e.g. 
law, regulation, decree) Title of the legal 
instrument or brief description References of the legal 
instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette) 
protection of the EC's financial interests and fight against corruption“. 
FI No N/A N/A N/A 
SE     
UK No N/A N/A N/A 
 
 
EN 45   EN  
2.2.3. Which powers/duties does the single auth ority that OLAF can contact when conducti ng on-the-spot checks in the field of 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE have? 
Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) Other Member 
State 
Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses 
with their 
consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses 
under 
caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative 
investigations  Tracing 
people, telephones and mail  
BE  X        
BG N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
CZ          
DK  X X X X X X X  
DE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
EE  X       X6 
                                                 
6 Code of Criminal Procedure § 213. Prosec utor’s Office in pre-trial proceedings: (1) Prosecutors’ Offices shall direct pre-tria l procedure and ensure the legality and 
efficiency thereof and are competent to: 1) Perform procedural acts when necessary; 2) Be present at the performance of procedu ral acts and intervene in the course thereof; 
3) Terminate criminal proceedings;  4) Demand that the materials of a criminal file and other materials be submitted for examina tion and verification; 5) Issue orders to 
investigative bodies; 6) Annul and amend orders of investigative bodies; 7) Remove an official of an investigative body from a criminal proceeding; 8) Alter the 
investigative jurisdiction over a criminal matter; 9) Declare a pr e-trial proceeding completed; 10) Demand that an official of an investigative body submit oral or written 
explanations concerning the circumstances relating to a proceeding; 11) Assign the head of the probation supervision department  with the duty to appoint a probation 
officer; 12) Perform other duties arising from this Code in pre-trial proceedings. 
 
EN 46   EN 2.2.3. Which powers/duties does the single auth ority that OLAF can contact when conducti ng on-the-spot checks in the field of 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE have? 
Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) Other Member 
State 
Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses with their 
consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses under 
caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative investigations  Tracing 
people, telephones and mail  
IE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
EL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
ES N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
FR          
IT  X        
CY N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
LV N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
LT  X X X X X X X  
LU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
HU N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
MT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
NL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
 
EN 47   EN 2.2.3. Which powers/duties does the single auth ority that OLAF can contact when conducti ng on-the-spot checks in the field of 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE have? 
Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) Other Member 
State 
Communicating 
irregularities to the Commission Linking 
OLAF to the competent investigative authorities Interviewing 
economic operators and witnesses with their 
consent Interviewing 
economics operators and witnesses under 
caution Accessing 
documents / premises Searching 
and seizing Accessing 
information about ongoing criminal / administrative investigations  Tracing 
people, telephones and mail  
AT N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
PL N/A N/A N/A N/A N/ A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
PT  X X  X X    
RO X X X X X  X  X7 
SI X X X X X    X8 
SK  X        
FI          
SE          
UK          
                                                 
7 Coordination of the fight against fraud in Romania: collection, analysis and processing of info rmation needed to produce the r elevant analyses; prepar ation and coordination 
of advanced training programmes, traineeships and training in the field. 
8 Ibidem 3.  
 
EN 48   EN  
2.3. INVESTIGATION SERVICE WITH 
RESPONSIBILITIES EXTENDED TO THE FIELD OF DIRECT EXPENDITURE 2.4. JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD OF 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE 
 
Member 
State 2.3. Which is the investigation serv ice most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation authority, etc.) Please indicate  at maximum three authorities. 2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecuti on and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 
BE Belgian Auditor General's office  
Belgian Ministry of Finance European Criminal Court 
BG Ministry of the Interior: Direct orate for combating organized and 
heavy crime ( Министерство  на вътрешните  работи , Дирекция  
“Противодействие  на организираната  и тежка  престъпност ”)  
Ministry of the interior: Direct orate for combating common crime 
(Министерство  на вътрешните  работи , Дирекция  
“Противодействие  на общата  престъпност ”) 
State Agency " National Security":  Department of Economics and 
Financial Security ( Държавна  агенция  “Национална  сигурност ”, 
Главна  дирекция  “Икономическа  и финансова  сигурност ”) Supreme Prosecutor's Office: Specialized Unit for Investigations of 
Frauds Related to Misuse of European Funds ( Върховна  
касационна  прокуратура  - Специализирано  звено  за 
разследване  на злоупотреби  с Евр. Фондове ) 
CZ Police Force of the Czech Republic 
Corruption and Financial Criminality Detection Department; 
Criminal Policing and Investigation Service (P ČR ÚOKFK SKPV) Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office 
 
EN 49   EN Member 
State 2.3. Which is the investigation serv ice most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation authority, etc.) Please indicate  at maximum three authorities. 2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecuti on and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 
DK Public Prosecutor for Special Economic Crime Public Prosecutor for Special Economic Crime 
DE N/A N/A 
EE The Central Criminal Police;  
The Tax and Customs Board; The Police Board The Prosecutor's Office 
IE Garda Bureau of Fraud Investig ation (Depends on the Programme/ 
Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigatio n). In regards to investigations 
in the area of direct expenditure , the Garda Síochána (Ireland’s 
National Police Service) is responsible for the detection and investigation of crime in Ireland. 
While cases of financial crimes are an extremely rare occurrence 
they may be brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána by those 
affected and subsequently investigated by the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation an d prosecuted by the Di rector of Public 
Prosecutions  Office of the Director of Public Pr osecutions (As stated above when 
it comes to investigating indictable offences it is the Garda 
Síochána which investigates. It is  then the Director of Public 
Prosecutions who prosecutes.) 
EL SPECIAL AUDIT OFFICE – CENTRAL DEPARTMENT – 
DIRECTORATE 3, SECTION A; Di rectorate for Auditing EAGGF 
Expenditure – Guarantee Section The competent prosecuting authority 
ES   
FR Ministère de l'Intérieur / Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire / 
Office Central pour la Répressi on de la Grande Délinquance 
Financière (Ministry of the Inte rior/Central Headquarters of the 
Criminal Police/Central Office for Serious Financial Crime)   
 
EN 50   EN Member 
State 2.3. Which is the investigation serv ice most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation authority, etc.) Please indicate  at maximum three authorities. 2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecuti on and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 
Ministère de l'Intérieur / Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire / 
Division Nationale d'Investigations  Financières (Ministry of the 
Interior/Central Headquarters of the Criminal Police/National Financial Investigations Division)  
IT GUARDIA DI FINANZA - COMANDO GENERALE 
COMANDO CARABINIERI POLITICHE AGRICOLE E 
ALIMENTARI THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR’S OFFICE WITH TERRITORIAL 
JURISDICTION 
CY LEGAL SERVICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 
(PROSECUTOR-GENERAL) 
Police 
Customs Division LEGAL SERVICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CYPRUS 
(PROSECUTOR-GENERAL) 
LV Financial Police Department of the State Revenue Service; The 
Corruption Prevention a nd Combating Bureau;  
Economic Police Department, Centra l Criminal Police Department, 
State Police International Cooperation Division  of the Prosecutor-General's 
Office, Public Prosecut or's Office of Latvia 
LT The Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of 
Internal Affairs  
Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau Office of the Lithuanian  Prosecutor-General 
LU Criminal Investigation Department, Current Economic and 
Financial Offences Unit Economic Section of the Department of Public Prosecution 
 
EN 51   EN Member 
State 2.3. Which is the investigation serv ice most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation authority, etc.) Please indicate  at maximum three authorities. 2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecuti on and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 
HU National Customs and Finance Gu ard, Criminal Directorate  
General Prosecutor's Office, De partment of Special Cases  
General Prosecutor's Office, Department of Investigation 
Supervision and Prosecution File Preparation National Customs and Finance Gu ard, Criminal Directorate 
MT Internal Audit and Investigat ions Division (AFCOS Malta)  
Economic Crimes Unit, Malta Police Force Economic Crimes Unit, Malta Police Force 
NL Sociale Inlichtingen- en Opspori ngsdienst (Social Information and 
Investigation Service) 
Fiscale Inlichtingen- en Opsporingsdienst (Fiscal Intelligence and 
Investigation Service)  
Algemene Inspectiedienst (G eneral Inspection Service) Openbaar Ministerie (Pub lic Prosecution Service ) 
AT Bundeskriminalamt, Büro für Wirtschafts- und Finanzermittlungen 
(Austrian Criminal Office, Department for Economic and Financial 
Crime Investigations)  
PL Prokuratura Krajowa (the National Public Pr osecutor's Office) Prokuratur a Krajowa (the National Pub lic Prosecutor's Office) 
PT Procuradoria-Geral da República Procuradoria-Geral da República 
RO DEPARTAMENTUL PENTRU LUPTA ANTIFRAUD Ă (FIGHT 
AGAINST FRAUD DEPARTMENT) NATIONAL ANTICORRUPTION DIRECTORATE 
SI Budget Supervision Office Office of the State Pros ecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia  
 
EN 52   EN Member 
State 2.3. Which is the investigation serv ice most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation authority, etc.) Please indicate  at maximum three authorities. 2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecuti on and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 
SK Police Presidium (Prezídium Po licajného zboru), Office for the 
Fight Against Corruption (Úrad boja proti korupcii) Special Prosecutor’s Office of the Office of the Prosecutor-General 
of the Slovak Republic (Úrad špec iálnej prokuratúry Generálnej 
prokuratúry Slovenskej republiky) 
FI National Bureau of Investigation (Keskusrikospoliisi); 
National Board of Customs/Crime Prevention Department 
(Tullihallitus/Rikos torjuntaosasto); 
In Åland Province only: National Bureau of Investigation 
(Centralkriminalpolisen) In Åland Province only: Åland Public Prosecutor's Office 
(Landskapsåklagarämbetet i landskapet Åland) 
SE Ekobrottsmyndigheten (Swedish Economic Crime Authority) Ekobrottsmyndigheten (Swedish Economic Crime Authority) 
UK  Serious Fraud Office (both inve stigate and prosecute and bring 
cases to court) 
 
EN 53   EN 3. THE  REPORTING  OF IRREGULARITIES   
In the fields where the Member States implem ent the budget (agricultural policy, structural 
actions funds9 and pre-accession funds, approximately  80% of the budget) and for the 
collection of the Community's own resources, Community legislation requires the Member 
States to report suspici ons of fraud and other irregularities.  Despite the fact that sectoral 
legislation contains definition on  the notion of irregularity, fraud and suspected fraud, as well 
as all the information to be included in each irregularity report, repor ting discipline is still 
very different from one Me mber State to another. 
3.1. REPORTING DISCIPLINE 
Under Community legislation10, at the latest two months following the end of each quarter, 
Member States shall report to the Commission all the irregularities which have been the 
subject of a primary administrative or j udicial finding. Though timely reporting has been 
improving in recent years, the time gap between the moment when the irregularity has been discovered and the moment when the irregular ity has been communicated to the Commission 
remains significant. 
                                                
 
9 The structural actions funds also include the Cohesion Fund 
10 Commission Regulation (EC) 1848/2006 of 14.12.2006 (OJ L355, 15.12.2006); Commission 
Regulation (EC) no. 2035/2005 of 12.12.2005 (OJ L328 of 15.12.2005), amending Regulation no. 1681/94 of 11.07.1994 (OJ L178 of 12.7.1994); Commission Regulation (EC) no. 2168/2005 of 
23.12.2005 (OJ L345 of 28.12.2005) amending Regulation no. 1831/94 of 26.07.1994 (OJ L 191, 
27.7.1994); Commission Regulation (EC) 1828/2006 of 8.12.2006. 
 
EN 54   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
BE BIRB: The irregularity is reporte d in the quarter following its 
discovery. Delays occur only occasionally. A delay in reporting was to be noted in the first three quarters of 2008, due in 
particular to problems in connecting the new European 
communication module (PRE-IMS). 
WALLOON REGION: Between disc overing the irregularity and 
reporting it to OLAF, the observations made in the inspection report are analysed by the services  responsible for dealing with 
the case, and the final decision on recovering or refusing the aid 
has to be taken by the person in charge at the paying agency. The 
delay is caused by the administering of the cases. 
FLEMISH PAYING BODY: Similar s ituation as in the case of 
the Wallonia paying body. 
An inspection report simply esta blishes the facts and does not 
fully evaluate them. Only when a recalculation is carried out and 
the file, inspection reports and am ounts etc are then analysed by 
the competent person at the paying agency's head office can it finally be considered that an i rregularity has been detected. At 
that moment the recovery pro cedure is immediately begun, and 
OLAF is updated on the matter at  the end of each quarter. The 
various consecutive stages are necessary, but are no doubt sometimes the cause of some what longer handling periods. BERBC03 (Actiris – Emploi Ré gion Bruxelles-Capitale): There 
has been no late reporting to date, given our preventative 
approach. Because of the first-le vel checks carried out on 100% 
of expenditure and because of th e prudential principle, whereby 
no item of expenditure about whic h there might be the slightest 
doubt as to its complying with Community rules is brought before the Commission, the Actiris ESF Department (managing authority) has not yet needed to have recourse to the reporting 
procedure, as laid down by EU regulations. 
WALLOON REGION: In general, it remains difficult to convey 
the message that irregularities th at have nothing to do with fraud 
and that arouse no suspicion of fraud have to be communicated 
to a body set up to combat fraud. 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 
AGENCE FSE [ESF AGENCY]: As far as possible, the Agency 
complies with the timescales laid  down. However, it reports on 
the cases in question after identifying the amount withdrawn, this amount being obtained from the ce rtification communicated to 
the European Commission. This pr actice ensures that there is no 
debt towards the Commission, and the ESF Agency then takes action against the operator. 
Two factors therefore influence the time taken by the procedure: 
 
