EN    EN EN 
 
EN 1   EN  COMMISSION OF THE E UROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
Brussels, 22.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2301 
  
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 2007 
Implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty by the Member States in 2007 
 
{COM(2008)475} 
{SEC(2008) 2300} 
 
EN 2   EN TABLE OF CONTENTS 
1. LEGAL INSTRUMENTS THAT GIVE EFFECT TO ARTICLE 280 OF THE EC 
TREATY — MAIN DEVELOPMENTS..................................................................... 4 
1.1. Horizontal developments ............................................................................................. 4 1.2. Own resources (including VAT)................................................................................ 16 1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - Guarantee 
Section) ...................................................................................................................... 2 0 
1.4. Structural operations .................................................................................................. 25 1.5. Description of key developments............................................................................... 29 2. LIMITATION PERIODS FOR PROC EEDINGS ON IRREGULARITIES AND 
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES OR MEASURES........................................................................................................ 45 
2.1. Limitation period for proceedings.............................................................................. 46 2.2. Limitation period for implementing the d ecision establishing the administrative 
penalty (sanction)....................................................................................................... 70 
2.3. Limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative 
measure (recovery)..................................................................................................... 84 
3. Management verifications in respect of  the European Regional Development Fund
............................................................................................................................... ... 103 
3.1. Guidelines for management verifications ................................................................ 104 3.2. Actual conduct of verifications under Ar ticle 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 
438/2001 and the authorities conducting them ........................................................ 108 
3.3. Results of Article 4 verifications.............................................................................. 148 3.4. Measures taken after detection of irregularity ......................................................... 155 3.5. Information to final beneficiaries............................................................................. 174 
 
EN 3   EN INTRODUCTION  
Protecting the European Communities' financial interests and combating fraud is an area in 
which responsibility is shared between the Community and the Member States.  
Each year the Commission draws up a report in conjunction w ith the Member States on the 
measures taken to meet this obligat ion, under article 280 of the EC Treaty. 
The Commission bases its report, which is addressed to the European Parliament and the 
Council and is published, on the measures taken by Member States’ described in their replies 
to the "Article 280" questionnaire, covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007. 
The present document lists all the Member States’ answers to the 2007 questionnaire. 
Over time the report had tended to become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and 
the European Parliament were concerned that it s size was increasing and that its being annual, 
horizontal and multisectoral prevented a detailed assessment being made of all aspects of Member States’ efforts to protect the Comm unities' financial interests. Since 2003, the 
Commission has therefore applied a new appro ach. After the traditional question asking 
Members States to report on new measures taken in 2007, the questionnaire focuses on a few 
major themes. The aim is to gather information on topics which go beyond the measures taken in a calendar year, so that these can be analysed  in more detail. The topics change from year 
to year. 
As always, the first part of the questionnaire  asks Member States to list the legal 
instruments that give effect to Article 280 , i.e. measures to combat fraud and all illegal 
activities affecting the financial interests of the Communities in the areas of own resources, agricultural expenditure and structural measures. The Member States have been asked to list 
only national measures and not those which simp ly transpose Community  legislation, and to 
do so briefly to reduce the volume of the st aff working document wh ich incorporates the 
replies from the 27 Members Stat es. At the end of the first que stion, Member States have the 
opportunity to give a more deta iled description of a few meas ures they view  as having the 
most important in the calendar year. 
The second question  concerns a specific topic on limitation periods for proceedings  on 
irregularities and subsequent decisions establishing ad ministrative penalties or measures . 
The Member States are responsible for dealing with irregularities and the outcome of such 
proceedings as regards traditional resources and indirect expenditure. Although Regulation 
No 2988/1995 makes provision for cross-cutting rules,  it allows Member States to provide for 
a limitation period exceeding the one that it lays down. Ta king action on irregularities 
affecting the EU budget within the set limitati on periods is crucial for the Communities' 
financial interests. 
The third question  concerns another specific theme, namely the management verifications  
under the Article 4 of Regulation No 438/2001 in respect of the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The aim here is to ge t a better idea of the kind of irregularities 
detected during these verifications, why they ha ve occurred, and the measures Member States 
take on their detection. 
 
EN 4   EN 1. LEGAL  INSTRUMENTS  THAT  GIVE  EFFECT  TO ARTICLE  280  OF THE  
EC TREATY  — MAIN  DEVELOPMENTS 
1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
If so, please indicate below: 
– Type of instrument  (e.g. law, regulation, decree)  
– References of the legal instrument  (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.)  
– References of the legal instrume nt or code that is amended (if any) 
– Title of the legal instrument or a brief description (no longer than one or two 
sentences).  
BE Royal order of 25 February 2007 pub lished in the Belgian gazette on 
28 February 2007 (amendment of the Royal order of 11 June 1993) 
Order to adapt the list of organisations subjected to the law of 11 January 1993 to 
prevent the use of the financial syst em for purposes of money laundering and 
financing of terrorism (M.B., 9 February 1993).  
Royal order of 3 June 2007 published in  the Belgian gazette on 13 June 2007 
(implementation of article 14 (5) of the law of 11 January 1993)  
Order to prevent the use of  the financial system for purposes of money laundering 
and financing of terrorism, considering that it is advisable to complete the preventive approach for de tecting a serious and organi sed tax fraud case at the 
origin of suspicious money laundering transactions, by resorting to a list of 
indicators capable of help ing out in analyses conducted by the organisations and 
persons mentioned in articles 2, 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the law of 11 January 1993 where they suspect the existence of a se rious and organised of  tax fraud at the 
origin of suspicious money laundering transactions, establishes such a list. 
Among these indicators are the executions of financial transactions that are 
unusual in the normal activities of the company or suspicious in highly-competitive sectors or highly-sensitive sectors to circular-type VAT fraud, such as the IT equipment, automobile, telephony (G SM), oil products, text ile, hi-fi, video 
and electronics sectors. 
Law of 27 April 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 8 May 2007 
(amendment of t
he law of 26 March 2003)  
Law that makes provision for data exch ange between a Central Body for Seizure 
 
EN 5   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
and Forfeiture, on the one hand, and especially the civil servants in charge of debt 
recovery on behalf of the Federal G overnment, communities and regions, on the 
other hand. 
Law of 11 May 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on  8 June 2007  
Law to adapt legislation on the fight against corruption that transposes into 
Belgian law some recommendations of the OECD. This law contains 
interpretation clauses of the Penal Code  that deal with corruption of persons 
holding a public office and a provision amending the prelim inary title of the Code 
of criminal procedure that allows for legal action to be taken for corruption-
related offences (cf. article 10 (4) of pr eliminary title of the Code of criminal 
procedure introduced by article 7 of the law of 11 May 2007). 
Customs agreements:  
Law of 30 January 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on  11 April 2007  
Law that granted consent to the “custom s mutual administrative assistance 
bilateral agreement” reach ed between the Governme nt of the Kingdom of 
Belgium and the Government of the Re public of Uzbekistan, and signed at 
Tashkent on 1 November 2002. The agreement took effect on 1 June 2007. 
Law of 15 February 2007   
Law that granted consent to the “custom s mutual administrative assistance 
bilateral agreement” reach ed between the Governme nt of the Kingdom of 
Belgium and the Government of the Republic of Madagascar, and signed at Brussels on 26 February 2003. The agr eement is yet to take effect. 
Law of 21 April 2007   
Law that granted consent to the “custom s mutual administrative assistance 
agreement” reached between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Government of 
Burkina Faso, and signed at Brussels on 24 November 2003. The agreement is yet 
to take effect. 
Law of 21 April 2007   
Law that granted consent to the “mutua l administrative assi stance agreement” 
between the Kingdom of Belgium and the Kingdom of Morocco with a view to 
preventing, identifying and punishing customs-related offences, and the 
appendices thereto, and signed at Brusse ls on 4 October 2002. The agreement is 
yet to take effect. 
 
EN 6   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
Law of 21 April 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 20 July 2007 
Law that granted consent to the “custom s mutual administrative assistance 
bilateral agreement” reach ed between the Governme nt of the Kingdom of 
Belgium and the Cabinet of Ministers of Uk raine, and signed at Brussels on 1 July 
2002. The agreement took effect on 1 August 2007. 
Law of 21 April 2007   
Law that granted consent to the “custom s mutual administrative assistance 
bilateral agreement” reach ed between the Governme nt of the Kingdom of 
Belgium and the Government of the Re public of Azerbaijan, and signed at 
Brussels on 18 May 2004. The agreement is yet to take effect. 
Law of 21 April 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on  20 July 2007  
Law that granted consent to the “custom s mutual administrative assistance 
agreement” reached between the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and the Government of the Republic of Turke y, and signed at Ankara on 2 November 
2003. The agreement took effect on 1 August 2007. 
Royal order 2007-4171 [C-2007/03451] publis hed in the Belgian gazette on 
18 October 2007/p.53949. 
Royal Order of 17 August 2007   
Order on the internal control system in some services of the federal executive 
organ. This Royal Order seeks to create th e conditions needed to ensure a greater 
accountability for the managers of the federal administration through a more 
thorough knowledge of management skills, quality of public expenses and good governance principles. 
BG State Budget Law §44, pub lished in Official Gazette № 113 of 28 December 
2007, in force as from 1 January 2008 
All unduly paid and overpaid amounts subject to recovery, as well as illicitly 
obtained or illicitly absorbed funds at the expense of pre- accession financial 
instruments, the EU Structural Funds  and the Cohesion Fund, the European 
Agricultural Funds and the European Fi sheries Fund, the Schengen Facility, the 
Transition Facility and the national co-f unding, may be deducte d in their full 
amount through transfers and subsidies. 
Public Financial Inspection Law published in Official Gazette № 86 of 26 
 