EN 55   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
BEVLG (agriculture – sea fish eries): Bankrupt companies are 
listed in the Moniteur Belge. The Moniteur Belge is not checked on a daily and systematic basis for reports of bankrupt 
enterprises in the fisheries sector. 
FLEMISH COMMUNITY: Leader+. No  irregularities have yet 
been shown within Leader+ Vlaanderen. 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: N/A 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: No cases as yet the operator's right of reply a nd the work of the certifying 
department.  
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: The time spent on collecting 
relevant information from the va rious bodies to be consulted and 
the burden of administrative work.. 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: No cases as yet 
BG The deadlines for reporting irregular ities are strictly observed. No late reporting of irregularities at present. Irregularitie s were 
reported on time in accordance with the requirements in the regulatory documents. 
CZ Ministry of Agriculture: For the Rural Development and 
Multifunctional Agriculture Operational Programme (“OP RDMA”) programming period 2000 and 2004-2006 and the, Fisheries Operational Programme programming period 2007-2013: there has not been any late reporting of irregularities. The 
financial flows and control methodology for programmes co-financed from Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the European Fisheries Fund has been followed and the deadlines for the management authority to forward the reports to the Ministry 
of Agriculture AFCOS contact  point (and the Paying and Ministry of Transport: If the i rregularity is confirmed in the 
administrative proceedings by the authority responsible, no delay 
occurs. Later reporting would happen if the time is counted from 
the first suspicion of irregularity and if the period runs until the 
investigation by the admini strative body of whether the 
suspicions are founded. 
Ministry of Industry and Commer ce: The section dealing with 
irregularities must also perform other urgent operational tasks for 
the Ministry of Industry and Co mmerce, report to certification 
 
EN 56   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
Certifying Authority [PCO MF-N F]) and for the AFCOS contact 
point to forward them to OLAF have always been complied with. 
For funds of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (guarantee 
section of the EAGGF and EAGF, EAFRD), late reporting to the 
Ministry of Agriculture AFCOS c ontact point is not subject to 
internal reporting by the Stat e Agricultural Intervention Fund 
(SZIF) and the AFCOS contact po int complies with the deadlines 
for reporting irregularities to OLAF. Any "late" reports may be 
caused by appeal proceedings (in particular by documents being 
held up when transferred between the SZIF and the Ministry of Agriculture appeal body in re fund proceedings) or by an 
irregularity being assessed in resp ect of the original subsidy paid. 
Ministry for Regional Development: In the case of operational 
programmes for the programming period 2007 – 2013 managed 
by the Ministry for Regional Development, this point is irrelevant since at the time of the 2008 Questionnaire no irregularities (or suspected irre gularities) had been reported to 
the AFCOS contact point by any of  the management or national 
authorities of the relevant operational programmes. processes, react to operationa l "information requests" by law-
enforcement authorities, participate in working groups and evaluation processes, prepare "winding up" conclusions, cooperate with auditors from the European Commission and the European Court of Auditors, including responding to their 
findings.  
Ministry of Employment and So cial Affairs: Completing the 
investigation of cases, processing times 
Ministry of Agriculture: To date there has been no delay in 
reporting irregularities internally by the management authority to 
the Ministry of Agriculture AFCO S contact point or subsequent 
reporting externally to OLAF 
Ministry for Regional Development: Delays most often occur 
due to late reporting of suspecte d irregularities by intermediate 
bodies (IB). The IB normally doe s not report the case until some 
action has been taken (decision has been issued, withdrawal from 
contract, recovery process underway , or similar), rather than at 
the point at which the suspected irregularity arose. This does not 
mean, however, that the investig ation of the suspected fraud has 
not been started promptly and competently. 
DK Late reporting may be the result  of uncertainty regarding the 
moment at which the irregularity is initially detected. That Late reporting may be the result  of uncertainty regarding the 
moment at which the irregularity is initially detected. That 
 
EN 57   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
moment, according to our interpretation, hinges on the independent detection of an irregularity.  
Several different authorities are therefore involved in a single 
irregularity case, which can lead  to late reporting to OLAF.  moment, according to our interpretation, hinges on the 
independent detection of an irregularity.  
DE National administrative provisions N/A 
EE There is an insufficient flow of  information between different 
bodies; differing interpretations of  the concepts of 'irregularity' 
and 'preliminary notification'. There is an insufficient flow of  information between different 
bodies; differing interpretations of  the concepts of 'irregularity' 
and 'preliminary notification'. 
IE For the Agricultural sector: The pr ocess of irregularity reporting 
is completed as swiftly as possible, between the First Administrative Finding of Fact, central evaluation (possibly 
requiring clarifications) and subs equent entry and transmission. 
OLAF’s statistics for 2008 demonstrate the efficiency of this process, showing Ireland with a high compliance rate for timeliness of reporting.  For the Structural Actions funds:The  vast majority of errors are 
discovered as a consequence of the operation of the financial management and control systems. As such these errors are not 
included in claims made to Bru ssels. It has been the long held 
view of the Irish Authorities th at these errors do not represent 
irregularities in the sense of the definitions contained in the 
regulation as these errors, by virtue  of the fact that they do not 
make their way into claims to the Commission, can never prejudice the Community Budget.  
Further irregularities arise as a consequence of findings, on audit, 
either by the Financial Control Unit or the Commission’s audit 
services. Several months often pass between the carrying out of 
these audits and the notification of the result to the member state. 
 
EN 58   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
The member state is given the opportunity to comment on the audit findings before they are fina lised and this process can often 
take several years. Irregularity re ports are not prepared on foot of 
audit findings until such time as the audit findings are finalised. 
EL As regards guarantees, once an audit finding has been made the 
recipient is asked for clarificat ion and where an irregularity is 
established, the audit report is sent to the competent payment 
authority for further action. There have been some cases of the 
date of the first corresponde nce with the recipient being 
incorrectly recorded as the date  the irregularity was established 
and the frequent involvement of many decentralised departments slows down the exchange of information and data. There have been no reported delays in FCC irregularity 
notifications via AFIS. 
ES Under Community legislation the moment of reporting the 
irregularity is not the moment of its discovery but rather that of 
the primary administrative finding. For the purposes of debt recovery procedures, the time-lim its laid down in the relevant 
national legislation are complied with.  The complexity of the admini strative structures, with 19 
Auditors-General of the Aut onomous Communities which, in 
addition to the Management and Payment Units, report irregularities, cau ses a certain delay. The IGAE, the body 
responsible for reporting irregula rities, revises the reports of 
irregularities that it receives, which may involve returning the 
document concerned so that the requisite corrections can be 
made. In this process, the de lay is caused by receiving the 
correction outside the two months, and it is therefore sent in the 
following quarter.  
 
EN 59   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
FR Reports of irregularities detected  by the audit services of the 
paying agencies (simultaneous controls) are usually produced 
within the deadlines prescribed, except in special cases where it 
is difficult to establish the figur es at the time of the primary 
administrative finding because of the complexity of managing certain Community measures. 
In the case of notifications relating to ex post controls 
(Regulation No 4045/89 (now 485/2008)), late reporting was 
usually connected with delays in implementing control programmes. All of these delays had been made up by the end of 
2008. France does not communicate report s relating to the Structural 
Funds via AFIS but by post. The management authorities draw up the notification and send it, vi a the ministry responsible for 
management, to the CICC, which, after analysing the 
notifications it receives  and requesting any co rrections that might 
be required, forwards them to OLAF . As a result of this system it 
takes longer to transmit the reports . In addition, the time taken to 
transmit reports has increased since the fourth quarter of 2007, when both the managing authorities and the CICC began focusing on producing outlines of the management and control systems and audit strategies  for the 2007-2013 programming.  
IT Investigations into the nature  of the irregularities; obtaining 
approval from the judicial author ities, where necessary; the lack 
of refresher training for st aff employed by the managing 
authority responsible for repor ting the irregularities; the 
complexity and number of levels within the managing authority Investigations into the nature  of the irregularities; obtaining 
approval from the judicial author ities, where necessary; the lack 
of refresher training for st aff employed by the managing 
authority responsible for repor ting the irregularities; the 
complexity and number of levels within the managing authority 
CY This does not apply to Cyprus as the established domestic 
procedure means that irregularit ies are always reported within 
three months of their being discovered. N/A. All involved bodies have been instructed to report 
irregularities within three m onths of their being discovered. 
LV The Managing Authority notif ies the Commission of the 
irregularities detected in the pr evious quarter within two months 
of the end of the quarter, so the time limit for reporting is no Time-consuming nature of research and analysis.  
 
EN 60   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
longer than five months from th e time that the irregularity was 
discovered. Additional information on developments in the case is provided in subsequent reports.  
LT This happens occasionally as a result of accidental information 
system errors, where applicable sanctions are indicated 
incorrectly. Errors are subsequently rectified. Information on irregularities has been provided on time. 
LU Luxembourg did not report any ir regularity in 2007; therefore 
this question does not apply. (Feder) Rules difficult to interpret  
(Interreg) procedure not clear, no res pondent from OLAF 
(European Social Fund) Luxembourg is not affected by this 
question. The required notificati ons are made on a quarterly 
basis. 
HU The main reason for late reporting of irregularities is the fact that 
most irregularities are revealed  in ex post controls. A second 
reason is that the parties i nvolved, almost without exception, 
apply for review, and the organi sations responsible wait for the 
decision of the authorities/courts. As regards EU subsidies the i rregularities are often revealed 
during on-the-spot checks on projects implemented. The 
organisations carry out checks on th e basis of risk analysis in 
accordance with the relevant Co mmunity legislation. Another 
problem is posed by the fact that the persons who handle 
irregularities are ove rburdened and there is rapid turnover. 
MT To date, Malta has reported irregularities in the agricultural 
sector on time. Late reporting c ould very well occur because the 
relevant authority would want to be ascertained that the 
circumstances in question really tantamount to an irregularity Later reporting of irre gularities takes place mostly because the 
relevant authority would want to be ascertained that the 
circumstances in question really tantamount to an irregularity 
and because it would feel more  comfortable to report an 
 
EN 61   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
and because it would feel more  comfortable to report an 
irregularity when the relate d recovery procedures have 
commenced.  irregularity only when the rela ted recovery procedures have 
commenced. 
NL In certain cases of late  reporting of irregulari ties it can take some 
time to check the most important data. Because of the need to 
coordinate the inspection services, paying agency and the delegated bodies involved, a nd in some case the Public 
Prosecution Service too, this ca n sometimes take a long time. See 3.1.1.1. 
AT Late reporting is due to a numbe r of individual or combined 
factors, e.g.: 
• time required to carry out and document inspections 
• calculation and recording of claims 
• forwarding files. 
Export refunds: irregularities ar e reported after notification by 
paying agency, i.e. after the first administrative finding in 
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006.  ERDF: late reporting by administrative authorities and 
intermediaries 
PL • Over-general definition of the terms "irregularity" and 
"primary finding": difficulties w ith and differences in their 
interpretation. 
• Lengthy process of clarifying irregularities ( e.g. inviting 
beneficiaries to provide  clarifications).  • The lack of an IT system to facilitate reporting. This means 
that considerable time and money have to be spent on 
collecting the information and submitting it to the EC.  
• The implementing institutions do not have any added value 
from the information submitted.  
 
EN 62   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
• Lack of IT support in the payi ng agencies' reporting structure. 
• A large number of irregularities which should be analysed in 
terms of the EUR 10 000 threshold.  • Lack of risk assessment  by the Commission. Ambiguous 
definition of the terms "irregularity" and "primary 
administrative or judicial fi nding" in the EU Regulations. 
PT The "first administrative or lega l act" corresponds to a "final 
decision" issued after it has been  concluded that the irregularity 
initially detected still exists and that it requires the repayment of a specific, net and due amount and after the principle that both 
parties should be heard has been verified. The same applies to judicial decisions relatin g to criminal offences. The national authorities re ported the cases on time. 
RO N/A N/A 
SI Irregularities are reported promptly. Irregularities are reported promptly. 
SK Irregularities reported shortly be fore the notification deadline; 
slow administrative processing; late notification by the entities 
involved. Insufficient identification of  irregularities and unclear 
procedures; the intermediate bodies reporting to the managing 
authorities are not able to id entify the various types of 
irregularities because they ha ve not yet encountered them; 
examination of the extensive supporting documentation is demanding and time-consuming. 
FI There are no problems, as repor ting times are already rather 
short. The main reason is project sponsor s' desire to report only cases 
that have been definitively prove n to be irregularities, i.e. the 
report is not sent until after an administrative decision has been 
 
EN 63   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
taken in relation to the case. 
SE Individual case officers may be unsure and ignorant of 
procedures Difficulties in establishing erroneous amounts can cause long 
delays between discovery and reporting. A large workload and 
mistakes can lead to delays in reporting. 
Lack of resources, and to some  extent lack of knowledge and 
procedures. 
UK RPA & Wales – The majority of irregularities are reported on 
time and in accordance with the agreed procedure. If the 
irregularity is discovered by an inspection visit, this will be reported the following month but if  discovered by an alternative 
method then there may be a slight delay to allow appropriate follow-up work to confirm and quantify the irregularity. 
Scotland – Every case is different , however, late reporting could 
be as a result of the difficultie s in collating the information. Re-
inspection of claims, IT system upgrades and associated testing and formal Appeals process can cause late reporting. BERR: Sometimes the decision to report is not taken 
immediately, as applicants ca n be asked to substantiate 
expenditure before an irregular ity is declared. Reporting cases 
requires resources and these can be stretched at busy periods 
such as during closure of programmes. 
JIU: This most frequently arises where an applicant confirms the 
existence of, but is unable to provide the appropriate 
documentary evidence to support the expenditure during the first 
visit. In such cases, a reasona ble period of time is stipulated 
within which the evidence must be supplied. If this is not forthcoming, the administrative repo rt is formally written and the 
recording/reporting of the irregularity is actioned.  
Wales: Most irregularities ar e reported on time however, slight 
delay may occur while the irregularity is being quantified and thereafter reported. 
 
EN 64   EN 3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricul tural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 1.2 years. 3.1.2. According to the Articl e 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural  actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and reported irregularity is 0.9 years. Member 
State 
3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 
Northern Ireland: The main cau se is the delay in receiving 
information concerning irregular ities from the Implementing 
Bodies. 
Scotland: Every case is different , however, late reporting could 
be as a result of the difficult ies in collating the information. 
 
Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
BE FLEMISH PAYING BODY: Once a recalculation has been 
made, a check is made to see whether there are cases likely to 
have a significant financial impact. These are preferably analysed first as part of the proc ess of dealing with them. 
BEVLG (agriculture – sea fisheries) : There is closer contact with 
the various professional associatio ns in the sector for the purpose 
of detecting bankrupt enterprises early. 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: N/A 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A WALLOON REGION: Reminders sent out about the importance 
of the regulations on reporting ir regularities, particularly at 
meetings of the OLAF working party for the Walloon Region. 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 
AGENCE FSE [ESF Agency]: The number of certifications will 
be increased from two to three for the period 2007-2013, a 
development that will shorten the period for reporting to the European Commission and, theref ore, for reporting to OLAF. 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: No  specific measures are 
being implemented at present. 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 
 
EN 65   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
BG N/A Communication with intermedia ry units has been improved, an 
e-mail address for reporting has been  created, there is now direct 
contact with the officials who d eal with irregularities. Ex-post 
control of signed contracts.  
CZ Ministry of Agriculture: Inte rnal rules have been adopted 
(Ministry of Agriculture AFCO S contact point procedural 
guidelines); ad hoc working meeti ngs between the representative 
of the Ministry of Agricultu re AFCOS contact point and 
representatives of the Ministry  of Agriculture management 
authority are organised. 
Internal rules have been adopt ed (Ministry of Agriculture 
AFCOS contact point procedural guidelines); a Public Service 
Agreement has also been adopted (Agreement on the transfer of data within AFCOS agreed by th e Ministry of Agriculture and 
SZIF) and on the basis of this Agreement working meetings are arranged between the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture AFCOS contact point and representatives of SZIF. Ministry of Transport: Where th ere are grounds for suspecting an 
irregularity, an entry is made in the monitoring system and the 
suspicion is then investigated by the authorities. The irregularity 
is then either confirmed or  cancelled as unsubstantiated. 
Ministry of Industry and Comm erce: After completing winding 
up operations related to the account ing of funds disbursed from 
the Structural Funds for the Op erational Programme Industry and 
Enterprise (OPIE) 2004-2006+2 ye ars (funds drawn down as at 
31 December 2008) in the first half -year of 2009 there will be a 
capacity assessment of staffing a ssigned to irregularities and 
subsequently any necessary measures will be taken to fulfil the tasks assigned, also for the new period of the Operational Programme Enterprise and Innovation (OPEI) 2007-2013+3 years. 
Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs: Accelerated 
investigation. 
Ministry of Agriculture: Th ey would be taken ad hoc. 
Ministry for Regional Developm ent: Increasing intermediate 
bodies' awareness of their duty to follow procedures according to the methodology in force governing the investigation and 
reporting of irregularities. Du ring the project maintenance 
period, focusing management aut hority checks at intermediate 
 
EN 66   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
bodies on reporting and investigatio n of irregularities. When a 
suspected irregularity is discove red the management authority 
tries to carry out an on-the spot check, ascertain the actual state 
of implementation of the project and either sti pulate corrective 
measures or withdraw from the project implementation contract. 
DK Internal procedures have been tightened up and this is expected 
to reduce the period between detection and reporting of 
irregularities. Denmark complies with the current rules on reporting. 
DE N/A N/A 
EE Regular training; continual a dvice, and making cooperation and 
the exchange of information between different bodies more effective. Regular training; better cooperati on and exchange of information 
between different bodies. 
IE All staff involved in the irregu larity identification and reporting 
process is made aware of the Regulatory requirements and are advised to process/report cases  as swiftly as possible.  Please see answer above; Also an example taken from the ESF 
Certifying Authority which ha s since January 2006 reminded 
Managing Authorities of their oblig ations to submit all reportable 
ESF irregularities/disconformities. In addition since that time they also seek information about earlier irregularities when interim claims are being processed. 
EL The administration has acted in a coordinated way to establish 
and confer powers to shorten th is period greatly. The results will 
show in notifications from 2008 onwards. N/A 
ES Timely handling of follow-up of the irregu larities detected The Community Funds De partment is devising a new system to 
replace the current one, with  the emphasis on the speed and 
accuracy of reporting. The IGAE is taking measures designed to improve communications at the first level by clarifying doubts 
 
EN 67   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
and detecting frequent errors, in order to reduce the time taken to 
process and correct the cases that arise.  
FR The body responsible for centralis ing and forwarding reports of 
irregularities sends a letter to the organisations concerned 
reminding them of the regulations, so that the information can be transmitted as quickly as possible. 
In connection with the fundi ng of the CAP, governed by 
Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and No 885/2006, the paying 
agencies have had to revise their procedures for following up claims. In particular, they have had to introduce a procedure using a specific computer tool so  that they receive the list of 
cases where there has been a primary administrative finding at regular intervals and are better able, as a result, to control 
compliance with the statutory time limit for notification. This results in the amount of aid wr ongly paid being calculated as 
soon as the primary administrative finding is made. The first measure has been to issue reminders about the statutory 
time limits when audits of management and control systems for the Structural Funds are carrie d out among those in charge of 
producing notifications and to re view the notifications made, 
ongoing or pending. The second meas ure has been to give the 
ministries responsible for managing the various funds a monitoring role (PM Circular  of 13 April 2007). The new 
application for communicating no tifications, currently being 
introduced by OLAF, will not only  make it possible to cut the 
time it takes to transmit notifica tions but should also be an 
opportunity for re-examining the in ternal procedure for checking 
irregularities. 
IT An “initial administrative or ju dicial document” has been drawn 
up giving rise to the reporting obligation (CO L A F No 13/2008); a national conference on training for the personnel 
concerned has been organised; ad hoc IT systems has been set up An “initial administrative or ju dicial document” has been drawn 
up giving rise to the reporting obligation (CO L A F No 13/2008); a national conference on training for the personnel 
concerned has been organised; ad  hoc IT systems has been set up 
CY N/A N/A 
LV See answer to question 3.1.1.1.  The irregularity repor ted as soon as there is any suspicion of an 
irregularity having o ccurred and research and analysis has been 
initiated. Additional information on further developments in the case is included in subsequent reports.  
 
EN 68   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
LT Staff training All information relating to irregularities is entered in the EU 
structural aid computerised mana gement and control information 
system, by means of which data on irregularities can  be selected 
and saved, information can be tr ansferred efficiently to the 
appropriate authorities, and the id entification and i nvestigation of 
irregularities can be controlled. 
LU The information in question will be submitted as soon as 
possible. (Interreg) The deadlines do not pose a problem. 
HU Strict compliance with the internal procedures laid down for 
sending reports and with repor ting deadlines is expected. 
Procedures were laid down fo r the treatment of the reporting 
requirements concerning interv ention losses regarded as 
irregularities, and their implementation is under way. Capacity has been increased at the organisations in question and 
the rules for reporting revised. The new provisions will probably shorten and facilitate the cu rrent procedures. In addition 
standardised instruct ions have been drawn up pursuant to the 
AFIS-system, and training and conferences on treating irregularities have also been organised. 
MT Reminders are sent to the releva nt stakeholders to submit their 
irregularity reports to AFCOS (Malta) by the deadline, emphasising that risk analyses on information contained in the 
irregularity reports provides adde d value only if such information 
is submitted immediately after the discovery of the irregularity. Reminders are sent to the relevant stakeholders to submit their 
irregularity reports to AFCOS (Malta) by the deadline, emphasising that risk analyses on information contained in the 
irregularity reports provides adde d value only if such information 
is submitted immediately after the discovery of the irregularity 
NL The paying agencies, Dienst Regelingen (National Service for 
the Implementation of Regulations ) and Dienst Landelijk Gebied 
(Government Service for Land and Water Management), make sure that no time is wasted calculating the exact level of the irregularity. Consequently the ex act amount is adjusted later. Better coordination between th e inspection services, paying 
agency and delegate d bodies involved. 
AT Analysis of reporting procedure ERDF: administ rative authorities and intermediaries are 
 
EN 69   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
Export refunds: it is planned to reduce the time taken by the 
paying agency to process cases.  regularly reminded of thei r duty to report on time. 
PL The point at which the obligation arises to submit information on 
the detection of irregul arities has been defined in the procedures. 
Efforts are being made to obtain information directly from the computerised management and control systems. More people are being hired in the Irregularities Departments in paying agencies. 
The Ministry of Finance is car rying out an analysis of the 
irregularities and sending it to the institutions. Training is being 
organised.  Documents have been identified which may be considered 
primary administrative findings, training has been carried out, 
procedures have been update d with the introduction of the 
appropriate check lists. The Mini stry of Finance draws up a risk 
analysis every six months, identifying the most serious dangers 
and describing the most frequent i rregularities. This is then sent 
to all managing institutions. 
PT Internal measures to shorten the period between the discovery of 
an irregularity, its analysis by the competent departments, the 
duration of the contradictory proc edure (the opportunity given to 
the beneficiary to state why he /she should not reimburse the 
fund) and the issue of the subsequent final decision determining the reimbursement of the amount  relative to the irregularity 
discovered and hence the relevant communication to OLAF. See reply to point 3.1.2.1. 
RO N/A N/A 
SI   
SK Direct contacts with the entities that have notified irregularities 
belatedly; drafting of reports in  advance and their subsequent 
reconciliation with th e irregularities logbook; "four-eye checks". Intensification of contacts w ith and guidance provided to the 
entities concerned; a methodologica l guideline has been adopted 
for the use of irregularity codes in line with the OLAF code table, specifying how findings are to be classified according to 
the OLAF code table; detailed procedures have been laid down 
for addressing irregu larities in internal manuals of the 
 
EN 70   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
operational programmes. 
FI It is not possible to shorten it mu ch, as reports are already sent 
directly after the cont rol/recovery decision. The course followed is to furthe r emphasise that reports should 
be sent as soon as an irregularity  is first discovered. It is also 
emphasised that reports should sp ecifically notify the discovery 
of suspected irregularities, whic h can however later prove to be 
incorrect. 
SE The Swedish Board of Agricultur e, which is the coordinating 
authority for reporting irregularit ies in agricultural expenditure, 
held 6 training courses in the la te autumn focusing on those who 
report irregularities, i.e. speci alist units, County Administrative 
Boards and other authorities. Ne w manuals have been produced 
to help case officers with reporting. The managing authority and pa ying authority are working 
constantly to improve administ rative processes and reduce case 
processing times. Guidelines/procedu res have been established to 
ensure that irregularities are repor ted in accordance with current 
regulations. The reportin g of irregularities is coordinated by a 
civil servant in a key position w ho has good insight into whether 
irregularities are reported in tim e or not. This boosts the chances 
of rapid initiation of the necessary remedial action. 
UK DfT - The EC request Action Status Reports on an annual basis 
where progress is checked on a re gular basis. Any discrepancies 
on costs or timetables are im mediately reported to the EC. 
RPA & Wales – It should be possible to enhance our 
performance with greater familiarity and experience of the 
reporting mechanism envisaged by R 1848/2006 (Pre-IMS/IMS) and wider application of the con cept of ‘PACA’ (premier acte de 
constatation administrative). 
Scotland – An 8-month independe nt review of the Appeals 
process has just been completed. A more automated recovery 
system that will reduce the time taken to report irregularities is 
also being introduced. BERR: The guidance and advice is  always that irregularities 
should be reported as soon as possi ble, following the first written 
statement on the issues, bearing in mind that the details can be updated at any time. For ERDF, each Government Office (GO) has an irregularity coordinator who is responsible for overseeing 
the recording, reporting and clos ure of the region’s cases. 
JIU: Messages concerning the requirements are included in 
communications with GO inspection and monitoring teams - 
Action notes, emails, training, presentations and telephone conference call meetings. Meetings with individual GOs where there are concerns about compliance. 
Wales: Once a potential irregularity is identified, action is taken 
 
EN 71   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
as quickly as possible with the beneficiary to obtain all the 
information needed to quantify it. 
Northern Ireland: A commissioning letter is issued ahead of the 
2-month period and reminders are also issued. 
Scotland: As above, no two cases are the same and there is no 
generic means to speed up the reporting process. 
 
EN 72   EN  
Member 
State 3.1.1.3. In your case, if you do not/can not take any measures, 
why not? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.3. In your case, if you do not /can not take any 
measures, why not? (S TRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
BE BIRB: Communications take place on time; no measures to be 
taken. 
FLEMISH PAYING BODY: / 
WALLOON REGION: no measures to be taken BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: N/A 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A WALLOON REGION: N/A 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: Beca use there are a variety of 
players involved and because the Brussels-Capital Region 
Ministry is faced with a di fficult budgetary framework.  
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 
BG N/A There have been no cases to date in which no corrective 
measures could be taken or sanctions imposed. 
CZ Ministry of Agriculture: Meas ures would be taken at the 
operational level (setting of de adlines, discussion of further 
action, etc.) Ministry of Transport: Investiga tion of irregularities is carried 
out by administrative bodies over which the Ministry has no 
influence (Czech Competition Authority (ÚOHS), Financial offices). 
Ministry of Employment and So cial Affairs: Processing times 
Ministry of Agriculture: Meas ures would be taken at the 
operational level (setting of de adlines, discussion of further 
action, etc.) 
DK  Reporting is satisfactory. 
DE N/A N/A 
EE   
 
EN 73   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.3. In your case, if you do not/can not take any measures, 
why not? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.3. In your case, if you do not /can not take any 
measures, why not? (S TRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
IE  See question 3.1.2.2 
EL N/A N/A 
ES   
FR   
IT   
CY N/A N/A 
LV See answer to question 3.1.1.1.  N/A 
LT   
LU N/A (Interreg) We suggest a represen tation for OLAF in Luxembourg 
HU   
MT N/A N/A 
NL N/A N/A 
AT   
PL N/A N/A 
PT See reply to point 3.1.1.2 See reply to point 3.1.2.1. 
RO N/A N/A 
SI   
SK Measures are taken. The amendment of the directive on dealing Meas ures are taken in the form of  internal orders or managing 
 
EN 74   EN Member 
State 3.1.1.3. In your case, if you do not/can not take any measures, 
why not? (AGRICULTURE) 3.1.2.3. In your case, if you do not /can not take any 
measures, why not? (S TRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 
with the irregularities at the Agricultural Payment Agency authority  letters, not through a system measure. 
FI See previous answer.  
SE  Lack of resources or lack of knowledge. 
UK See previous answer. BERR as coordinating body for irregularity reporting can only 
advise Authorities about the re quirements of the regulations. 
However, government departments do take measures with government offices in the regions, on the management of irregularities through regular re conciliation of records and for 
example, day-to-day discussions and audit findings. 
Wales: All appropriate and reasonable measures are taken. 
Scotland: The Division has its ow n Desk Instructions which are 
followed in each case. 
 