EN 7   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
October 2007 (amendment of Public Fi nancial Inspection Law published in 
Official Gazette № 33 of 21 April 2006) 
The main purpose of the state financial in spection activity is to protect the public 
financial interests. The PFIL establishes the competences of the Public Financial 
Inspection Agency authoritie s (financial inspectors). 
– State Agency for National Securi ty Law (SANSL) published in SG № 109 
of 20 December 2007, in force as from 1 January 2008 
SANS perform functions of surveillance,  detection, counterac tion and prevention 
of encroachments upon national security, wh ether plotted, prepared or perpetrated 
related to conclusion  of unfavourable contracts, money laundering and fraudulent 
absorption of EU Funds. 
CZ Act № 298/2007 Coll. (amendment of Act No 320/2001 Coll) 
Act on financial control in  public administration. 
Act № 174/2007 Coll. (amendment of Act No. 218/2000)  
Act on budgetary rules. 
Government Resolution №. 1010/2007 of 5 September 2007   
Act changing the position of the AFCO S central contact point in the Czech 
Republic. 
Draft amendment to Act No 256/2000 Co ll. on the State Agricultural 
Intervention Fund (SAIF), Section 11a(3)   
Act providing a period of one year in  which subsidies should be returned.  
IE Taxes Consolidation Act, new section 908C and 908D, 1997 
The Revenue Commissioners is from now on competent to apply to a District 
Court judge for a search warrant when inve stigating a criminal tax offence and to 
apply to a District Court judge for an  order requiring a third party to supply 
specified information to the Revenue  Commissioners, where a person is under 
investigation with a view to wards a criminal prosecution. 
EL See point 1.5  
ES Order EHA/1434/2007 of 17 May 2007 publishe d in the Official State Gazette 
 
EN 8   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
on 25.5.2007 
Order approving the code of conduct for auditors of accounts when reviewing 
accounts used to support applications for grants in the state sector.  
FR Law № 1598/2007 of 13 November 2007 publishe d in the Official Gazette on 
14 November 2007 
Law implementing the Council of Europe  Convention on the Corruption of 27 
January 1999 and its protocol of 15  May 2003 and the UN Convention against 
Corruption of 31 October 2003.  
IT Section 3 of Presidential Decree No 91 of 14.5.2007 published in Official 
Gazette No 156 of 11.07.2007 (see point 1.5) 
Circular on “Methods of reporting fr aud and irregularities affecting the 
Community budget to the European Commission” published in Official 
Gazette No 240 of 15.10.2007 .  
The circular is the national instrument implementing the agreement between the 
Government, the Regions, the Aut onomous Provinces, the Provinces, 
municipalities and mountain communities.  
CY Law № 51(ΙΙΙ)/2007 published on 31.12.2007 
Law ratifying the Council of Europe c onvention on laundering, search, seizure 
and confiscation of the proceeds from crime and on the financing of terrorism. 
Law № 188(Ι)/2007 published on 31.12.2007 
Law on the prevention and suppressi on of money laundering activities.  
LV Public Procurement Act, promulgated on 8 February 2007 published in the 
Official Gazette No. 29 of 19 February 2007 (amendment) .  
The amendments removed the restricti on on applying the procurement procedure 
– applicable to services listed in Section B, Annex 2 of Council and European 
Parliament Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 Ma rch 2004 – to services in category 24 
 
EN 9   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
whose contract price exceeds LVL 50 000. 
State Revenue Service Strategy for the Prevention and Detection of Crime 
relating to Government Revenue 2007-2009 of 8 November 20071 in 
accordance with the State Revenue Servi ce Director-General's Instruction No 
2049. 
The strategy specifies the follo wing objectives as priorities: 
- combatting tax fraud; 
- combatting money laundering; 
- the fight against organised crime. 
Section 323(3) of the Criminal Offences Act  
Section that has been supplemented w ith a new third paragraph and stiffer 
penalties have been foreseen for bribery performed by organised groups. 
Section 166(6) of the Latvian Administrative Infringements Code published 
in the Official Gazette No. 4 of 9 January 2008 (amendment) 
Regulation that provides for differentia ted sanctions for the infringement of 
regulations in respect of submission by legal persons of accounting information, 
statistics and reports. 
Cabinet Regulations No. 268 of 17 April 2007  published in the Official 
Gazette No 69 of 27 April 2007 (replacemen t of Cabinet Regulation No 406 of 
16 May 2006) 
Regulation that provides for procedures for the administration and monitoring of 
State and European Union aid for agriculture and rural development, as well as procedures for the publication of inform ation on aid beneficiaries and the amount 
of aid received.  
Cabinet Regulation No. 314 of 8 May 2007  published in the Official Gazette 
No 89 of 5 June 2007   
Regulation that provides for procedures for the provision  of State and European 
Union aid for rural development by open te nder. These regulations lay down how 
                                                 
1 Published on Internet : www.vid.gov.lv. 
 
EN 10   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
aid is to be granted for imp lementing EAFRD measures.  
HU  Act CXXVI of 2007 Art. 345, 346 and 465, 1997 in force as from 1 January 
2008 (amendment of Art. 125, 126 and 138 of Act CXXIX of 2004) 
Articles that fine-tuned a nd supplemented the tasks and powers of the OLAF 
Coordinating Bureau and its rule s for treating personal information. 
Act XXVII of 2007 Art. 5(2) (amendme nt of Penal Code Art. 138/A) 
Article that raises the threshold in case of petty offences to 20 000 HUF.  
Act LXI of 2006 (inserted Art. 88/A into  Chapter VII of Act XCII of 2003 on 
the Rules of Taxation 
The new paragraph introduced central c ontrol as of 1 January 2007 the aim of 
which is to investigate unlawful actions of taxpayers carryi ng the potential to 
substantially jeopardize the interests of the central budget and to restore operations within the framework of the law.  
Act XVII of 2007   
Act on certain aspects of the procedur e connected to agricultural, rural 
developmental and fishery aid and other measures. 
Government Decree 82/2007 (IV. 25.)   
Decree on the development of financial, accounting and control systems and rules 
of procedure for programmes and m easures financed by the European 
Agricultural Fund for Rural Development,  the European Fisheries Fund and the 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. 
Government Decree 322/2007 (XII. 5.)  
Decree on supervisory bodies contro lling the implementation of mutual 
assimilation rules. 
Government Decree 274/2006 (XII. 23. )  
 
EN 11   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
Decree on the creation and f unctioning of an Agricultu ral Administration Office. 
Decree 23/2007 (IV.17.)   
FVM of the Minister of Agriculture a nd Regional Development on the general 
rules for the utilisation of  aid co-financed by the Eur opean Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development.  
MT – Article 5 of the Cash Controls Regulations (LN149/07) published in 
the Government Gazette No. 18,084 of 5 June 2007  
– Article that provides that the Co mptroller of Customs shall be 
empowered to exchange and transmit information in accordance to Regulation (EC) 1889/2005 of the Eur opean Parliament and of the 
Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering and leaving the Community.  
– General Financial Regulations (Amendment) Regulations 
(LN185/07) published in the Government Gazette No. 18,100 of 13 July 2007 
– Regulation that provides that in verifications conducted by the 
Government’s Accountant General in relation to disbursements of public moneys, on the spot verifications ma y be conducted by duly authorised 
public officers on payment requests.  
NL  
PL Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004 published in the Official Gazette 
No 223(1655) of 2007.  
Act that has provided for the operati onal programme Managing Authorities to 
apply with to the President of the Public  Procurement Office to carry out checks 
on public contracts where there is alleged violation of the Act. 
 
Public Finance Act of 8 December 2006 pub lished in the Official Gazette No 
49(1832) (amendment) 
The amendment to the Act provides for aud its to be carried out commissioned at 
public finance sector units.  
 
Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004 published in the Official Gazette 
No 223(1655) of 2007.   
The Act has provided for the operational programme Managing Authorities to 
apply to the President of the Public Procurement Office to carry out checks on public contracts.  Checks are carried out at the registered seat of the Public 
 
EN 12   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
Procurement Office on the basis of public procurement documents  
PT Law 67-A/2007 2008 State Budget of 31.12.2007 published in the DR No 251, 
1st series, of 31/12/2007  (amendment of the Genera l Tax Offences Scheme 
approved by Law 15/2001 of 5/6/2001, sp ecifically Articles 92, 93 and 95)  
Law relating to smuggling, smuggling in c onnection with the movement of goods 
and fraud in the shipment of goods under a suspensive arrangement respectively. 
Decree Law 79/2007 of 29/03/20 07 published in the DR No 63, 1st series, of 
29/3/2007   
Law in the framework of the State Central Administration Restructuring 
Programme (PRACE) – approves the new Or ganic Law of the IGF, defining its 
mission and tasks, particularly in respect  of Article 2(2)(d)) “To conduct audits 
and perform the duties of na tional interlocutor of the European Commission for 
matters of financial control and protecting the financial interests of the Community Budget”. 
RO Government Emergency Ordinance No 25/2007  published in the Official 
Gazette, Part I, No 270 of 23.04.2007 
Ordinance laying down certain measures for reorganising the Government 
working apparatus. The new aspects aim to  extend the investigation powers of the 
Anti-Fraud Department – DLAF (AFCOS  Romania) to cover post-accession 
European funds.  
Prime Minister’s Decision No 205/ 2007 published in the Official Gazette, 
Part I, No 511/31.07.2007 
Decision on the organization and opera tion of the Anti-Fraud Department.  
Government Ordinance No 12/2007 publishe d in the Official Gazette, Part I, 
No 84 of 2.02.2007 (amendment and suppl ement of Government Ordinance 
No 79/2003)  
Ordinance on the control and recovery of  Community funds as well as related co-
financing funds used impr operly. Community debts are assimilated to national 
fiscal debts (see also point 1.5).  
Government Decision No 1306/2007  published in the Official Gazette, Part I, 
No 753 of 6.11.2007  
Decision approving the Methodological Rule s for the application of Government 
Decision No 79/2003 . It details the detection and recovery activities, regulates the 
 
EN 13   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
approval of the findings report specimen, defines the notion of illegible 
expenditure, sets the deadline for the pa yment of budgetary obligations resulting 
from irregularities, etc.  
Government Decision No 525/2007 published in the Official Gazette, Part I, 
No 395 of 12.06.2007 
Decision on the organisation and opera tion of the National Authority for 
Regulating and Monitoring Public Procurem ent. he main role of the National 
Authority for Regulating and Monitoring Public Procurement (Romanian acronym ANRMAP) is to formulate at conceptual level, promote and implement Romanian public procurement policy. 
Government Emergency Ordinance No 94/2007 published in the Official 
Gazette, Part I, No 676 of 4.10.2007 (amendment and supplement of Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006)   
Ordinance on the award of public procurem ent contracts, public works concession 
contracts and services concession c ontracts. he adoption of Government 
Emergency Ordinance No 94/2007 was intended to make public procurement system more flexible, at the same time ensuring its operation in accordance with European rules.  
Law No 228/2007 published in the Offi cial Gazette, Part I, No 471 of 
12.07.2007  
Law approving Government Emergenc y Ordinance No 30/2006 (Romanian 
Official Gazette, Part I, No 365/26.04.2006)  on the function of verifying the 
procedural aspects related to the pr ocess of awarding public procurement 
contracts.  
SI Act on International Cooperation in  Criminal Matters between the Member 
States of the European Union Ur. l. RS  published in the Official Gazette No 
102/2007  
Article 56 of the Act provides for the establishment of a special international 
investigation team and includes explicit  provision for the participation of 
representatives of OLAF. The team is le d by Slovenia's public prosecutor. Public 
prosecutor's offices and police organisa tional units are required to lend every 
assistance to the international investigation team. 
Prevention of Money Laundering and T errorist Financing Act Ur. l. RS No 
60/2007  
 
EN 14   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
The Act allows the Slovenian national budget supervision office (AFCOS) also to 
take action in relation to money laundering. 
SK National strategy for protecting th e financial interests of the European 
Community in the Slovak Republic. Government Resolution No. 547/2007 
(See point 1.5) 
AFCOS network partner cooperation manual. Government Resolution No. 
547/2007 
Manual for the notification of irregul arities. Government Resolution No. 
547/2007 
Government Resolution 323/2007 
Resolution on the fight against corruption.  A working group was set up to update 
the National Programme for fighting co rruption and the tasks of fighting 
corruption were entrusted to the Departme nt for Protecting the Financial Interests 
of the EU and the Fight against Corrup tion at the Slovak Government Office’s 
Control and Anti-Corru ption Section.  
Act No. 199/2007 in force as from 1 May 2007 (amendment of Act No. 
39/1993) 
Act on the Supreme Audit O ffice of the Slovak Republic  obtaining independent 
approval of the budget of the Supreme A udit Office from the Finance Ministry, 
with the Supreme Audit Office budget forming a separate item in the state budget of the Slovak Republic. 
Act No. 659/2007  
Act on the introduction of the Euro in the Slovak Republic. 
FI Code of Enforcement Procedure № 705/2007 (replacement of the 
Enforcement Act of 1895) 
General act for enforcement which contai ns provisions on the organisation of 
enforcement and enforcement procedure. It also includes provisions on the maximum period for debt liab ility. A claim is barred by th e statute of limitations 
once the limitation period fo r the grounds of enforcemen t (15 or 20 years) has 
expired. A court may, however, extend the period for the ground of enforcement 
 
EN 15   EN 1.1. Horizontal developments 
Have there been any significant new legisl ative horizontal developments (not just 
implementing measures) contributing to th e implementation of Article 280 of the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 
by ten years.  
Act on the Implementation of Taxes and Duties № 706/2007 (replacement of 
the Recovery of Taxes and Duties by Enforcement Proceedings № 367/1961) 
Act which lays down provisions on the recovery of taxes and duties without a 
judgment (what is known as "direct distrainability").   
SE See point 1.5 
 
EN 16   EN 1.2. Own resources (including VAT) 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
If so, please indicate below: 
Type of instrument (e.g. law, regulation, decree) 
References of the legal instrument  (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.) 
References of the legal instrume nt or code that is amended (if any) 
Title of the legal instrume nt or a brief description (no longer than one or two sentences). 
BE Programme law of 27 December 2006  published in the Official Gazette of 
28 December 2006, 3rd edition  in force as from 7 January 2007. 
Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this programme  law incorporates into the VAT Code 
articles 52bis, 88bis, 88ter, 89bis in 93undeci es D. These are measures relating to 
tax fraud control and to a more thorough tax collection. These provisions basically 
offer the possibility of conducting an administrative seizure of property on a 
provisional basis as a means of guara nteeing the payment of VAT, demanding a 
real guarantee or surety, of ordering, in some cases, the closing down of business 
entities or conducting a provisional seizur e for the taxes claimed. Under certain 
terms and conditions, article 93undecies D establishes personal liability for the 
payment of taxes by right for public officers or ministerial officials in charge of 
the public sale of movable property. 
Programme law of 27 April 3rd edition and law of 25 April 2007  published in 
the Official Gazette of 8 May 2007  
Laws laying down miscellaneous provisions  
Article 101, 104 and 105 of the programme law of 27 April 2007 and article 
104 of the law of 25 April 2007   
Articles laying down miscellaneous provision s introduced the measures needed to 
prevent the implementation of the VAT un it from giving room for tax fraud or 
evasion and to prevent membership of a VAT unit from giving rise to unjustified tax advantages or benefits with respect  to VAT, by inserting new articles 19bis, 
50 (1) 4°, 50 (2), 51ter and 53 (3) in the VAT code. 
Article 56 (3) of the VAT code was ame nded by article 127 of the programme 
law of 27 April 2007 that took effect on 1 October 2007  
Article to exclude from the franchise gr anted to small-sized companies with a 
turnover not exceeding 5580 euros, real estate transactions and all related 
operations. This exclusion responds to the intention to curb the risk of black 
 
EN 17   EN 1.2. Own resources (including VAT) 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
labour and illegal work ers in the sector. 
Articles 70 to 76 of the programme law of 27 April 2007 inserts articles 
84quinquies, 84sexies, 84septies, 84octi es, 84nonies, 84decies and 84undecies 
in the VAT code   
Article to introduce a measure known as i ndefinite suspension of tax recovery. 
This measure enables any taxpayer, a priv ate individual, who has lost the taxpayer 
status or the latter’s spouse (it must be a VAT owed for a previously-operated 
activity and that has ceased definitively) , to introduce a justified request and to 
obtain, if possible following an inquiry conducted with lending institutions and 
under certain conditions, an  exceptional preferential measure granting them a 
definitive VAT recovery suspension issued in return for the immediate or phased payment of a given amount to be  charged to the taxes owed. 
BG Internal rules of procedure for managing Community funds  – PHARE pre-
accession instruments – last amended – November 2007. The rules of procedure are not
 a statutory instrument. 
Establishment of a Contact Group for interoperability management on  5 April 
2007  (supplement to the Instruction for in teraction among the Prosecutor’s Office 
of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Financia l Intelligence Agency subordinated to the 
Finance Minister, and the Ministry of the Interior of 3 July 2006).  
CZ (See point 1.1) 
Act No. 235/2004 Coll. of VAT (amendment) .  
IE Ireland maintains its reservation about the inclusion of VAT in this questionnaire 
in line with that agreed at th e COCOLAF meeting in October 2005.  
ES Articles 25.1 and 144 to 147 Royal Decree 1065/2007 of 27 July published in 
the Official State Gazette of 5 September 2007 
Articles approving the general regulati ons governing tax management and 
inspection measures and procedures and implementing the common rules for tax application procedures. In relation to Article 280, see.  
IT Decree Act of 3.10.2006 published in Official Gazette No 230 of 3.10.2006, 
converted into law by Act No 286 of 24.11.2006. On 25.10.2007 two measures 
from the Revenue Agency were publis hed in Official Journal (General 
Series) No 266 of 15.11.2007, implementing these rules.  
Act that lays down rules on the registratio n of new and used cars, motor vehicles 
 