EN 75   EN 3.2. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF IRREGULARITIES 
Sectoral regulations concer ning irregularity reporting to the Commission provide that 
Member States also need to evaluate and re port the financial impact of the irregularities. 
The financial impact is in many cases difficult to  evaluate because of the multitude of factors 
to be taken into account. Among these can be incl uded the lack of complete information at the 
moment when the evaluation is being undertaken, or the non-existence of a pre-defined set of 
criteria which would help the evaluator in establ ishing the financial impact  of an irregularity. 
The replies from the Member States will contri bute to a more homogenous, in-depth analysis 
of the financial impact of ir regularities communicated to the Commission. This information is 
essential because the budgetary authorities, as well as the public, always pay particular 
attention to this aspect. 
 
EN 76   EN 3.2.1. Do your Member State's guidelines on i rregularity reporting include rules for de fining/establishing the financial impact  
of an irregularity taken individually?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
BE No (BIRB, WALLOON REGION: The 
financial impact is the value of the established entitlement. This value is determined by the penalty coefficients defined in the sectoral regulations. 
FLEMISH PAYING BODY, GERMAN-
SPEAKING COMMUNITY) Yes (BERBC03, WALLOON REGION, 
FRENCH COMMUNITY, AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency), FLEMISH COMMUNITY, ESF VL) 
No (BEVLGECO, BEVLG (agriculture 
and sea fisheries), FLEMISH COMMUNITY, EFRO Vlaanderen (EFRD Flanders), BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION, GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY) No 
BG Yes Yes Yes 
CZ Yes Yes  
DK Yes Yes  
DE Yes Yes No 
EE Yes Yes Yes 
IE Yes Yes  
EL No No  
ES Yes Yes  
FR Yes Yes  
IT Yes No  
 
EN 77   EN 3.2.1. Do your Member State's guidelines on i rregularity reporting include rules for de fining/establishing the financial impact  
of an irregularity taken individually?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
CY Yes Yes Yes 
LV Yes Yes Yes 
LT Yes No No 
LU Yes No  
HU Yes Yes No 
MT Yes Yes Yes 
NL No Yes  
AT Yes 
No (for the export refunds) Yes  
PL Yes No No 
PT Yes Yes N/A 
RO Yes Yes Yes 
SI No No  
SK No Yes Yes 
FI No No N/A 
SE No No  
UK Yes Yes N/A 
 
EN 78   EN  
3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
BE  BERBC03:  
• correctness of the amount 
• possession of complete and reliable 
information guaranteed 
• account taken of events, such as legal 
proceedings under way against the final recipient, that might have an impact on the final recipient's activities continuing 
as normal, since the latter's expenditure 
is no longer likely in future to be put forward for ESF co-financing. 
WALLOON REGION: It does not seem 
necessary to provide additional rules or criteria for determining the amount of the irregularity, as ther e is in general no 
problem in determining this amount. It does happen that, in order to determine the exact amount of the irregularity, significant research and monitoring work and, therefore, considerable human resources are required, these being justified in terms of a concern for fairness and objectivity (with the penalty imposed being proportionate to the error), but it is  
 
EN 79   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
not the rules or criteria  that are deficient. 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 
AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): The first 
criterion is eligibility of the expenditure. In the case of irregularities linked, rather, to the system put in place, systemic 
withdrawals may be established in 
accordance with the European directive that sets the percentages. 
FLEMISH COMMUNITY: / 
ESF VL: Application of the general 
financial criteria calls for specific financial criteria that are used for both allocation and settlement. These criteria ultimately lay down the various sources of funding 
for the implementation of each project (EU, Public Co-financing, Private Co-financing and Revenue). 
BG The financial impact equals the amount of 
the subsidy/amount of the revenue to the Community budget. There is no general re gulatory act that 
governs the establishment of the financial impact. However, there are internal rules. The impact equals the amount of the payment to the Community budget. The 
mechanism follows the logic indicated for There is no general regulatory act that 
governs establishing the financial impact. However, there are internal rules. Criterion is the value of the irregularity, as compared with the funds that were 
implemented; it is usually the amount of 
 
EN 80   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
the pre-accession instruments. the ineligible costs/the damage.  
CZ Ministry of Agriculture: Generally the 
SZIF internal rules (governing the procedure for recovering sums outstanding – refunds, accounting for debts); no specific provision setting "criteria" has 
been approved and we work on the basis 
of best practice and COCOLAF working documents.  Ministry of Industry and Commerce: This 
involves defining eligibility of costs for individual OPIE and OPIE programmes. In this context the OPPP and OPPI management body of the Ministry of 
Trade and Commerce uses the financial 
flows and control methodology for Structural Funds. The requirements of this document are monitored on an ongoing basis and systematically incorporated into the next updated version of the implementation manuals, which are the binding rules governing the activities of officials of the management authority and the intermediate body (CzechInves-CI agency), including regional offices (RKCI). Instructions on how to proceed in 
individual programmes is given either in the tender notices or on the website of CzechInvest. The decision granting the subsidy and the terms include the framework specification of the eligible costs that are mandatory for the financing of the subsidy pledged. A material check of these expenses is generally carried out at the location of the project and Ministry of Finance – Section 55 – 
National Fund 
 
EN 81   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
documentary checks on invoices are done 
at the payment authorisation stage before the money is refunded to the beneficiary's account. 
Ministry of Employment and Social 
Affairs: The report covers the following 
criteria: the type and estimated amount of funds wrongly used the amount already disbursed and ascertainment of whether payments have been provisionally halted and, if so, the amount involved. 
DK The individual agencies in the Directorate 
for Food, Fisheries and Agri-Business have the final decision on the extent of the irregularity and on how much should be recovered in a given case. If the amount cannot be accurately determined, an estimate is made in accordance with the internal guidelines on irregularity reporting. In the case of the ERDF and ESF, the 
provisions on irregularities in the Commission's regulations are applied.  
As for the FIFG, the individual agencies in 
the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and Agri-Business have the final decision on the extent of the irregularity and on how much should be recovered in a given case. If the amount cannot be accurately determined, an estimate is made in accordance with the inte rnal guidelines on 
irregularity reporting.  
DE Financial loss for the Community Financial loss for the Community and for 
the national budget N/A 
 
EN 82   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
EE The precise financial impact of an 
irregularity is established in line with the size/severity of the irregularity and on the basis of the penalties applicable in the event of failure to meet the requirements laid down in legal acts.  The precise financial impact of an 
irregularity is established in line with the size/severity of the irregularity and on the basis of the penalties applicable in the event of failure to meet the requirements laid down in legal acts.  The financial impact of irregularities 
relating to SAPARD is assessed on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the requirements laid down in the Multi-annual Financing Agreement and the particular circumstances of the 
irregularity. No general instructions have 
been drawn up for establishing the financial impact of each individual irregularity. 
IE All staff involved in the irregularity 
identification and reporting process have been provided with a document outlining the financial data required on the AFIS system and the financial impact is established by them on the basis of the Community rules applicable. In the case of a grant – the criteria would 
be the amount of grant provided.  
In the case of direct assistance – the 
criteria would be th e potential loss to 
National and European funds.  
EL    
ES Establishment of the amount wrongly paid 
plus interest, in accordance with the 
Community legislation directly applicable and Article 40 of th e General Subsidies 
Law 38/2003 of 17 November.  Generally speaking the financial impact is 
quantified. If it is not possible, 
Commission guidelines are used and also 
manuals of procedure and computer applications.   
FR The paying agencies quantify the 
irregularities. For ex post controls the The auditors have to  establish, for each 
operation audited, the am ount of ineligible  
 
EN 83   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
inspection bodies are asked to carry out a 
preliminary assessment as soon as the primary administrative finding is made. This is then confirmed by the paying organisation. 
The assessment and the estimation of the 
financial impact of an irregularity result 
from a strict application of Community regulations. expenditure and the corresponding amount 
of unduly paid aid. These amounts are calculated in relation to the expenditure 
items claimed and deemed to be eligible (expenditure found to be fully eligible and paid). 
IT In the case of the EAFRD the impact is 
assessed on the basis of “Infringement verification indices” which measure the scale of the incident, its seriousness and duration; each of these indicators is subdivided into three types of infringement. (Order of the Agriculture Ministry of 20/03/08)   
CY (a) before payment: the amount to be paid 
to the applicant if the irregularities has not 
been located, and (b) after payment: the amount unduly paid. Th ere is an urgent 
need for the Commission to establish specific criteria and guidelines. (a) before payment: the amount to be paid 
to the applicant if the irregularities has not 
been located, and (b) after payment: the amount unduly paid. (a) before payment: the amount to be paid 
to the applicant if the irregularities has not 
been located, and (b) after payment: the amount unduly paid. 
LV The amount of irregular expenditure 
having an impact on the national and The nature of the irregularity is taken into 
account, i.e. whether it applies to a In determining the financial impact of the 
irregularity, the am ount of funding that 
 
EN 84   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
Community budget, the category or nature 
of the irregularity (without taking into account the amount of expenditure), e.g. fraud, criminal activity, and other criteria considered as grounds for notifying OLAF are taken into account.  particular project or the management and 
control system as a whole. To determine the financial impact of the irregularity, the amount of irregular expenditure and the materiality of the loss are also taken into account.  could influence the Community budget is 
taken into account. 
LT The scale of the irregularity; whether the 
irregularity has o ccurred previously; 
whether the irregularity has been committed deliberately   
LU All irregularities are dealt with by the 
administration departments for the aid in question. Where a recovery procedure or a payment refusal is involved, the relevant national legislation (non-contentious administrative procedure) requires that the person liable for payment be notified before any administrative decision is taken. This notification must include all points of fact and of law which are causing it to bring action, and therefore also include the foreseeable sum to be recovered or relating to  the refusal to pay. (European Social Fund) The OLAF sheet 
has been duly completed. The impact is calculated on the basis of irregularities noted in respect of the allocated total budget.  
HU In the event of undue subsidies being paid 
the responsible authority decides whether The Irregularity Committee takes into 
consideration the principle of  
 
EN 85   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
the total sum or just a part of it should be 
repaid. If the client makes a false claim the authority requires the total sum to be repaid. proportionality, according to which the 
grant provider has to  apply discretionary 
powers in such a way that the reclaimed subsidies are in proportion to the irregularities committed.  
MT • Type of irregularity 
• Type of Fund • The provision/procedure infringed 
• Type of project and expenditure  
• Type of irregularity 
• The practice employed in the 
commitment of the irregularity 
• Whether the irregular ity was discovered 
prior or after the execution of the 
expenditure • Type of irregularity 
• Whether the irregular ity was discovered 
prior or after the execution of the expenditure 
NL N/A ERDF: N/A 
ESF: All projects are inspected. In order to 
establish the error, a full check is usually 
carried out if a partial check has revealed errors. For larger projects (in financial terms) using statistical sampling to establish the error is considered. N/A 
AT Relevant EU legislation and implementing 
national provisions ERDF: the main criterion is the eligibility 
of the final beneficiary's expenditure. This  
 
EN 86   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
is assessed on the basis of the relevant 
national guidelines, the relevant regulations and th e grant contracts 
concluded. 
PL • The amount of undue payment is 
calculated with reference to the quantity 
of goods not covered by the refund.  
• The difference between the amount of 
aid applied for and the actual amount.  
• Comparison of the land area declared 
with the actual area. N/A N/A 
PT Always underlying the irregularities 
discovered, taken individually, are unlawful, specific and net amounts that are to be recovered from or credited to the respective fund(s).  Always underlying the irregularities 
discovered, taken individually, are unlawful, specific and net amounts that are to be recovered or credited to the respective fund(s).  N/A 
RO N/A N/A N/A 
SI    
SK  An irregularity having financial impact on 
the Community budget - an irregularity is the non-eligible expenditure, which has been approved by the paying authority/certifying authority in the The financial impact of an irregularity 
depends on the amount of the non-eligible expenditure identified. 
 
EN 87   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
summary payment request. 
FI    
SE    
UK Although there may be slight variation 
within the criteria according to individual Scheme, the principle of identification and recovery remains constant. The participation by a claimant in a single or a multiple number of Schemes (the potential total value) as well as the trading history and connected parties should also be established. 
The total amount of the claim would be 
compared to the amount of irregularity so it could be considered in context. This is covered in desk instructions.  BERR: This section is unclear – the 
reports include the financial data required under the regulations with each case reported individually as required. 
JIU: Whether the irregularity identified 
impacts on other projects funded by ESF for the same beneficiary.  
Wales: The Welsh European Funding 
Office guidance sets out what officers 
need to do when an irregularity has been identified and how to report it. 
Northern Ireland: Guidance on 
Irregularities has been issued to all Implementing Bodies. The criteria specified in order to establish the individual financial impact of an irregularity include the value of the Letter of Offer, the extent of the irregularity itself and consideration as to whether there is an indication that the erro r is systemic and if N/A 
 
EN 88   EN 3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what  kind of criteria does it take into a ccount in order to establish the individua l 
financial impact of an irregularity?  Member State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
follow up action needs to be taken. 
Scotland: The Division has its own Desk 
Instructions which are followed in each 
case. 
 