EN 18   EN 1.2. Own resources (including VAT) 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
and their trailers purchased as  intra-Community transactions.  
Order of the Ministry of Econom ic and Financial Affairs of 25.05.2007  on the 
“Identification of a further operation fo r the application of the reverse charge 
system”, within the meaning of section of 17(6) of Presidential Decree No 633 
of 26.10.1972, published in Official Gazette No 152 of 3.07.2007 . It extended 
the reverse charge system to cover sales of  buildings of parts thereof as defined in 
indent 8-ter(d) of section 10 of  Presidential Decree No 633 of 26.10.1972. 
HU Art. 29 of Act XXVII of 2007 in fo rce as from 1.6.2007 published in the 
Official Gazette 2007/50. (I V. 20.) (amendment of Act IV of 1978 on the Penal 
Code and other penal laws)  
Act establishing that smuggling constitutes an individual crime (Art. 312), and 
according to Art. 32 illegal importation and trafficking of goods as activity 
belongs now to Art. 236 of the Penal C ode about receiving stolen goods. Acts of 
smuggling as a new individual crime were  spelled out, and in case of certain 
aggravating circumstances, penalties were made tougher.  Protection of financial 
interests is a primary aspect of the new measure that qualifies the payment of customs duties before presenting criminal charges are brough as active remorse that nullifies criminality.  
MT Part VIII of Act IV of 2007 (Budget  Measures Implementing Act (Cap. 475)) 
published in Government Gazette Number 18052 of 16 March 2007   
Act that improves information exchange between persons and the VAT 
department on VAT issues, and introduces an obligation on commercial banks to 
submit specific information to the VAT department.  
– Act XIX of 2007 published in Gov ernment Gazette No 18110 of 3 
August 2007 (amendments of the VAT Act (Cap. 406))  
– Act concerning transport of goods in the course of an economic activity.  
NL A proposal for a new General Customs Ac t was brought before Parliament in 
2007 and adopted by the Lower House in early 2008. It is due to enter into force on 1 July 2008 after adop tion by the Upper House. 
The Act sets out in clear terms the powers of the customs authorities in the 
performance of taxation-rela ted and non-taxation-related du ties. It also lays down 
rules for the exchange of information wi th other enforcement agencies in the 
Netherlands.  
PT Decree Law 82/2007 of 29.3.2007 published in  the Official Gazette No 63 1st 
 
EN 19   EN 1.2. Own resources (including VAT) 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
series of 29/3/2007   
Act that, - in the framework of the PR ACE - approves the new Organic Law of 
the DGAIEC, defining its mission and tasks, a nd the type of internal organisation; 
this Directorate-General prot ects the Community’s financial interests, in terms of 
its own funds or the fundi ng of the Common Agricultural Policy, as this agency’s 
Antifraud Services Directorate is in char ge of implementing the controls provided 
for in Reg. (EC) No 4045/89. 
Order in Council 349/2007 of 30.3.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 
64 1st series of 30/3/2007 
Order that  establishes the core structure of the services and the tasks of the 
respective units of DGAIEC. 
Order 7624/7 of 2.4.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 80 2nd series of 
24/4/2007  
Order that defines the flexible organi c units of the Serv ices and Customs 
Directorates and their respective tasks.  
RO Government Emergency Ordinance No 106/2006 published in the Romanian 
Official Gazette, Part I, No 703/ 18.10.2007 (amendment and supplement of 
Law No 571/2003)  
It aims at maintaining the level of budget revenues resulting from the value added 
tax by extending the application period fo r the system of the value added tax 
payment to the customs authority to cover the import of goods from third 
countries. The simplified VAT payment m easures will be applied only starting 
with 2012. Procedures in order to clarify cer tain provisions in the field of taxation 
system were also taken into account.  
Government Ordinance No 47/2007 on regulating certain financial-fiscal 
measures published in the Offici al Gazette Part I, No 603 of 31.08.2007 
Within the Fiscal Administration Nati onal Agency, the Commission for Fiscal 
Procedures has been established, which is  responsible for preparing Decisions on 
the uniform application of the Fiscal Pro cedure Code and of the legislation falling 
within the scope of the Fiscal  Administration National Agency. 
Government Decision No 532/2007 on th e organisation and operation of the 
National Customs Authority, published in  the Official Gazette, Part I, No 
405/18.06.2007 
 
EN 20   EN 1.2. Own resources (including VAT) 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
The National Customs Authority receives new tasks in the field of the fiscal surveillance, authoris ation, certification, and approval of natural and legal persons 
carrying out activities of production, bottling, packaging, acceptance, possession, 
storage and/or delivery, sale, final use of excise products.  
SI Act on International Cooperation in  Criminal Matters between the Member 
States of the European Union publishe d in the Official Gazette Part I No 
102/2007 
Act supplementing the legal framework for direct cooperation with OLAF.  
SK Customs Act No. 537/2007 of 25 Octob er 2007 (amendment of Customs Act 
No. 199/2004 and other acts)  
The draft document had to take into account the fact that customs duty is 
traditional own resource for the Community, which can only be handled in accordance with the regimes established by the relevant legal acts of the EC/EU. For this reason, sums owing under a Comm unity claim on separate sources as 
advances by the debtor to a third party in bankruptcy or liquidation are excluded.  
SE Value Added Tax Act (Mervärdesska ttelagen) published in the Official 
Gazette No 1031/2006 and 1293/2006 (amendment of Value Added Tax Act No 200/1994)  
The amendments imply a complete change  concerning tax obligation within the 
building sector. The intention of the rules (which imply that th e buyer, instead of 
the seller, pays value added tax to the St ate for building servi ces provided) is to 
prevent value added tax fraud. 
UK The UK has a reservation about the incl usion of VAT in this questionnaire. 
 
1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - 
Guarantee Section) 
– Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementati on of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
If so, please give a brief des cription below. Please indicate:  
 
EN 21   EN 1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - 
Guarantee Section) 
– Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementati on of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
– Type of instrument  (e.g. law, regulation, decree)  
– References of the legal instrument  (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.)  
– References of the legal instrume nt or code that is amended  (if any)  
– Title of the legal instrument or a brief description  (no longer than one or two 
sentences)  
Whether the measures are general or apply to  a specific sector of the EAGF / EAGGF -
Guarantee Section, and, if so, which one. 
BG 2007-2013 Rural Development Programme , elaborated in 2007 and approved 
by the EC on 19 December 2007 
The Program regulates the conditions for allocating financial support to Bulgaria 
by the European Agricultural Fund for Rura l Development for the development of 
agriculture and rural areas. The regula tions for the Programme’s implementation 
are soon to be promulgated in the State Gazette. They will describe in details 
eligible costs and eligible beneficiaries, with a view to preventing any irregularities upon allo cating financial support.  
CZ (See point 1.1) 
Administrative acts comprise methodol ogical guidelines and SAIF and MoA’s 
AFCOS contact point instructions. 
Rural Development Programme of th e Czech Republic for 2007-2013 (EAFRD) 
of May 23, 2007. Fisheries Operational Pr ogramme (EFF) for the Czech Republic 
of December 11, 2007.  
IT Section 1(1048) of Act No 299 of 27 December 2006 (2007 budget), published 
in Official Journal No 299 of 27 December 2006   
The Section establishes that controls requi red of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry under Regulation (EEC) No 4045/1989, and the tasks required under Article 11 of the Regulation, shall be performed by the Agri cultural Payments 
Agency (AGEA) from 1 July 2007. 
AGEA Circular ACIU.2007.1082 of 24 December 2007   
The circular adopted the coordination ma nual for dealing with irregularities and 
recovery by paying agencies, which laid  down standard rules for EAGF and 
 
EN 22   EN 1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - 
Guarantee Section) 
– Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementati on of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
EAFRD procedures, in line with the join t ministerial circular on Methods of 
reporting fraud and irregularities affec ting the Community budget to the European 
Commission issued on 12 October 2 007 by the Prime Minister’s Office.  
LV Amendments to the Agriculture and Rural Development Act of 18 October 
2007 and published in the Official Gazette No 179 on 7 November 2007 (amendment of the Agricultural and Rural Development Act of 23 April 2004
As a result of these amendments the Agriculture and Rural Development Law has 
been supplemented with Procedures Govern ing Control of the Integrated Growing 
System for Agricultural and Organic Pr oduce, as well as conditions for the 
administration of State and European Union aid, and certain legal norms contained in the previous version of the Act have been applied to the fisheries industry. These measures are of a genera l nature and apply to  agriculture, rural 
development and the fisheries industry.  
Several Cabinet Regulations
2 laid down rules for the administration of state aid 
and EU funds in the field of agriculture . They may include legal norms on checks 
and sanctions.  
HU Art. 6 of Act XVII of 2007 published in the Official Gazette No 2007/38 (III. 
30.)  
The Act relates to certain aspects of th e procedure regarding agricultural, rural 
development and fisheries aid and othe r measures and provides for general 
measures as follows: ‘In order to make measures de facto  implement objectives 
set in legal acts or programmes, implem entation bodies shall create or provide 
for possibilities to act efficiently against intentional irregularities’. 
Government Decree 82/2007 (IV. 25.)  on developing financ ial, accounting and 
control systems and rules of procedure for programmes and measures financed 
by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development, the European 
Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. 
Government Decree 314/2006 (XII.23.)  as amended by Government Decree 
359/2007 (XII.23.)   
The decree restructured the body responsible for ex-post controls of aids financed 
                                                 
2 Cabinet Regulations No. 51 of 9 January 2007, No 255, 267, 269 of 17 April 2007, No 617 of 11 
September 2007, No 653 of 2 October 2007. 
 
EN 23   EN 1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - 
Guarantee Section) 
– Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementati on of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
from the EAGGF Guarantee Section according to Regulation 4045/89/EEC. 
These controls shall be made by newly created bodies, namely the Regional 
Control Centres. 
Act CXXVI of 2007 on the amendment of  certain taxation laws amended Act 
CXXVI of 2003 on the Implementati on of Community Customs Law  
The Act declares that ex-post control shall be carried out at the client's premises 
if the Head of the Special Service so requires. Initiating controls becomes faster 
in case of alleged irregularities. 
Regulation 48/2007 PM of th e Ministry of Finance (a mendment of Regulation 
24/2004 (IV.23.) and Regulation 23/2004 (IV.22.) PM) 
The Regulation sets competences for the new Regional Control Centres. With the 
above Regulation and sets the professional governance of the Special Service regarding Member State controls of transactions under the EAGGF financial 
system.  
PL Agricultural Land and Sugar Paymen ts Act of 26 January 2007 published in 
the Official Gazette No 35(217) of 2007  
The Act introduces national financial penalties for irregularities in subsidising the 
cultivation of energetic plants.  
PT Applicable to the EAGF and the EAFRD: 
Implementing Decree No 79/2007 of 30.7.2007 in the framework of the 
PRACE published in the Official Gazette No 145, 1st series, of 30.7.2007   
The decree approves the new Organic Law of the IGAP, defining its mission and 
tasks, and conferring on it the powers to carry out the ex post  controls on the 
investment operations funded by the EAFRD in order to implement the a 
posteriori scrutiny provided for in Regulati on (EC) 4045/89 and to carry out the 
specific services within the meaning of this Regulation. 
Decree-Law No 323/2007 of 28.9.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 
188, 1st series, of 28.9.2007  
The Decree-Law establishes the rules and procedures to be adopted for 
accrediting the paying agency for the expenditure funded by the EAGF and the EAFRD, and for certifying the respective accounts, conferring on the Minister in 
charge of finances, on a proposal from th e IGF, the powers to accredit the paying 
agency of the EAGF and the EAFRD a nd conferring on the IGF the power to 
 
EN 24   EN 1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - 
Guarantee Section) 
– Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementati on of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
serve as the certifying body for the purpos es of Article 7 of Regulation No 
1290/2005. Revokes Decree-Law 331-A/95 of 22/12/1995. 
Council of Ministers Resolution 101/2007 published in the Official Gazette 
No 147, 1st series, of 1.8.2007   
Resolution adapting the operations of the CIFG to the funding system of the CAP 
(Common Agricultural Policy), including in  its scope of opera tions the reporting 
of irregularities and suspected fraud to th e EAFRD, to be added to the operations 
of the EAGF already dea lt with by this Inter-ministerial Commission. Revokes 
RCM 10/91 of 14 March 1991 
RO Government Emergency Ordinance No 120/2007 published in the Romanian 
Official Gazette, Part I, No 745 of 2.11.2007 (amendment and supplement of Government Emergency Ordinance No 67/2006)  
Ordinance on managing non-returnable f unds intended for the financing of the 
Common Agricultural Policy, allocated from the European Community as well as of co-financing and pre-financing funds  allocated from the state budget. It 
stipulates the necessary financial meas ures regarding the allocation method for 
pre-financing and co-financing from th e state budget in or der to support the 
beneficiaries of European funds related to the Common Agricultural Policy. At 
the same time, the Payment Agency for Rural Development and Fishing (Romanian acronym APDRP) may grant the payment in advance from the 
EAFRD assistance or from the state budget to the public benefi ciaries of the non-
returnable financial support for investment s, pursuant to provisions stipulated in 
the National Program for Rural Development (Romanian acronym: PNDR). 
Law No139/2007 on the approval of G overnment Emergency Ordinance No 
125/2006 published in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I, No 352/23.05.2007 (amendment of Articl e 2 of Law No 36/1991)  
Law approving the direct payment and direct national supplementary payment 
schemes granted in the agricultural fiel d starting with 2007 and amending Article 
2 of Law No 36/1991 on agricultural establishments and other forms of association in the agricultural field, Persons who, by registering and certifying 
false data or circumstances in the discounting documents related to the financial support stipulated by this Emergency Or dinance, improperly cash certain amounts 
from the state budget will not benefit from a financial support for a period of 3 years.  
Order of the Minister of Agriculture and Regional Development No 704/2007 
published in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I, No 607/3.09.2007 (repeal 
 
EN 25   EN 1.3. Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - 
Guarantee Section) 
– Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementati on of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to li st only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
of the Order of the Minister of Agricu lture, Forests and Rural Development 
No 607/2006) 
Order laying down the method for the im plementation of specific conditions and 
eligibility criteria for the application of direct payment and national supplementary direct payment schemes in the plant sector.  
FI Åland:  Section 2 of Regional Act on the Fi nancing of Agricultural Industries 
(ÅFS 63/2007) 
This Act applies to the province's national aid system and to that co-financed from 
EU funds within the framework of the Co mmunity's Common Agricultural Policy.
 
1.4. Structural operations 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
If so, please give a brief descri ption below. Please indicate:  
Type of instrument  (e.g. law, regulation, decree) 
References of the legal instrument  (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.) 
References of the legal instrume nt or code that is amended  (if any) 
Title of the legal instrume nt or a brief description  (no longer than one or two sentences) 
Whether the measures are gen eral or whether they apply to a specific fund and, if so, 
which one. 
BE Royal order 2007-4172  [C-2007/03450] of 17 August 2007  published in the 
Official Gazette of 18 October 2007/p.53962 
This Royal order aims at guaranteeing that the conditions for an efficient 
evaluation of internal cont rol systems have been met.  It contributes to the 
implementation of a “control chain” (si ngle audit), held de ar by the European 
Court of Auditors 
Royal order 2007-4173  [C-2007/03449] of 17 August 2007  published in the 
 
EN 26   EN 1.4. Structural operations 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
Official Gazette of 18 October 2007/p.53990  
This Royal Order sets up an Audit Committee that guarantees that internal audit 
activities are performed in compliance w ith internationally recognised standards 
and complete independence. 
BG Guidelines of the Mini ster of Finance No. 01/27.08.2007 on the terms and 
conditions for payment of grants using the resources of the Structural and 
Cohesion Funds of the European Uni on and the corresponding national co-
financing. 
Guidelines of the Mini ster of Finance No. 02/31.08.2007  on the certification of 
expenses under Operational Programmes  co-financed by the Structural and 
Cohesion Funds of the European Union. 
Guidelines of the Mini ster of Finance No. 03/17.09.2007  on procedures to 
report and account for any irregularities under the Structural and Cohesion Funds 
of the European Union. 
Guidelines of the Mini ster of Finance No. 04/05.10.2007  on the arrangement of 
the accounting process with in the Managing Authorities / Intermediate Bodies 
that manage resources under the Struct ural and Cohesion Funds of the EU, and 
the corresponding nati onal co-financing.  
CZ See point 1.5. 
Methodology of Financial Flows and Control of Programmes Cofinanced 
from Structural Funds, Cohension F und and the European Fisheries Fund 
for the Programming Period 2007-2013 , effective from 1 January 2007, 
approved by a Government Resoluti on (Methodology of Fi nancial Flows) 
applying to the SF and the CF.  
Government Resolution No. 1010/2007 of 5 September 2007 , applying 
horizontally to irregularities . Horizontal scope (applies to the SF and the CF), 
removing obsoletism and providing for a uniform approach by bodies in the 
implementing structure in case of discove ring and investigati ng irregularities. 
EL See point 1.5.  
IT Decision No 822 of the Re gional Government of 12.12.2007  – Manual of 
Procedures for the paying agencies in volved in the ROP for Calabria 2000 –
2006, Circular 5128 of 21.09.2007  
The decision contains explanations by the managing and paying authorities 
regarding implementation of procedures for the withdrawal of amounts connected 
 
EN 27   EN 1.4. Structural operations 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
with irregularities. 
Decision No 102 of the Autonomo us Province of Trento of 26.01.2007   
Decision concerning methods of recognisi ng and establishing the actual cost 
of delegated tasks in connection with courses funded by the ESF in the period 
2000-2004 where it has been discovered th at one company controlled or had 
links with other companies.  
LV European Union Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund Management Act, of 
15 February 2007 published in the Offici al Gazette No 33 of 23 February 
2007 and in force as from  1.3.2007.  
On the basis of the European Union Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund 
Management Act, a series of Cabinet Re gulations pertaining to European Union 
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund were issued in 2007. 
HU Government Decree 402/2007 (XII. 27.) (amendment  of Government Decree 
281/2006. (XII. 23.)   
Decree on creating financial implementation and supervisory systems related to 
receiving aid from the European Re gional Development Fund, the European 
Social Fund and the Cohesion Fu nd in the 2007–2013 programming period. 
According to Art. 40(7)  the National Development Agency publishes on its 
homepage irregularity proceeding decisions  of the National Development Agency 
and the cooperating bodies that declare i rregularities. They are published 30 days 
following the date of the decision, indicate th e name of the beneficiary, the title of 
the programme, the way the irregularity was committed, the consequences of the irregularity and the amount  affected by the irregularity. These data must not 
include personal data.  
Act CLXXI of 2007 on the transparency of subsidies from public sources  
NL See point 1.5 
PT Council of Ministers Resolution 169/ 2007 published in the Official Gazette 
No 202, 1st series, of 19.10.2007)   
Resolution creating the mission structures responsible for exer cising the duties of 
the management authorities of the mainland’s regional Ops.  
Regional Legislative Decree 20/2007/M of 27.11.2007 published in the Official 
Gazette No 228, 1st series)   
 