EN 89   EN  
3.2.3. It may happen that several individual ir regularities with a financial impact unde r the reporting threshold are connected  
to the same beneficiary, who is implem enting one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregu larities with an affected amount under th e reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no threshold for the irregularity reporting) 
BE Yes: 
BIRB: In the case of multiple 
irregularities, the amounts concerned are 
added up where a fine under Article 51 of Regulation No 800/99 is applicable. If the sum of these amounts reaches the threshold of EUR 10 000, it is reported. 
FLEMISH PAYING BODY: If, when the 
file is analysed (= when the recovery letter is written), the different elements combined (various irregularities and/or various systems) amount to a debt of > EUR 10 000, this is reported to OLAF. 
No: 
WALLOON REGION: Where direct 
forms of aid are concerned, and within one 
and the same measure, there is rarely a list of offences amounting in total to more Yes  
 
EN 90   EN 3.2.3. It may happen that several individual ir regularities with a financial impact unde r the reporting threshold are connected  
to the same beneficiary, who is implem enting one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregu larities with an affected amount under th e reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no threshold for the irregularity reporting) 
than EUR 10 000. Moreover, the most 
severe penalty is non-payment of the aid 
and exclusion from the benefits thereof for three consecutive years. It is, then, extremely unlikely that there will be an accumulation of established entitlements relating to different files and for one and the same aid scheme.) 
BG Yes Yes Yes 
CZ Yes Yes (CF), No (SF)  
DK No No  
DE No No No 
EE No No11 No 
IE No No  
                                                 
11 The irregularity notification in Estonia is based on the project and the 10 000 euro threshold is also followed up by the proj ect. We do not connect the different projects / 
irregularities of the same beneficiary. 
 
EN 91   EN 3.2.3. It may happen that several individual ir regularities with a financial impact unde r the reporting threshold are connected  
to the same beneficiary, who is implem enting one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregu larities with an affected amount under th e reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no threshold for the irregularity reporting) 
EL No No  
ES No No N/A 
FR Yes (If the irregularities detected relate to 
the same scheme AND a particular control 
programme) No  
IT Yes Yes  
CY No No  
LV Yes Yes Yes 
LT Yes Yes Yes 
LU No No N/A 
HU Yes Yes  
MT Yes Yes Yes 
NL No No Yes 
AT No Yes N/A 
 
EN 92   EN 3.2.3. It may happen that several individual ir regularities with a financial impact unde r the reporting threshold are connected  
to the same beneficiary, who is implem enting one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregu larities with an affected amount under th e reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no threshold for the irregularity reporting) 
PL Yes Yes / No12 No 
PT Yes No N/A 
RO Yes Yes Yes 
SI Yes No Yes 
SK No No No 
FI No No N/A 
SE No Yes (ERDF), No (ESF)  
UK Yes; No (Scotland) Yes N/A 
 
3.2.4. Do you make use of information regarding irregularities for risk analysis purposes?  Member 
State For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
                                                 
12 According to the guidelines concerning reporting irregularities,  all cases of law infringement de tected during one control proc eedings or during verification of one payment 
application are reported together as one irregularity. The same concerns if the irregularity relates to several individual proj ects. Although irregularities caused by one 
beneficiary do not automatically sum up. 
 
EN 93   EN 3.2.4. Do you make use of information regarding irregularities for risk analysis purposes?  Member 
State For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
BE Yes (BIRB, WALLOON REGION, 
FLEMISH PAYING AGENCY) Yes  
BG Yes Yes Yes 
CZ Yes Yes  
DK No Yes N/A 
DE Yes Yes No 
EE Yes Yes Yes 
IE Yes Yes N/A 
EL Yes No (For structural funds, irregular 
expenditure notified via AFIS is not 
included in the expenditure declaration (they are excluded from the expenditure declaration by the Payment Authority). The FCC checks declared expenditure and therefore does not use this information for 
the risk assessment. N/A 
ES Yes Yes N/A 
FR Yes Yes N/A 
IT Yes Yes N/A 
CY Yes Yes Yes 
 
EN 94   EN 3.2.4. Do you make use of information regarding irregularities for risk analysis purposes?  Member 
State For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
LV Yes Yes Yes 
LT Yes No Yes 
LU Yes No N/A 
HU Yes Yes Yes 
MT Yes Yes Yes 
NL Yes No No 
AT Yes Yes N/A 
PL Yes Yes No 
PT Yes Yes N/A 
RO Yes Yes Yes 
SI Yes Yes No 
SK Yes Yes Yes 
FI No No N/A 
SE Yes Yes (ERDF), No (ESF) N/A 
UK Yes Yes N/A 
 
EN 95   EN  
Member 
State 3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity wh ich financial impact was initially esti mated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 
BE BIRB: Within the framework of Article 5 of  Regulation No 1848/06, the change to the am ount is reported and the file closed. No 
such case has ever occurred yet. 
WALLOON REGION: Reporting of the correction of the file 
FLEMISH PAYING AGENCY: If the ir regularity has already been reported to OLAF, an adjustment is put through (Article 5). If 
the irregularity has not yet been repo rted to OLAF, no form is completed. 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): Change to the OLAF form 
FLEMISH COMMUNITY: ESF VL 
Once defence rights have been exhausted, the definitive amount will be below or above the reporting threshold. The definitive 
amount (EU contribution) is dire ctly deducted from the amount of the next reque st for payment, irrespective of the reporting 
threshold. 
EFRO Vlaanderen: (EFRD Flanders): Reporte d to OLAF, with subsequent follow-up notification because under the threshold. 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: No cases as yet. 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: New notif ication with corrected amounts 
BG It would be reported to OLAF. Fo llowing recalculation OLAF would be notified that the actual imp act of the irregularity has fal len 
below the reporting threshold, as compared  to the initial estimate, and that it will not be reported in the future. 
CZ Ministry of Industry and Commer ce: A suspected irregularity a bove the threshold would be repo rted to OLAF through AFIS. If 
during verification of the case it is discove red to be below the threshold, AFCOS woul d request through AFIS for it to be remov ed 
from the database. 
Ministry of Employment and Soci al Affairs: Reporting of  irregularity with the original sum,  then an updated report with the new  
 
EN 96   EN Member 
State 3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity wh ich financial impact was initially esti mated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 
sum and footnote  
Ministry of Agriculture: The irregularity reported by the AFCOS contact point to OLAF  is updated in a repo rt on the reduction o f 
the sum. If within two months of the end of the quarter in qu estion, the irregularity is not repor ted externally by the AFCOS c ontact 
point in a report to OLAF, the report is recorded and transferred in AFIS only at  the request of the European Commission. 
Ministry for Regional Development: Procedure corresponding to the definition of "original estimate": If this involves an estima te 
made during an investigation to determine whether the case is well-founde d, i.e. when the case is re ported only internally, the n the 
management authority would not notify OLAF that the financial impact was now below the thresh old. If the case concerned an 
estimate at the stage where a suspected irregularity had already been  reported to OLAF and is then  confirmed and recalculated t o be 
below the threshold, the management authority  would report this to OLAF as part of the updating of the report, to maintain the 
continuity of the information transmitted. 
Cohesion Fund – as the case with reporting obligation. 
DK In principle, irregularities  are treated the same regardless of the amount involved. 
If a reported irregularity subsequently turn s out to be below the 10 000 euro threshold, this is reported to OLAF. Borderline c ases 
are likewise reported to OLAF. 
DE Does not apply to the ag ricultural sector. With regard to stru ctural actions, withdrawal of funds. 
EE If it transpires that the financial impact of an irregularity initially estimated as being above the reporting threshold is act ually below 
EUR 10 000, additional information will still be provided to the Commission in the follo w-up reports in line with Article 5 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1848/ 2006 until such time as the procedures  concerning the case are terminated. 
IE For the agricultural funds, the case is subj ect to a final Article 5 re port stating that on review, appeal etc., the financial amount 
involved is now below the threshold and therefore closed fo r the purpose of Regulation 1848/06 reporting. Any monies due will o f 
course be subject to Community  debt recovery provisions. 
For the structural funds, this would be an  extremely rare occurrence but if it did happen the irregularity  report would be with drawn. 
(Please see also answers above) 
 
EN 97   EN Member 
State 3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity wh ich financial impact was initially esti mated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 
EL For structural funds, the FCC continues to provide proper inform ation on developments with the irregularity until it is resolve d. 
For agricultural funds, a new notification is sent for the amount to be correcte d, in accordance with Regulation No 1848/06. 
ES In the agricultural funds, since the entry into force of Regulation No 1848/2006, a reduction in amounts is not reported. Infor mation 
provided by Paying Agencies is, however, ke pt in the FEGA coordination body. In the st ructural funds a change in the amount 
would be reported in accordance with  Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 1681/94. 
FR In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006, a repor t is sent to OLAF, specifying the reason for cancelling th e 
irregularity 
IT If a report has been sent under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94, and subseq uent amendments, and under Article 5 of 
Regulation No 1848/06 the details of the case are updated until the ad ministrative and/or judicial proceedings have been comple ted. 
CY Report it to the Commission (Art icle 3), provided that the initial estimation re quired the Commission to be informed, as it is not 
necessary to provide further information on the case via the Commissi on’s first quarterly informa tion update (Article 5).  
LV In these situations the reporti ng on the evolution of the matter would continue until it were closed. Th e information would be 
referred to in an addendum to the report on irregular ities, and the amount would be  adjusted appropriately. 
LT If information about the irregularity  has already been report ed, this information is subsequently corrected. 
LU (Agricultural Fund) This has not  yet happened in Luxembourg. (ERDF) Not appli cable in Luxembourg (European Social Fund). A 
second corrected sheet cancelling and repl acing the former sheet is submitted. 
HU The Hungarian authorities treat all irregularities violating EU financial interests in the sa me way. An update report will be s ent on 
the reduction of the financial im pact of irregularities reported. 
MT AFCOS would initially report the irregularity to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). Howeve r, on re-calculating the amount 
below the threshold, AFCOS would withdraw th e irregularity and inform OLAF that the am ount of the irregularity in question is 
below the threshold. 
NL ERDF: If it has already been reported, a correction will be made  in the next quarter. If it has not been reported, the irregula rity will 
 
EN 98   EN Member 
State 3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity wh ich financial impact was initially esti mated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 
be recorded in the financial register. 
ESF: In such cases no report will be made to  OLAF if it has not al ready been reported. 
AGRICULTURE: The report will be withdrawn. 
AT ERDF: the initial report is reco rded via AFIS. The initially no tified amounts are then corrected in accordance with Article 5(1 ). 
Export refunds: if an irregularity has b een reported under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 and it subsequently transp ires 
that the amount is below the reportin g threshold, a follow-up report is made. 
PL If a report was compiled and sent to the Co mmission on irregularities over EUR 10 000 a nd in the course of further investigatio n the 
actual amount turned out to be below that threshold, the repor t would still be sent to the Co mmission pending completion of the  
case. 
PT If the notification to OLAF ha s not yet taken place, the irregularity is not  communicated. If it has taken place, the cancellat ion of the 
case is communicated during the correspondi ng quarter (this does not mean that th e recovery procedures are stopped). 
RO It would be first sent to OLAF; and then  subsequently the updated report on the irre gularities containing the new amounts that fall 
below the reporting threshold would continue to be reported until the case is closed. 
SI The irregularity would be reported to OLAF and the case purs ued up until closure even though it is below the threshold. The 
subsequent recalculation would be re ported to OLAF in the regular updat e of the irregularity in question. 
SK An updated report on the irregularity iden tified would be drawn up and submitted.  
FI Such irregularities are reported normally, since they exceed the reporting threshold when first estimated. The updated informat ion is 
notified using the normal follow-up report. 
SE Structural actions funds (ESF): If a report of the first calculation had already been made, the new circumstances would be repo rted 
to OLAF. If the new calculation is made before a report has gone  to OLAF, the case is not repo rted. Cases under the threshold a re 
also reported where criminal activity is suspected. 
 
EN 99   EN Member 
State 3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity wh ich financial impact was initially esti mated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 
Structural actions funds (ERDF): Not known wh ether this has occurred. If it should occur, a new correct ed report will be submit ted. 
Agriculture: Since SE has interpreted the ti me when the reporting requirement occurs as  being when the auth ority decides to rec laim 
payments, and this claim is in our financial system, the irregula rity is reported directly and thereafter make a correction or zero-
report the case to OLAF. 
UK BERR: The case would be the subject of a fo llow-up report or reports detai ling the changes. As the or iginal report would have b een 
made because the estimated amount was above the threshold, it would be on the database. Follow-up reports however would 
continue until the case has been resolved.  
JIU: The irregularity is initially  reported to OLAF for the amount estimated to be at risk at the time the first written assess ment is 
made. Updates are then reported to notify OLAF of reductions to amounts at risk ar ising from follow up actions. These can be 
finalised at values either above or below the reporting threshold. 
RPA: It would be reported as an irregularity and subse quently updated by appropriate inte rim/final Article 5 reports. 
Wales: The initial estimate would be reporte d as required as it is above  the reporting threshold. If subsequent actions are abl e to 
reduce the amount of the irregula rity then revised reporting forms are issued in ternally to account for the reduction. The revi sed 
irregularity will then be recovered from the sponsor. 
Northern Ireland: the irregular ity will be notified in the first instance, howev er, when the calculation has been established, the 
irregularity is ‘closed’ and OLAF is notified accordingly with an explanation. 
Scotland:– An annex B would be created a nd the irregularity report amende d. It would be reported as an Irregularity with any 
revision of the amount duly notified to OLAF to amend their reco rds via the RPA. The irregularity  however would not be finally 
cleared from OLAF’s records until the revised debt was finally paid off in full or written off as irrecoverable. 
 