EN 28   EN 1.4. Structural operations 
Have there been any significant new legislat ive developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to th e implementation of Articl e 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only nati onal measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 
Decree defining for the Autonomous Regi on of Madeira the governance model for 
the respective operati ng programmes and interaction with other EU funding which 
this Region receives 
Regulatory Decree 84-A/2007 (DR No 37, 1st series, 10/10/2007)   
Decree establishing the le gal arrangements for ma nagement, access and funding 
under the operating programmes funded by the ESF.  
RO Government Decision No 759/2007 esta blishing the legal framework for the 
eligibility of expenditures for benefici aries within the operations financed 
through operational programs, publishe d in the Romanian Official Gazette, 
Part I, No 517 /1.08.2007 
SK Several guidelines/manuals have been adopted or updated in 2007 concerning the 
financial management of funds a nd concerning the irregularities.  
SE Regulation (2007:14) Administra tion of the EU Structural Funds   
On the basis of the new programme peri od, a national regulati on has been adopted 
with respect to the administration of the EU structural funds (2007:14). This 
regulation indicates that Sweden has m odified the implementation structure for 
the regional fund in the prog ramme period 2007-2013. Verket för 
näringslivsutveckling (Nutek) (The Author ity for the Development of Commerce 
and Industry) has been appointed as admi nistrative and attesting authority for the 
regional fund programmes. Ekonomistyrn ingsverket (ESV) (The Financial 
Control Authority) is the new auditi ng authority for the structural fund 
programme mentioned above. With respec t to social funds, Svenska ESF-rådet 
(The Swedish ESF Council) has been appoi nted as administrative and attesting 
authority. ESV has been appointed as the new auditing authority for social funds. 
In order to safeguard the competence remains needed to terminate the programme 
period 2000-2006 and to develop the programme period 2007-2013, activities 
have been transferred to Nutek, Svensk a ESF-rådet and ESV from the earlier 
administration, paying-out and audit authorities. 
 
 
EN 29   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
In particular, Member States are asked to indicate:  
- Type of measure (law, regulation, etc.) and references (number, date of adoption 
and/or publication, name of programme, etc.) 
- Its scope (horizontal, specific field) - Why it was needed - Improvements made to the existing system. 
BE Customs operations : 
The Kingdom of Belgium submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of the 
European Union on 16 March 2007: 
The declaration provided for by article 32 (4) of the Agreem ent issued on the 
basis of article K.3 of the European Union Treaty on mutual assistance and 
cooperation among customs authorities. According to this declaration, the 
Agreement, excluding article 26 thereof, shall be applicable with respect to 
Belgium, in its relations with the member States that issued the same declaration. 
This involves allowing the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement between Belgium and other member governments, pending the complete effectiveness of the Agreement. This d eclaration actually t ook effect on 14 June 
2007. 
The declaration provided for by article 26 (4) of the same Agreement whereby 
Belgium recognises the competence of the Court of Jus tice of European 
communities to rule on an interlocutory basis on the interpretation of the Agreement.  
An order was issued by the Governme nt of the Brussels-Capital Region on 
18 October 2007, laying down the terms a nd conditions for internal controls, 
especially internal controls per trad e/profession, accounti ng control and good 
financial management control. It was published in the Moniteur belge  (Belgian 
gazette). 
The scope of action is speci fic (internal management).
 
An in situ reminder of administrative c ontrols capable of cutting down community 
or even national financing was issued to each FSE beneficiary in the form of a periodical disclosure (June 2007). This info rmation is equally available on the site 
of the Agency.  
 
EN 30   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
BG Strategy against Fraud Affecting the European Communities’ Financial 
Interests, adopted by the Council of Ministers with Protocol No. 41, 
p.7/13.10.2005 as amended in July 2006 and May 2007 .  
The Strategy spells out the commitment of the Bulgarian Government to fight 
against fraud affecting the European Communities’ financial interests.  
Three main priorities have been intr oduced, each of them broken down into 
specific measures that are la id down in detailed annual action plans. The update of 
the Strategy in 2007 is aimed at its preci sion after the fulfillment of two of the 
objectives set and the implementation of measures set in the Action Plan on the 
Implementation of the Strategy. 
The first amendment concerning the incl usion of key players in the national 
coordination mechanism for prevention and fight against fraud and irregularities 
affecting the financial interests of the European Communities has been implemented. Those key players have been included as members of the AFCOS Council by virtue of Counc il of Ministers Decree №176/2006. 
The second amendment follows the implem entation of Measure 1 of Priority 1 
concerning the establishment of the Cent ral Unit for co-ordination in the fight 
against infringements, affecting the financial interests of the European Communities. After the establishment of the Central Unit the text has been changed in order to focus on the st rengthening of the Central Unit’s 
administrative capacity. 
The third amendment concerns the deadlines in the last paragraph of the Strategy 
with regard to the fulfilled tasks incl uded in the 2007 Plan on the implementation 
of the Strategy.  
CZ Adopted Methodology of Financial Flows and Control of Programmes Co-
financed from Structural Funds, Cohesi on Funds and the European Fisheries 
Fund for the Programming Period 2007-2013, effective from 1 January 2007, 
which has been approved by a Government Resolution (“Methodology of 
Financial Flows”); applies to the SF and the CF. 
Government Resolution No 1010/2007 of 5 September 2007,  applies 
horizontally to irregularities . Horizontal scope (applies to the SF and the CF), 
removes obsoletisms and provides for a uniform approach by bodies in the 
implementing structure in case of discove ring and investigati ng irregularities. 
Administrative measures of th e Ministry of Agriculture:  
 
EN 31   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
Rural Development Programme of the Czech Repub lic for 2007-2013 
(EAFRD) of 23 May 2007.  
Fisheries Operational Programme (E FF) for the Czech Republic of 11 
December 2007.  
DE Error evaluation guidance for independent bodies. 
EE The infringement module of the Structural Funds Operational System (SFOS)  
began operating on 1 July 2007 . All structural fund and Equal-related 
infringements are presented to the Ministry  of Finance in electronic form. Since 1 
July 2007 all infringement cases for which a definitive solution has been found have been publicly available on th e Ministry of Finance website 
http://www.fin.ee/?id=10570. The site gives details of the aid recipient’s name, 
the names of the bodies granting the aid, a short description of the infringement, 
and an indication of the final outcome. The information is updated quarterly (legal basis: §20 “Publication” of “Conditi ons and procedure for recovering and 
refunding aid, forwarding information on infringements concerning the granting 
and use of aid” (https://www.r iigiteataja.ee/ert /act.jsp?id=12769549
). 
IE A new computerised system was introdu ced by the Revenue Commissioners in 
June 2007 which contained a comprehensive risk management system. This enables the Revenue Commissioners to set and refine sele ction criterion and 
monitor results on an ongoing basis. This  increased capability  will assist in 
identifying consignments that pose a custom s risk either financial or otherwise. 
An improved computer system for the Early Retirement Scheme (ERS3) was 
introduced by the Department of Agricult ure, Fisheries and Food in August 2007. 
The new computer system includes vari ous controls such as validation of 
beneficiary ID numbers, in order to ensu re that duplicate payments do not issue. 
EL 1) LAW 3614/2007 on the management, control and application of 
development interventions for the programming period 2007-2013 published 
in the Government Gazette No 267A of 03.12.2007 
Law 3614/07 transposes the requirements of  the regulations on management and 
control systems for the programming pe riod 2007-2013 into national law and also 
enacts regulations to ensure that these sy stems function more effectively and yield 
better results in terms of especially  important factors in improving Greece’s 
ability to manage and implement cohesion policy. 
Using existing structures and staffing re sources of the management and control 
system for the 3rd CSF will ensure that fu ll advantage is taken of the experience 
acquired during the 3rd CSF, which will be conducive in achieving anticipated 
 
EN 32   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
development targets and that the pr ogrammes for the period 2007-2013 can be 
activated immediately and will guarantee the conditions needed for a smooth 
transition to this period and lower inst allation and commissioning costs for the 
new systems. 
Furthermore, in order to address the weaknesses identified in the existing 
management and control system, provisi on has been made fo r measures designed 
primarily to: 
- improve the functioning of the special departments and limit administrative costs 
(internal rules of procedure / intro duction of new electronic communication 
system / adoption of annual programming) ; 
- speed up management and control system  procedures and improve transparency 
(open procedures / deadlines  for complementing prelim inary approval procedures 
/ faster registration of proj ects in the public investment  programme / faster audit 
reports etc) ; 
- prevent failures and, at the same time, strengthen basic monitoring of projects; 
- set up sectoral or cross-sectoral coordi nation mechanisms to safeguard synergies 
and complementarity between cofinanced actions and consistency between them 
and national policies; 
- make rational use of public resources  and maximum development results (adopt 
national public resource progr amming and management rules / support the regions 
in development planning with regional development organisations / introduce 
incentives for bodies to achieve their targets);  
- improve the administrative capacity of the project implementing bodies 
(beneficiaries), by introducing a system  for confirming their administrative 
adequacy; 
- support local authority bodies in implemen ting projects, so that projects can be 
delivered to local communities on time in  the right quantity and of the right 
standard. 
- speed up the implementation of projects by simplifying the supporting 
documentation required in order to bid in  competitions, instituting a coordinator 
to monitor the implementati on of large projects etc.  
2) Law 3583/2007 published in the Government Gazette No 142A of 
28.06.2007 (amendment of the law 2960/01 of the National Customs Code  
 
EN 33   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
This law includes provisions to: 
Α) revise fines for infringing transit scheme rules; 
Β) introduce an administrative fine fo r adulterated/pirate goods found during 
customs controls under import, export and transit schemes; 
C) introduce mandatory destruction of ci garettes seized and confiscated in order 
to protect public health and safe guard the EU’s own resources.  
IT Presidential Decree No 91 of 14.5.2007 (a mendment of section 76 of Act No 
92/142 on the Committee on the Fight against Community Fraud)   
Decree assigning the Committee a consul tative and guidance role for the 
coordination of all activities in the fight  against fraud and irregularities involving 
tax, agricultural policy and the structural funds. 
The Committee produces practical propos als to encourage the uniformity and 
timeliness of action taken by the depart ments concerned, proposes new rules or 
amendments to existing rules on the application of the la w or in response to fresh 
developments and deals with questions regarding compliance with Article 280 of 
the Amsterdam Treaty and subjects relatin g to the flow of information on undue 
payments and recoveries. 
By Order of 3 August 2007, the Minister for European Policy set out the 
membership of the Committee. Chaired by the HoD, it includes senior 
representatives from all the other departments concerned. 
An operation has been launched involvi ng crosschecking and harmonising 
electronic information with the European Commission with a vi ew to developing 
a more efficient method of managing and analysing information on irregularities 
and fraud reported. 
The Committee has also decided to set up a working party to develop a shared 
computer environment (project AIC) to generate dissuasive  fraud prevention 
strategies and encourage measures to improve recovery. 
Finally, research is underway  into the production of an operation manual for the 
recovery of funds unduly obtained. 
LV European Union Structural Fund and Co hesion Fund Management Act of 15 
February 2007 published in the Official Gazette No 33 of 23 February 2007 and in force as from 1 March 2007.   
 
EN 34   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
The aim of the Act is to determine how European Union funds are to be managed, 
in order to utilize European Union funds in Latvia in a way that is effective, 
transparent and in line w ith financial management principles. Among the key 
improvements compared with the legal act  pertaining to the previous planning 
period are:  
– procedures for resolving disputes over disbursed European Union funds 
have been rendered more specific or clarified; 
– the types of decisions to be take n by institutions involved in the 
management of European Union funds have been clarified. 
Cabinet Regulation No 419 of 26 June 2007 published in the Official Gazette 
No 104 on 29.6.2007.  
Procedures to be followed by institutions involved in the management of 
European Union Structural Funds and th e Cohesion Fund in order ensure the 
preparation of planning documents and th e implementation of the aforementioned 
funds. These provisions determine the co mpetences and responsibilities of the 
institutions involved in the management of European Union (EU) funds for the 
2007-2013 programming period, as well as pr ocedures for participation in the 
management of those funds, thus controlling expenditure affected within the 
framework of the EU funds. One of the pr erequisites for cons idering expenditure 
from EU funds to be appropriate is the implementation of procurement procedures 
in accordance with regulations on public  procurement. For this reason, in 
accordance with the regulations, the Procur ement Monitoring Bureau (hereinafter 
'the Bureau') is involved in EU funds management and ensures that procurement undertaken by fund benefici aries is subject to ex ante  controls. Based on 
procurement plans prepared by the funding be neficiaries, the Bureau verifies at 
random whether procurement procedures are in line with public-procurement-
related regulations, thus gi ving funding beneficiaries the opportunity to avert the 
infringements detected – which could resu lt in irregular expenditure – before 
procurement contract is concluded. 
Section 28 of the Taxes and Fees Act of 8.11.2007 (amended) 
Taxpayers' rights to use financial resources will no longer be limited and 
overcharged amounts of VAT can be paid out if the taxpayer gives a surety or 
 
EN 35   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
collateral. Until the amendments were adopted, the tax administration, in 
accordance with the relevant article of the abovementioned law, could refuse to 
pay the taxpayer back any overcharged  VAT, if the taxpayer in question was 
subject to criminal proceedings concerni ng a criminal offence that could have 
some bearing on the amount of tax at i ssue. In this way the retention of 
recoverable funds was ensured. 
Criminal Offences Act. Published in the Official Gazette  No 208 of 29 
December 2007 (amended)  
The amendment stipulates stiffer penalties for criminal offences perpetrated by an 
organised group, including for criminal offe nces that could affect the financial 
interests of the European Union. This measure was necessary for improving the fight against organised crime. 
Introduction of the 'Common Assessment Framework' 
This framework will be applied to agricu lture (the European Agriculture Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD), the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)). 
The implementation of the project is in line with guidelines on improving the 
administrative capacity of public administ rations outlined in the Lisbon Strategy 
and the European Commission's Communi cation "Better Regulation for Growth 
and Jobs in the European Union". 
HU In 2007 some amendments were made in the field of the fight against the black 
economy (e.g. employment without regist ation, VAT fraud and other forms of 
fraud infringing other financia l interests) that are important for the tax authority. 
Based on these amendments several decr ees were adopted by the Chairman of 
the APEH (Tax and Financial Control O ffice) to encourage faster and more 
efficient actions. One such measure is Decree 1062/B/2007 of the APEH 
Chairman , on the basis of which it became po ssible for the so-called „RAPID” 
groups to conduct coordinated, country-wide  unified control procedures in case 
of taxpayers chosen for central control procedure. „RAPID” reaction groups were 
created in 2005 to suppor t control activitie s.At the same time a governmental 
decision about a 40% increase of  the force was also adopted. 
An amendment of the cooperation ag reement between the APEH and the 
 
EN 36   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
Hungarian Customs and Finance Guard provides for cooperation on the control 
actions, the creation of a framework for transferring information and training 
activities, and mutual help in implemen ting certain tasks within the competence 
of the parties. The amendment has been in force since 15.5.2007.  
Decree 1028/B/2007 APEH  provides for the rules of central control procedures 
introduced by Art. 88/A. The abovementi oned Central Control Field was created 
by this decree in the Dir ectorate of Prominent Taxpayers. The existing system 
could also be developed in 2007 by th e possibility to contact directly 
international partners and the ti ghtening of links to the OLAF. 
An important development in November  2007 was starting a homepage against 
corruption called ANTI-LOP where anyone ca n report alleged irregularities or 
misuse of EU aids. These reports are always investigated.  
MT Farm Advisory Services Regulation s (LN66/07) published in the Government 
Gazette No.  18,055 of 23 March 2007  
The scope of these regulations is to assi st farmers and forest holders by providing 
professional advice on statutory manageme nt requirements, good agricultural and 
environmental conditions, occupational safety standards and all associated 
Community legislation for the improvement  of the overall performance of their 
holding. The legal notice provides for pe rsonal data protection (Art. 3(1)), 
withdrawal of a certificat e in case of specific irre gularities (Art. 14(1)), 
administrative sanction (amend, exclusion from funding) to entities which commit 
specific irregularities (Art. 15). 
Dispute Resolution Board Regula tions (LN168/07) published in the 
Government Gazette No. 18,094 of 28 June 2007 
According to Article 3 (2), the objectiv e of the Dispute Resolution Board will be 
that of resolving disputes between farm ers, and between a farmer and the Paying 
Agency and, or its delegated services, in a simple, expedient and transparent manner, avoiding unnecessary expenses.  
Article 6 - The Dispute Resolution Board sh all resolve agricultural and veterinary 
disputes by adopting two modes of proce dure, namely the conciliation procedure 
and the arbitration procedure. 
Producer Organisations (Certain Pro ducts) Regulations LN237/07 published 
in the Government Gazette No. 18,116 of 21.8.2007. 
 