EN 100   EN  
Member 
State 3.2.6. Amounts offset (Offsetting is understood to mean cleari ng a claim and a debt which cancel each other): In the 
agricultural sector, do you communicate irregularities with an initial amount above the threshold (10.000€) and a net 
amount below the 10.000€ threshold furt her to an offset (compensation)? 
BE Yes: 
BIRB: Offsetting takes place after the formal notice ha s been issued and, theref ore, after notification. 
FLEMISH PAYING BODY: For the reporting to OLAF, account is taken only of the initial am ount of the irregularity.) 
No: 
WALLOON REGION: The irregularities reported are those for which an established entitle ment is created. This entitlement comes 
into being when the irregularity committed is notified to the in terested party. Such notification takes the form of a formal no tice. 
This formal notice shows the net amount of  the irregularity. If the net amount is less than EUR 10 000, it is not therefore rep orted to 
OLAF. 
BG Yes 
CZ Yes 
DK Yes 
DE Yes 
EE Yes 
IE Yes 
EL Yes 
ES Yes 
FR Yes 
 
EN 101   EN Member 
State 3.2.6. Amounts offset (Offsetting is understood to mean cleari ng a claim and a debt which cancel each other): In the 
agricultural sector, do you communicate irregularities with an initial amount above the threshold (10.000€) and a net 
amount below the 10.000€ threshold furt her to an offset (compensation)? 
IT Yes 
CY No 
LV Yes 
LT Yes 
LU Yes 
HU Yes 
MT Yes 
NL Yes 
AT No 
PL Yes 
PT Yes 
RO Yes 
SI Yes 
SK Yes 
FI Yes 
SE Yes 
UK Yes 
 
EN 102   EN 3.3. CLASSIFICATION OF IRREGULARITIES 
The terms "irregularity", "sus pected fraud" and "fraud" are defined by the European 
legislation. 
According to European Council Re gulation 2988/95 of 18 December 199513 an "irregularity" 
means any infringement of a provision of Co mmunity law resulting from an act or an 
omission by an economic operator which has, or  would have, the effect of prejudicing the 
general budget of the Communities. 
According to the Convention on the protectio n of the European Communities' financial 
interests14 , fraud is an irregularity committed intentionally and it is a criminal act that can 
only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings. 
Taking into account that the reporting of irregular ities is done at an early stage, the sectoral 
regulations provide that Member States must  identify among communicated irregularities, not 
only cases of established fraud, but also cases  of suspected fraud. According to  EC 
regulations  1848/2006 for the sector of agricultur e, no. 2035/2005 and no. 2168/2005, for the 
structural and cohesion funds, "suspected fraud" means an irre gularity giving rise to the 
initiation of administrative and/ or judicial proceedings at nati onal level in order to establish 
the presence of intentional behaviour. 
Nonetheless, in practice, the interpretations that  the Member States' authorities give to these 
terms may differ and the distinction between "susp ected fraud" and other irregularities is not 
consistent because the Member States do not al ways have the same definition of criminal 
behaviour. For this reason, it is  important to dis cern the criteria employed by the competent 
authorities to categorize irregularities and su spected fraud cases and to find out where the 
classification difficulties may occur. 
Irregularity and suspected fraud   
Correct classification into the given IRQ (IRQ2 - irregularity, IRQ3 - suspicion of fraud, IRQ 
5 - established fraud) is essential because if th e cases of suspected frauds and frauds are not 
separated from the other types of irregularities, it will not be clear to the public that only a 
part of irregularities ha ve a criminal character. 
                                                 
13 OJ L312 of 23.12.1995. 
14 OJ C316 of 27.11.1995. 
 
EN 103   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
BE BIRB: Irregularities are categorised as 
follows:  
IRQ 2 - all irregularities 
IRQ 3 - in the event of  the application of a 
200% fine (Art 51(1b) of Regulation No 
800/99) 
IRQ 5 - in the event of  a judicial decision 
being taken  
Out of a concern for confidentiality, a 
judicial inquiry could prevent the categorisation of a reported irregularity and/or an inquiry in the course of which the judge has to decide  whether what is at 
issue is fraud or an irregularity. 
WALLOON REGION: All established 
entitlements in keeping with the definition of an irregularity given by Regulation No 2988/95 are categorised as IRQ2. Elements in a file that reveal a glaring error on the part of the informant could lead to a file's being reclassified as IRQ3. 
An error established as IRQ5 will only be WALLOON REGION: There is a clear 
distinction between irregularity and fraud. The distinction betw een irregularity and 
suspicion of fraud is less clear, however. 
FLEMISH COMMUNITY: ESF VL 
Definitions IRQ2 and IRQ3 are unclear and difficult to apply. The ability to prove fraud depends on there being a time limit for dealing with the matter and on the judgment of a court. 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: No 
particular obstacle except that the classification may change over time, depending on the information collected. 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 
AGENCE FSE [ESF Agency]: The 
distinction between irregularity and fraud is quite explicit inasmuch as fraud has to be decreed as such by the judgment of a court. It is less obvious what is to be understood by suspicion of fraud and 
irregularity.   
 
EN 104   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
referred to if there is a judicial decision. 
FLEMISH PAYING AGENCY: There 
was a variety of interp retations as to how 
'suspicion of fraud' was to be defined, given that it was uncle ar which procedures 
came within 'an administrative and/or judicial procedure'.  
Only the judge can determine whether or 
not an irregularity is to be considered as 
fraud. 
Conclusions based on our own checks and 
without an attendant judicial procedure can only give rise to the suspicion of fraud. 
Concerning what can be considered as 
'intentional' in relati on to irregularities, 
"false and/or falsified accounts or false 
and/or falsified documents” could classify irregularities as “suspicion of fraud”  
As a consequence, there are no more 
impediments to the correct classification 
of irregularities. GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: 
No incidents to date. Nor, therefore, have any classification problems been noted 
 
EN 105   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
BG No difficulties have been encountered in 
classifying the cases where sufficient justification and/or evidence is available. No difficulties have been identified in 
classifying cases where sufficient justification and/or evidence is available. No difficulties have been identified in 
classifying cases where sufficient justification and/or ev idence is available.  
CZ Ministry of Agriculture: A suspected 
irregularity is classifi ed as soon as it is 
being investigated; in the case of suspected fraud (e.g. irregularities committed through forgery of papers and documents) the suspected irregularity is transferred to the law-enforcement authorities, as above Ministry of Transport: In the initial stage 
the impact on the financial interests of the 
Community is always cl assified only as an 
irregularity. Not until further investigation can the cause be identified as deliberate action of a particular person, and therefore the possibility of fraud, in which case the classification then ha s to be changed.  
Ministry of Industr y and Commerce: As 
regards the above-mentioned emphasis on 
the classification of the irregularity in 
relation to the susp icion of fraudulent 
action or of a criminal act, the Ministry of Trade and Commerce has only one case of suspected irregularity registered in the OPIE. This was transferred in Q1/2008 to the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office (NSZ) and the case is being investigated 
with the help of INTERPOL. 
Ministry of Employment and Social  
 
EN 106   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
Affairs: The irregularity does not meet the 
definition to qualify as fraud.  
Ministry of Agriculture: A suspected 
irregularity is classifi ed as soon as it is 
being investigated; in the case of suspected fraud (e.g. irregularities committed through forgery of papers and documents) the suspected irregularity is transferred to the law-enforcement authorities, as above 
Ministry for Regional Development: 
Assessing whether the beneficiary has 
broken the law or contravened the terms of the agreement or contract or other rules of the programme documentation intentionally, through negligence or through lack of knowledge, is a matter of experience, although it is always very difficult to assess, a nd in particular to 
prove, intention in th e individual's actions. 
If the case is transferred to the law-enforcement authorities, the management authority always classifies the suspicion as suspected fraudulent behaviour. The 
 
EN 107   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
irregularity is then considered as proven 
fraud once the criminal proceedings at the competent court are over and a final judgment has been handed down (penalty imposed). 
DK All reported irregularity cases are 
classified by code. All reported cases in relation to the ERDF 
and ESF are classified by code or the 
irregularity is described in text. 
In the case of the FIFG, all reported 
irregularity cases are classified by code.   
DE None None N/A 
EE Statements made by the applicant (at a 
hearing) and sometimes also by witnesses are taken as the st arting point. When 
carrying out administrative procedures, administrative organs do not have the right to undertake surveillance. In cases of suspected fraud, the investigative authorities are consulted. The reasons are limited practical 
experience and the lack of an exchange of 
information with OLAF and other Member States. Often it is impossible to prove 
fraud. In cases of suspected fraud, the investigative authorities are consulted. Irregularities are classified in accordance 
with the categories laid down in OLAF's instructions for reporti ng irregularities. In 
cases of suspected fraud, the investigative authorities are consulted.  
IE Our figures show that  all irregularities 
reported by Ireland under Regulation 
1848/06 were classified. Not aware of any particular difficulty in 
respect of structural actions   
 
EN 108   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
EL There are no problems to report. All 
irregularities are initially classified IRQ2. For IRQ3, see 3.3.2. In order for an irregularity to be classified IRQ5, a 
definitive court ruling must have been 
passed deeming the irregularity fraud. The FCC classifies all notified 
irregularities properly. N/A 
ES One of the main difficulties is establishing 
the possible intention in committing the irregularity.  One of the main difficulties is establishing 
the possible intention in committing the irregularity.  
FR Irregularities are systematically classified 
by type of irregularity. The procedure for applying the term "fraud" or "suspected fraud" is based on the definition given in the Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing up the Convention on the protection of the financial interests of the European Communities (95/C 316/03). 
In practice, an irregularity is classified as 
"fraud" or "suspected fraud" if the actions 
could constitute criminal offences.  There is nothing to pr event an irregularity 
being "classified". Ther e is a suspicion of 
fraud whenever a dossier is sent to the judicial authority. Fr aud is established 
when the court has de livered its judgment.  
IT The report shows that Italy has always 
provided details of th e classification of 
irregularities. Under national law, The report shows that Italy has always 
provided details of th e classification of 
irregularities. Under national law,  
 
EN 109   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
irregularities may be classified as IRQ5 
(established fraud) only after the judicial authorities have reached a final decision.  irregularities may be classified as IRQ5 
(established fraud) only after the judicial authorities have reached a final decision. 
CY No difficulties have so far been 
encountered. The fact that each case must be reported at 
an early stage, i.e. where there is 
insufficient information/evidence. The fact that each case must be reported at 
an early stage, i.e. where there is 
insufficient information/evidence. 
LV Classification in rela tion to agricultural 
funds for the 2007-13 programming period does not pose any problems, as the guidelines established by OLAF contain clear definitions of 'irregularities', 'suspected fraud' and 'fraud'.  Classification is hampered by the generic 
nature of the definitions of 'fraud', suspected fraud', 'irregularity' and 'error'. It is difficult to differentiate between acts committed through error or incompetence and acts of deliberate neglect, omission or suspected fraud.  Administrative and/or judicial proceedings 
to determine whether an irregularity has been committed with intent to commit a criminal offence or through negligence are usually not initiated be fore an irregularity 
is reported.  
LT No problems encountered in the 
classification of irregularities. Problems most often arise when describing 
irregularities as suspected fraud (IRQ3). An individual irregularity can be interpreted in more than one way, since it is not always clear whether certain actions can be described as having been performed for personal gain or, for example, because of a lack of 
awareness/misinterpretation of legislation. No problems encountered in the 
classification of irregularities. 
LU All the irregularities are clas sified at the No practical e xperience at the Ministry of  
 
EN 110   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
time of notification. Economic Affairs and External Trade 
(ERDF) and at the Ministry of Labour and Employment (European Social Fund). 
HU It is not easy to draw a line between the 
three categories in practice, there are types 
of irregularities on the basis of which no fraud or even suspicion of it might arise. The organisations have no practical experience in recognising crime. There is not enough information for 
unambiguous classification when the 
report has to be submitted. Suspicion of fraud is not the same as the establishment of violation of financial interests. Therefore, the report mentions only those suspicions which lead to accusations. The establishment of the suspicion of 
intention makes classification difficult, as 
the organisation has no means to diagnose accordingly. The fact that certain definitions have different interpretations in the Community system and in the national legislation is a major obstacle. 
MT Irregularities have to be reported at an 
early stage as possible when inquiries may still be at an infant stage. Difficulties arise also in view that fraud is a criminal act that can only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings. Irregularities have to be reported at an 
early stage as possible when inquiries may still be at an infant stage. Difficulties arise also in view that fraud is a criminal act that can only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings. Irregularities have to be reported at an 
early stage as possible when inquiries may still be at an infant stage. Difficulties arise also in view that fraud is a criminal act that can only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings. 
NL The Netherlands classifies irregularities 
and does not experience any difficulties. ERDF: For established fraud a criminal 
procedure must be instituted. There have been a few cases of suspected fraud, but these have never reached the point of established fraud. 
ESF: Nothing in practice. What is difficult 
is dealing with admi nistrative errors. For N/A 
 
EN 111   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
example: costs are specified on an invoice 
for a period which is partly within and 
partly outside the project period. The costs have not been allocated. Should this be classified as an irregul arity or as suspected 
fraud? 
AT Irregularities are classified as IRQ3 in 
Austria whenever they are reported as a 
crime. It usually takes a long time (court proceedings) before an irregularity becomes an IRQ5. Such reporting is only possible in Austria under Article 5 of 
Regulation (EC) No  1848/2006 (changing 
an existing report). 
Export refunds: the main problem faced by 
the paying/export refund agency responsible for reporting  irregularities is 
being able to decide on the basis of the information and documents available at the time of reporting whether an irregularity or fraud has been committed. 
Any suspected fraud is reported by the 
paying agency to the relevant customs investigation department, which then   
 
EN 112   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
carries out a criminal investigation. 
An irregularity is not classified as fraud 
until the findings of the investigation are 
available. 
PL The lack of information from the 
investigative authorities concerning the initiation of proceedings on a given case. The specific nature of some irregularities. Nothing hinders the classification. The 
category IRQ3 is used when the irregularity is communicated to the investigative authorities and IRQ5 is used in the case of a final judgment imposing a criminal conviction.  N/A 
PT As regards the classification used for IRQ, 
the procedure applied does not give rise 
for us to any doubts or problems as to implementation.  In the case of the ESF: above all, in 
determining the intention underlying the 
evidence verified after data gathering, which is essentially document-based and concerns reimbursements and requests for payments and balances. N/A 
RO N/A N/A The long period be tween the alert relating 
to suspicions of fraud and the issuing of a definitive and irrevocable decision by the court; the staff's lack of experience, the lack of concrete prior examples 
SI Proper classification is hindered by At present the mana ging authority has no Proper classification is hindered by 
 
EN 113   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
lengthy administrative or judicial 
procedures, especially when a case is initially reported to OLAF on time. Normally in such cases the classifications IRQ2 or IRQ3 are used, but this can be changed in the report on the following quarter. problems in classifying irregularities as 
IRQ2, IRQ3 and IRQ5, as reports on irregularities are produced by direct 
budget users, where the contract manager is directly acquainted with the type of irregularities that arise. If it subsequently emerges that the irregularity was incorrectly classified, this would be corrected in the regular update of the irregularity in question. lengthy administrative or judicial 
procedures, especially when a case is initially reported to OLAF on time. Normally in such cases the classifications IRQ2 or IRQ3 are used, but this can be changed in the report on the following quarter. 
SK There is no longer any reason not to 
classify irregularities  as IRQ2, IRQ3 or 
IRQ5. There is no longer any reason not to 
classify irregularities  as IRQ2, IRQ3 or 
IRQ5. There is no longer any reason not to 
classify irregularities  as IRQ2, IRQ3 or 
IRQ5. 
FI No problems. The main reasons are instructions on the 
definitions of the various classifications and, in some cases, lack of expertise on the part of the person handling the irregularity.   
SE Sweden classifies everything as IRQ2 
without investigating the issue of whether the irregularity occu rred deliberately, by 
accident or through sheer lack of 
knowledge or a mistake. IRQ3 is only Lack of knowledge. The examiners 
however are not detectives and there is a risk that the examiners will destroy 
evidence if excessively deep 'criminal 
investigation' takes place when assessing  
 
EN 114   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
used when a suspicion exists and when the 
case is sent for furthe r investigation to the 
ECA, and IRQ5 is of course used after fraud has been established through a court judgment. these three categories. It is important that 
the criminal investig ation is done by those 
with the right competence to enable house searches, seizures and other measures to secure evidence ahead of a possible trial.  
UK Of the 94 cases reported in 2007, 83 were 
coded IRQ2 and 11 as IRQ3. Cases are 
reported according to available information and there is generally no hindrance to the classification. 
The standard of proof applied is the civil 
standard i.e. whether, "on balance of probabilities", the evidence available points to the conclusion, that an intentional 
over-declaration has been made. This is more difficult to prove for land-based schemes compared with capital grant schemes. BERR: All suspected fraud cases are 
reported in the same manner as for all 
cases of irregularity without any hindrance. The case is reported to internal auditors who carry out an investigation 
JIU: Not much difficulty has been 
encountered in classi fying irregularities. 
However, it would be helpful if the code list could be revised with the number of entries reduced. 
Wales: There are no barriers to the 
classification of irregularities. 
Northern Ireland: In sufficient level of 
detail in returns received from the 
implementing Bodies. 
Scotland: The Division has a specific 
Action Plan, which is followed if an N/A 
 
EN 115   EN 3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that , in the agricultural funds, Member States  were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what  hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  Member 
State 
For the agricultural funds For the structural  actions funds For the pre-accession funds 
incidence of suspected fraud is identified. 
The classification of Fraud will be dependent on the decision of the Crown office and the police force in charge of the subsequent investigation. 
 
EN 116   EN  
3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
BE X (BIRB  
Walloon Region, 
Flemish Paying 
Agency)     German speaking 
community 
BG X      
CZ X     Ministry of Industry 
and Commerce: The management authority must pick up suspicions of fraudulent action 
 
EN 117   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
and report them to 
the law-enforcement authorities. 
Ministry of 
Agriculture: The 
law-enforcement authorities also investigate cases of suspected fraud at the instigation of parties outside the implementation structure, for example if a legal 
 
EN 118   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
complaint is lodged 
DK X      
DE   X     
EE X      
IE      Department of 
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food: All irregularity cases are reported, including those where fraud is suspected. However 
we do not classify 
 
EN 119   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
the latter as 
suspected fraud, since fraud has to be established through the judicial process. 
EL   X     
ES      Agricultural funds: 
procedural 
complexity and the fact that suspected fraud is not a legal concept in Spain makes it difficult to establish a general 
 
EN 120   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
criterion.  
FR X      
IT X      
CY  X     
LV X X X X   
LT X      
LU X      
HU  X     
MT   X     
NL  X     
 
EN 121   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
AT  X (for export 
refunds) X    
PL X X15 X X   
PT  X X    
RO X      
SI X     The managing 
authority sends 
regular and one-off (immediate) reports to OLAF for each 
                                                 
15 The law enforcement agencies are: Police, Border Guard and other specialized authorities conducting administrative and judicia l proceedings. 
 
EN 122   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
irregularity, 
irrespective of its classification, on the basis of written evidence, which it is able to obtain from the contract manager of the direct budget user, from reports on the spot checks and from regular or extraordinary audits by all national and European supervisory 
 
EN 123   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
institutions. To date 
most irregularities have arisen as a result of ineligible expenditure or incorrect selection procedures. 
SK  X     
FI  X     
SE  X     
UK X      
 
 
EN 124   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
BE X (BEVLGECO, 
WALLOON REGION, FRENCH COMMUNITY, AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency), FLEMISH COMMUNITY, EFRO Vlaanderen (EFRD Flanders), BRUSSELS-
CAPITAL 
REGION, GERMAN-     
 
EN 125   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
SPEAKING 
COMMUNITY) 
BG X       
CZ X     Ministry of Industry 
and Commerce: The 
management authority must pick up suspicions of fraudulent action and report them to the law-enforcement authorities. 
Ministry of 
 
EN 126   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
Agriculture: The 
law-enforcement authorities also investigate cases of suspected fraud at the instigation of parties outside the implementation structure, for example if a legal complaint is lodged 
DK X       
DE   X     
EE X X X    
 
EN 127   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
IE X       
EL   X     
ES X       
FR  X      
IT X       
CY X       
LV X X X X   
LT X       
LU X (ERDF)   X (ESF)   
HU  X      
 
EN 128   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
MT   X     
NL X X     
AT  X  ( E R D F )      
PL X X16 X X   
PT X       
RO X       
SI X  X X X The managing 
authority sends regular and one-off 
                                                 
16 Suspicion on fraud may by reported both to the Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.  
 
EN 129   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
(immediate) reports 
to OLAF for each irregularity, irrespective of its classification, on the basis of written evidence, which it is able to obtain from the contract manager of the direct budget user, from reports on the spot checks and from regular or extraordinary audits by all national and 
 
EN 130   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
European 
supervisory institutions. To date most irregularities have arisen as a result of ineligible expenditure or incorrect selection procedures. 
SK X       
FI X       
SE X       
UK X     BERR: for the UK, 
 
EN 131   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
the appropriate 
Article 4, Article 10 or Article 15 body would make the decision on whether a case was suspected as fraud and refer it to the appropriate authorities. If fraud was still suspected then the matter would be reported to the police for further 
 
EN 132   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a cont rol procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 
FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case  The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
consideration. 
 
EN 133   EN  
3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
BE N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
BG X      
CZ      Ministry of Industry 
and Commerce: The management authority must pick up suspicions of fraudulent action and report them to the law-enforcement authorities. 
 
EN 134   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
Ministry of 
Agriculture: The law-enforcement authorities also investigate cases of suspected fraud at the instigation of parties outside the implementation structure, for example if a legal complaint is lodged 
DK       
DE   X     
 
EN 135   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
EE X      
IE       
EL       
ES       
FR       
IT       
CY X      
LV X X X X   
LT X      
LU       
 
EN 136   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
HU  X     
MT   X     
NL       
AT       
PL X      
PT       
RO X      
SI      The managing 
authority sends 
regular and one-off (immediate) reports 
 
EN 137   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
to OLAF for each 
irregularity, irrespective of its classification, on the basis of written evidence, which it is able to obtain from the contract manager of the direct budget user, from reports on the spot checks and from regular or extraordinary audits by all national and European 
 
EN 138   EN 3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a contro l procedure would you classify an irregula rity as a case of suspected fraud?  
FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS Member 
State 
Conclusions of the 
national 
management and control system (e.g. internal and external audits, internal control procedures, on-the- spot checks etc.) that lead to a suspicion of fraud case The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the investigative authority The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to the prosecutor’s office The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the irregularity as a fraud, has been issued Other  
supervisory 
institutions. To date most irregularities have arisen as a result of ineligible expenditure or incorrect selection procedures. 
SK X      
FI      N/A 
SE       
UK      N/A 
 
EN 139   EN Generic codes  
The electronic reporting system requires that, when Member States are reporting 
irregularities, they also need to categorize th em into given typologies. Codes are attributed to 
this end (example: 325-noneligible expenditu re, 210 – missing or incomplete supporting 
documents). 
 
EN 140   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
BE BIRB: The proposals for categorisin g irregularities by type do not 
correspond to the irregularity applicab le to the file itself, or else 
the files forming part of the same notification involve different types of irregularity.  
FLEMISH PAYING BODY: The 'other  irregularities' code is 
seldom used by Flanders. The code most often used by Flanders is 
'1610: not dealt with in accord ance with the regulations'. WALLOON REGION: The irregularities are classified in 
accordance with the coding presente d in the AFIS system (Anti-
Fraud Information System). 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): Code 999 was used twice (in 69 
cases communicated since 2004) as th e errors detected related to 
several categories of  equal importance (in general code 325 – 
code 831 and code 210). 
BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: In Brussels-Capital Region, the 
specific codes are used and not th e 'other irregularities' generic 
code (999). 
GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 
BG No irregularities to date ha ve been reported as “other 
irregularities” under SAPARD or under the measures/schemes of 
the Payments Agency. Bulgaria had no experience in reporting irregularities under this 
code in 2008 and cannot comment on the reasons for its frequent 
use. 
CZ Ministry of Agriculture: Code 999 is  not used Ministry of Industry and Commerce: For now the Ministry of 
Trade and Commerce has not has not yet received any classification "type of irregular ity under the above-mentioned 
code 999 – other facts" for suspect ed irregularities reported to the 
AFCOS contact point. 
Ministry of Employment and Soci al Affairs: irregularities are 
 
EN 141   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
classfied in this category only in exceptional cases 
Ministry of Agriculture: Code 999 is not used 
DK The "other irregularities" code was no t used in 2008. As a rule, it should be possible to clas sify all reported 
irregularities under c odes other than 999. 
The "other irregularities" c ode was not used in 2008. 
The electronic system is not used for the ERDF and ESF as 
reporting is via e-mail (paper-bas ed), which may lead to doubts 
regarding interpretation compared  with classification by code.  
DE N/A N/A 
EE In previous periods, irregulariti es were classed as 'other 
irregularities' (999) only if the li st provided did not include a code 
describing the nature of the irregularity.  The generic code 'other irregular ities' is used when it is not 
possible to find a suitable descript ion of the case from the list. 
The list of codes has become obsolete. 
IE Our records show that no cases reported under Regulation 
1848/06 were coded “other irregularities” (999). It is not really possible to give a clear indication of why 
irregularities were classified in a particular way without reviewing 
the individual reports on a cas e by case basis but please see 
examples at point 3.3.4 below.  
EL The generic “other irregu larities” code is used only when the type 
of irregularity is not included in the established list of options. The 999 code was used in eight out of a total of 56 irregularity 
cases in the first thre e quarters of 2008. It was used because no 
other code corresponded to the cases in question. 
ES This code is used in very few cas es, only if it is not possible to  
 
EN 142   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
find a specific type of irregular ity in which to classify the 
irregularity committed. Sometimes this is because the existing codes do not match the types of cases. 
FR This code has not been used for se veral years, in line with OLAF's 
recommendations. 
Using the list of codes supplied by OLAF, it is possible to classify 
almost all of the irre gularities detected.  This code is mainly used for the ERDF (roughly 20% of the 
notifications for the ERDF and 13% for all the other funds put 
together), when the irregularity arises from failure to comply with the agreement awarding the grant. 
IT Code 999 is used only where cases of irregularities or fraud 
cannot be classified using one of the other options provided.  Code 999 is used only where cases of irregularities or fraud 
cannot be classified using one of the other options provided. 
CY N/A This code has not been us ed for structural action fund 
irregularities. 
LV The main reason for the large proportion of irregularities 
classified as 'other irregulariti es' is because the format of the 
irregularity report gives relative ly little opportunity for making a 
detailed classification of th e irregularities identified.  The main reason for the large proportion of irregularities 
classified as 'other irregulariti es' is because the format of the 
irregularity report gives relative ly little opportunity for making a 
detailed classification of the irregularities identified. 
LT There was no corresponding categor y in the classifications under 
the EU structural aid computer ised management and control 
information system (the Lithua nian computerised system). More detailed classification of irre gularities is set out in the Rules 
on the administration and fina ncing of Lithuanian Single 
Programming Document (SPD) measures for 2004–06 and projects financed under thos e measures, regulating the 
administration of SPD funds; ther efore some irregularities whose 
categories do not match those set out in the reporting system fall 
 
EN 143   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
under the category "oth er irregularities". 
LU  (ERDF) The Ministry of Econom ic Affairs and External Trade 
does not make any distinction in the old system. (European Social 
Fund) The list of sample errors is too restricted. 
HU (ERDF) The Ministry of Economic  Affairs and External Trade 
does not make any distinction in the old system. (European Social 
Fund) The list of sample errors is too restricted. There were several similar facts in the code table, and most 
suspicions of irregularities can belo ng to several types. The use of 
code 999 seems the only good solution. This is applied in unclear 
cases. 
MT An irregularity was classifi ed under the typology ''other 
irregularities'' in the case of agricultural f unds as at the time of 
reporting one could not as yet dete rmine the exact nature of the 
irregularity. Along the years, only once did Malta use the typology 'other 
irregularities' with re spect to Structural Funds. This was because 
the case did not consist of an irre gularity, but it was an internal 
adjustment of eligibility of VAT.  
NL The Netherlands classifies cases as accurately as possible and 
tries to avoid using the "oth er irregularities" category. ESF: Our method in practice is to  cross out what does not apply. 
In principle, findings are classifi ed with a specific code and the 
category "other irregularities" is used only if the case does not fit 
into any specific category. 
ERDF: The Netherlands classifies cases as accurately as possible 
and tries to avoid using the "o ther irregularities" category. 
However, the system for reporting irregularities affecting the Structural Funds offers few detail ed options. This means that the 
nature and scale of the irregularity have to be explained in greater 
detail in the explanatory notes.  
 
EN 144   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
AT In Austria (virtually) all irregulariti es have so far been classified 
on the basis of a typology. 
Export refunds: the Salzburg payi ng/export refund agency has not 
yet used code 999 (other irregulari ties) but has classified all types 
of irregularity under a different code. ERDF: as bankruptcies sometimes have to be reported as 
irregularities to ensure that the EC shares in the financial losses under the 5(2) reporting proce dure and bankruptcies are not 
recorded, they are often reported under code 999. 
PL It may happen that owing to the sp ecific nature of  a given case of 
irregularity, there are difficulties  with classifying the case using 
the codes proposed in the "Module 1848" manual if no term appropriate to the situation exists. The classification devised by OLAF  is ambiguous because it leads 
to a situation in which a given i rregularity may be classified under 
different types. Having a problem w ith selection is indicated with 
999. Moreover, the obligation to cl assify irregularities does not 
arise from any EU Regulation. 
PT This code is used only when (a nd only because)the irregularities 
detected and to be communicated do not correspond to the other existing codes. In 2008 the 999 typology represented 4% of the total. As a rule, 
this code is used only when a particular s ituation does not 
correspond to the other codes.  
RO Code 999 for "other irregularities" is used for cases which cannot 
be classified using the classifi cation nomenclature in the OLAF 
manual of procedures. Code 999 for "other irregularities" is used for cases which cannot 
be classified using the classifi cation nomenclature in the OLAF 
manual of procedures. 
SI In Slovenia's case the most common ly used typology is "incorrect 
or incomplete aid application".  The managing authority agrees th at the generic code “other 
irregularities” (999) is often use d, but it is precisely defined. The 
code in question is used when the direct budget user cannot find 
an appropriate code to denote th e content of the irregularities 
SK A number of irregularities aris e from infringements related to aid In exceptiona l cases, it is difficult to specify an irregula rity and 
 
EN 145   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
to land, namely in the case of de teriorated natural conditions, for 
which no codes are available. assign a code to it or, to be more  precise, there are irregularities 
which cannot be classified unambig uously: that is why they are 
either assigned several codes (e.g. 325 and 999) or only the 999 
code. 
FI For example, administrative errors are re ported using code 999. In Finland, use of th at category is very uncommon. It is used 
when another appropriate category cannot be found.  
SE Too little information under each re spective code to enable its 
use. 'Other irregularities' is useful when things seem unclear. The new PRE-IMS/IMS reporting system however allows the possibility of using free text to explain what is involved in more detail. ERDF: Uncertainty regarding clas sification. Classification into 
many erroneous codes can be unfor tunate. Uncertainty about what 
code to use can result in exce ssive use of code 999. A large 
number of codes risks making th e reporting of results imprecise. 
UK  BERR: The existing generic code s are too broadly detailed and 
refer to agriculture a nd own resources as well as structural actions 
– a list for just structural actions is needed. 
JIU: For ESF England, the ‘999’ - other option is used mainly as a 
supplement to another code such as 325, where other codes in the list seem not to be relevant and it  is decided that a more in depth 
description is required. Cases wh ere 999 ‘other’ are used alone 
are rare and usually relate to ca ses where the irregularity is not a 
direct result of financ ial control activity. 
RPA: Of the 94 cases reported, on ly 1 was reported as code 999 
as this was thought most appropriate. 
 
EN 146   EN 3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999)  is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregulariti es. For the agricultural funds, the gener ic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the ma in reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? Member 
State 
For agricultural funds  For structural actions funds 
Wales: The majority of irregular ities reported in Wales do not use 
the ‘999’ other irregularities code. This has not been issued as an 
option to colleagues when they identify irregularities. The majority of reported irregulariti es are classed as insufficient 
supporting documents (210) or ineligible expenditure (325). In 
2008 three irregularities were reported under the ‘999’ code 
which all related to the same sponsor. These were for a case of suspected fraud and should have been reported differently. 
Northern Ireland - Only 21 (l ess than 10%) of the 212 cases 
reported to the Commission, were given code 999 – other because 
it was adjudged the most appropriate.  
 
3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
BE BIRB: The firm received a grant higher 
than that authorised by Regulation 1433/03. 
FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 
AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): One case 
only in 2008: Amount not determined at BIRB: Several distinct  irregularities linked 
to the same recipient in the case of the application of Article  51 (Regulation No 
800/99) FLEMISH PAYING BODY: In 2008 the 
'other irregularities' code was not used by Flanders. 
 
EN 147   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
this stage as the irregu larity noted concerns 
a training centre dependent on an intermediate body. The facts complained of relate to staff costs, operating costs and allocation percentages. An exhaustive check on all the documents is under way in order to determine the possible amount withdrawn and, therefore, the precise code to be indicated. 
BG N/A N/A N/A 
CZ Ministry for Regional Development: 
Support centre for physical and mental rehabilitation: in this case several proceedings have been and are ongoing, on the basis of existing suspicions of breaches of budget discipline by the beneficiary and the Joint Regional Operational Programme (JROP) management authority, and also suspicion of a criminal act. The case concerns the project of a beneficiary who 
did not comply with the JROP rules in the public tender, and this fact was not discovered until after the completion of the project: before the payment of money from the EU Structural F unds but after payment Ministry for Regional Development: 
Construction work: a case concerned the discovery of conflicting documentation (tax returns), which claimed to back up the business history for the previous two years of the applicant as part  of the evaluation of 
the project application - the check of formal 
particulars and projec t acceptability. The 
applicant was disqualified from further consideration on the basis of the findings, on the grounds of not meeting the terms. In this case the irregularity arose during the application procedure. The case was reported in the first quarter of 2008, when the number of irregularities being Ministry for Regional Development: cases 
of what are known as cl erical errors arising 
from unintentional mistakes in writing, numbering and so on. These cases have for the most part a negligible financial impact; that is, they are below the external reporting threshold, and therefore these are cases that are not reported to OLAF. 
Cases which in the report produced by the 
management authority are classified with 
this "code" because there is no other code to put them under on the irregularity 
reporting form. In such cases the management authority sp ecifies the type of 
irregularity in words in the text, and the 
 
EN 148   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
of the Member State share. Even though in 
the opinion of the management authority the beneficiary misled the granter, the law-enforcement authorities did not consider that the beneficiary's (fraudulent) action was intentional, and no breach of the Public Procurement Act or the terms of the agreement on the granting of the subsidy was found. The breach of the public tendering rules occurred before the Public Procurement Act entered force and before the decision was issued. investigated had not ye t reached the current 
volume. After gaining more experience, and with the benefit of hindsight, the management authority would classify this irregularity as an irre gularity in supporting 
documentation, for example incorrect certificate/confirmation. local AFCOS contact point, with the 
agreement of the management authority, then assigns an appropriate code corresponding to the type  of irregularity in 
its external report. 
DK N/A N/A N/A 
DE N/A N/A N/A 
EE None of the irregula rities reported in 2008 
relating to the EAGGF, EAGF or EAFRD were classed as 'other irregularities'. None of the irregula rities reported in 2008 
relating to the SF were classed as 'other irregularities'. No codes were used in 2008 when 
reporting pre-accession irregularities (we 
had not been informed of the requirement to use codes). 
IE The bulk of errors discovered by the Irish 
financial management and control system 
relate to the simple inclusion of ineligible expenditure in certified statements of eligible expenditure. This arises as a consequence of a failure to fully understand Most irregularities discovered on audit 
relate to the inclusion of ineligible items in 
claims sent to the Commission. Examples of these include the purchase of assets not directly related to the implementation of the project in respect of which assistance is A further example of irregular expenditure 
is the inclusion of staff costs associated 
with a project where there is no direct contract showing that the person involved was employed solely for the purposes of the implementation of the project. 
 
EN 149   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
or appreciate the subtleties of the eligibility 
rules. Alternatively it also arises as a consequence of deciding on the basis of uncertainty in the eligibility rules to exclude certain types of expenditure in favour of other expenditure which falls more clearly within the rules. being claimed. 
EL Unapproved recapitulative table of works  Irregular receipt of contractually 
established further fee Action funded from 2nd and 3rd CSFs 
ES Unauthorised change of ownership. 
Other aid not declared for the same 
investment There are no criteria for charging for 
overheads. 
No payment Geographically inelig ible expenditure.  
Ineligibility of the final beneficiary.  
FR Failure to comply with the requirement to 
keep the subsidised property for a minimum period of time (resale, cessation of activity, removal). Revenue not deducted from declared 
expenditure Jobs that should have  been created under 
the terms of the agreement have not materialised 
IT The request for funds was submitted by a 
credit institution approved as a company which already met the requirements for the funds to be granted. Subletting of property re nted out to a third 
company on condition that the premises were not sublet and without a proper rent agreement. The beneficiary of ESF funding demanded 
repayment by some trainers of the sums paid out to them. 
CY N/A   
LV Irregularities which are related to the Irregularities related to  the initiation of In-eligible fixed assets purchased in the 
 
EN 150   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
residual value at market prices at the end of 
a project of fixed assets  acquired as part of 
the project and which, pursuant to Commission Regulations, do not constitute eligible expenditure. insolvency proceedings against a funding 
recipient.  project 
 
LT Primary accounting documents have not 
been drawn up or included in liability and 
expenditure accounts or in annual accounts. Animal welfare requirements have not been 
observed relating to cattle transportation 
and rest periods.  
LU    
HU Irregular commission contracts, overlap 
between accounts, concentration between the beneficiaries and the companies which were successful in public procurement processes, deficiencies as regards the documentation of training. A company which stored intervention 
products quit the contract claiming that the quality of the goods deteriorated. However, it was contradicted by the fact that an on-the-spot inspection di d not establish any 
quality deterioration. In connection with road construction the 
audit revealed a sum of EUR 1 300 180 as non eligible costs, since the approved documentation mentioned 3 km of road, and in fact 5.7 km were built. The difference of 2.7 km of road cannot be financed.  
MT (Agriculture) – The supplier (exporter) was 
issued with a certificate specifying the total 
amount that he could export. In actual fact the supplier's exports exceeded the amount on this certificate and he received a refund 
on the excess also. (Note: There were no further irregularities  classified under the 
typology ''Other Irregularities''.)   
 
EN 151   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
NL ERDF: Non-deductible VAT was 
incorrectly claimed as eligible expenditure. 
ESF: Mixture of ESF and non-ESF 
participants, without costs being allocated. This happens particularly with training courses. Obviously only the costs of ESF participants can be included in the declaration, but the de claration often also 
includes costs for non ESF participants. ERDF: The ERDF intervention percentage 
had to be reduced because the private contribution was larger than originally budgeted. 
ESF: Costs incurred outside the project 
period were not corrected in the final declaration. These were costs which were charged over a longer period of time and some of which fell outside the project period. The invoice ought to be divided between costs within the project period (which are eligible) and costs outside the 
project period (not eligible). ERDF: Costs incurred outside the 
geographical area. 
ESF: Mistakes in the calculation of hourly 
wages. Mathematical errors in calculating hourly wages or certain cost items (such as contributions to save-as-you-earn schemes) being wrongly included in the wage calculation are regularly encountered. 
AT ERDF: bankruptcies ERDF: error by implementing body 
requiring correction  
PL Adjustment of farms to EU requirements - 
the condition allowing the new owner to take over payment for the transfer of the whole farm by the previous owner was not fulfilled - one of the parcels was sold to a third party. During examination of an application, the 
beneficiary suppressed the fact that the 
automatic loading/unloading system, not installed with the machine purchased, was returned to the suppl ier and part of the 
payment due was recovered. Structural pensions  - the beneficiary 
terminated the lease contract on the basis of which he had transferred his land to his successor, and sold his land to a developer. Code 1299: "Other irregularities concerning the subject". 
PT Application of the expenditure eligibility 
limits (ESF). Payment of expenditure  after submission of 
the payment request (EAGGF- Guidance). No proof of registration and business with 
no activity (ERDF). 
 
EN 152   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
RO Materials that were reimbursed in the first 
instalment followed by withdrawal letters for the materials in question. The beneficiary went into liquidation.  An error in the document checking 
procedure. 
SI In 2008 (fourth quarter not yet included) 
Slovenia notified only one irregularity, 
which was partially classified under "other irregularities". Th e direct budget user 
entered code 999 (detailed grounds: incorrect implementa tion of public tender 
procedure for a low value contract) and then added code 840 (undeclared income). 
How irregularity was committed: during 
project implementation, income was 
generated under the project (sale of promotional material) which the final beneficiary failed to re port to the Ministry 
of the Economy and was therefore not deducted from the value of the co financing from the Structural Funds. 
Since the project constitutes state aid, the 
income generated during project implementation as a result of project 
activities up to conclu sion of the project 
was defined as ineligible expenditure   
 
EN 153   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
because of non-compliance of the rules of 
point 2 of Regulation (EC) No 448/2004.  
The other part of the irregularity concerns 
ineligible expenditure resulting from the 
incorrect conduct of a tendering procedure 
for a low-value contract. 
A proposal for repayment of the amount 
disbursed has been submitted for this 
irregularity. 
SK Failure to draw up an internal manual or 
failure to comply with it. Remote sensing. Systemic irregularities. 
FI As regards the structural funds, the 
category was used in only one report in 2008. The report concerned inadequate declaration of a project's income. In the same report, several categories were used 
to define the type of irregularity.   
SE See 3.3.3   
UK BERR: On occasion, some issues 
surrounding an irregularity such as poor management and leadership are not adequately covered by the generic code JIU: Applicant withdraws project after 
receiving notification that control activity would take place. 
NORTHERN IRELAND: A Promoter was Northern Ireland: In 2002, the Special EU 
Programme Body made an error in the calculation of their payment claim, meaning that an overpayment was made. This was however recovered in 2003 from 
 
EN 154   EN 3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregula rities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities".  
Examples could be given from the most f requent irregularities classifi ed under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financia l impact or of the investigative method applied). Member 
State 
Example  Example  Example  
legends. 
JIU: Cases where funding was awarded 
retrospectively but where projects were 
withdrawn because they failed to follow the 
rules of retrospecti on/meet the agreed 
criteria. 
RPA: In 2008, only 1 case was reported 
using code 999. This involved the Rural 
Development Scheme where a barn conversion was approved for tourism use only but it was discove red that it was being 
used for residential purposes.  
NORTHERN IRELAND: The Intermediary 
Funding Body (Community Foundation for NI in this instance) made a payment through to the wrong promoter. This was quickly discovered by internal checks and a claw back recovered the amount in question. funded for a machine to make stainless 
steel furniture, however when a member of the Article 10 team made a site visit, it was discovered that the Promoter was making rails for equestrian events, and not for the purpose for which the funding was intended. a subsequent claim.