EN 37   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
These Regulations contain provisions regarding Producer Organisations. A 
section of these regulations relates to r ecovery and penalties in cases where public 
aid deriving from the European Un ion has been unduly paid to Producer 
Organisations or has been applied for fraudulently or irregularly by Producer 
Organisations. 
Article 4 of Part II of th ese Regulations lists the crit eria that should be met by a 
producer group for the latter to be rec ognised as a Producer Organisation by the 
Director of Agriculture. 
In accordance to Article 7 (b), the Dire ctor of Agriculture shall carry out 
inspections at regular intervals to ascer tain that producer or ganisations comply 
with the terms and conditions for rec ognition, impose in  the event of non-
compliance the applicable penalties as i ndicated under Part 4 of same regulations 
and decide, where necessary, to withdraw recognition.  
Part IV relates to Recovery and Penalties,  also vis-à-vis funds received from the 
European Union. Article 10 states that: public aid deriving from the European 
Union which is unduly paid, or  aid applied for fraudulently  or irregularly, shall be 
recovered or withheld, and penalties shall be imposed on the beneficiary or on the 
applicant concerned, or both, according to the provisions of Article 63 of 
Regulation 445/2002 of 26 February 2002 la ying down detailed rules for the 
application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1257/1999 on support for rural 
development from the European Agricu ltural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
(EAGGF). 
Article 11 provides that any producer organisation or  inter-branch organisation 
which fails to comply with, or contra venes, any of the provisions of the 
regulations in question shall be liable to  an administrative fi ne, which shall be 
imposed by the Director of Agricultu re, of not less than one hundred (100) 
Maltese liri and not more than one thous and (1000) Maltese liri for each offence, 
and to an additional administrative fine of fifty (50) Maltese liri for each day during which the said failure to comp ly or such contravention persists. 
Electronic Audit Inve stigative Methods 
During 2007, action was taken to introduce electronic audit inve stigative methods 
with the aim of identifying cases of VAT evasion.  
NL A number of measures designed to impr ove the system were taken in 2007. The 
D2 and D1 structural funds programme s in the Netherlands have drawn up a 
National Action Plan incorporating such measures. All the checklists for Articles 
4 and 9, for instance, have been review ed and amended. These have to do with 
 
EN 38   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
project inspections and on-the-spot  inspections conducted by the paying 
authorities when drawing up requests for payment to be declared in Brussels. The 
accountants are also asked to provide a Statement of Assura nce on the activities 
covered by the programmes. 
There is also an improved legal basi s for responsibilities, as in the 
abovementioned Decree (see 1.4). During the 2000-2006 programme period, there was no legal instrument stipulating the parties responsible for implementing the 
Structural Funds in the Netherlands, just a voluntary agreement. These parties are, 
however, legally stipulated by the a bovementioned Decree for the 2007-2013 
programme period, which means that th ere is an improved basis for their 
responsibilities as re gards the implementation of Artic le 290 in the context of the 
ERDF structural funds.  
- Decree of 3 October 2007 Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 2007, 387 laying 
down rules on the administrative organi sation and co-funding by the Dutch state 
of projects covered by the European  Regional Development Fund for the 2007-
2013 programme period (Decision on th e ERDF for the 2007-2013 programme 
period). 
- Rules on ERDF Objective 2, 2007-2013 programme period, Government 
Gazette of 15 November 2007, No 222, page 8; 
- Rules on ERDF Objective 3, 2007-2013 programme period, Government 
Gazette of 20 December 2007, No 247, page 27. 
PL See point 1.1. 
PT Decree-Law 312/2007 of 17.9.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 179, 
1st series, of 17/9/2007   
Decree-Law defining the governance model of the NSRF and the respective 
operating programmes, and establishes th e organic structure for monitoring, 
auditing and control, certification, ma nagement, strategic counselling, follow-up 
and assessment. This Law confers on the IGF (Articles 20 and 21) powers as audit 
authority for all OPs. 
Joint initiative of the Criminal Police, the  DGCI and the IGF against 
Corruption – on the basis of a set of structural reforms essential for the recovery 
of the national economy and consequently boosting well -being and prosperity in 
Portugal, the criminal police, the DGCI and the IGF implemented a joint initiative which in recent years has made a concerte d effort to draw up a dossier regarding 
integrity and transparency in the fight  against corruption. Published in 2007, the 
dossier denounced corruption, the ways in which it manifests itself, and the goals, 
 
EN 39   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
strategies and results of combating it, it is a means for disseminating the message 
about how corruption, tax fraud, the peddli ng of influence and money laundering 
have a devastating effect on the compe titiveness of economic agents, inhibiting 
the full functioning of the market under he althy conditions of competitions. This 
document also appeals to citizens to engage  responsibly in the fight against fraud 
and corruption. 
Computer applications: On 1 January 2007 the com puter application STADA 
Exportação came into operation. This applica tion automatically handles export 
customs declarations, leading to the phasi ng out of the paper-b ased declarations 
previously used. Following the automati on of the procedures for making export 
declarations, in conjunction with this  computerisation process DGAIEC and 
DGITA have jointly devel oped an automatic selection system called Automatic 
Selection System (SSA). Since that date, the dete ction of risky situations and 
consequent selection for control have th erefore been based on uniform standards 
and criteria automatically applied to the elements of the customs export 
declaration at all times, thereby helping en sure faster, more efficient and selective 
customs controls, in order to maintain a fair balance between the need for customs 
controls and the facilitation of legitimate trade. The same system has been applied to the Summary Declaration System
 (SDS) in order to simplify the procedures, 
custom controls and risk analysis. 
RO Government Decision No 793 of 14 Ju ly 2005 approving the National Anti-
Fraud Strategy for protecting the financ ial interests of the European Union 
in Romania, published in the Romanian  Official Gazette, Part I, No 
743/16.08.2005. 
Adopted by the Government in July 2005, the Strategy (Romanian acronym: 
SNLAF) is a complex document concer ning the harmonization of national 
legislation regulations with the European regulations related to the protection of 
the European Communities’ financial inte rests (PIF) and the preparation of the 
legal, institutional and operational fr amework for accession, in the following 
areas: fiscal control, investigation a nd prosecution of fraud cases, financial 
recovery, anti-fraud coordination. Fo llowing the SNLAF implementation, the 
Criminal Code and other special laws, and the Criminal Procedure Code, were 
amended to provide for the criminal liability for legal persons. The transposition of the PIF Convention provisions in the Romanian legislation was concluded. 
Following cooperation with the institutio ns responsible for implementing the 
measures contained in the SNLAF Action Plan, with the Public Policies Unity within the Government General Secretaria t and the consultations with OLAF and 
the European Commission Delegation in Romania, in 2006 DLAF updated the 
Strategy and its Action Plan. Following the update, the SNLAF implementation 
 
EN 40   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
period was extended until July 2007. 
Government Ordinance No 12/2007 on the control and recovery of 
Community funds as well as related co-financing funds used improperly, 
published in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I, No 84/2.02.2007 (amendment and supplement of G overnment Ordinance No 79/2003) 
The main provisions adopted are intended fo r: defining the notions of irregularity 
and fraud, extending the scope of provisions  stipulated in G overnment Ordinance 
No 79/2003 to also cover post-accession funds, creating an efficient mechanism 
for identifying irregularitie s and recovering improperl y used Community funds, 
assimilating Community debts with nationa l fiscal debts, gr anting the National 
Fiscal Administration Agency (Roman ian acronym: ANAF) with exclusive 
powers in order to carry out the forced execution procedure in case of damages to 
Community funds, externaliz ing the activities of iden tifying budgetary debts to 
the General Inspection within the Minist ry of Economy and Fi nance in the event 
of a conflict of interests at the level of th e authorities in charge of the management 
of Community funds and associated co-f inancing, establishing the procedure for 
settling contestations, separating the control activity rela ted to obtaining, 
performing and using funds form the fina ncial support granted to Romania by the 
European Union, from the identification activity in order to  recover the amounts 
disbursed from non-returnable Community financial support.  
SK Resolution No. 547/2007 approving the National strategy for protecting the 
financial interests of the European  Community in the Slovak Republic. 
The national strategy is a strategic document whose aim is to ensure the fulfilment 
by the Slovak Republic of its undertakings under Arti cle 280 of the Treaty on 
European Union. 
Resolution No. 889/2007  approving a National Strategy Action Plan to 
implement the National Strategy.   
It sets out specific tasks, assigns respons ibility for these task s and sets deadlines 
for their completion. The tasks established in the Action Plan are categorised by 
individual areas, i.e.: 
– Coordination and cooperation 
 
EN 41   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
– Legislation and met hodological guidelines 
– Raising awareness 
– Education 
– System of control and audit 
– Notifying and analys ing irregularities 
– Disclosure and investigation of irregularities 
– Remedy and recourse 
– National Strategy implementation and development 
The Action plan is the responsibility of  the Slovak Government EU financial 
interest protection and an ti-corruption section, the Managing Authority for the 
protection of EC Financial Interests in  the Slovak Republic, whose regulations 
were approved by Government Resolu tion No. 748/2007, and partners of the 
AFCOS network, the AFCOS network being understood as a system of 
collaborating bodies whose main purpose is  cooperation in implementing tasks to 
protect EC financial intere sts and the effective communication with the European 
Anti-Fraud Office and other Member States. 
Managing authority for protecting the financial interests of the European 
Community in the Slovak Republic.  
The Managing Authority was established on the basis of the approved National 
Strategy for protecting the financial intere sts of the European Union in the Slovak 
Republic. 
Resolution No. 748/2007 approving the st atus of the managing authority. 
The Managing Authority has 20 memb ers representing 19 AFCOS partner 
organisations. Six working groups were set up under the Managing Authority to 
tackle particular tasks. 
FI The amendment of the rules of procedu re of the Customs on 30 August 2007 
reformed the organisation and tasks of  the National Board of Customs . The 
supervision of risk management and the control function were merged to become 
a single department alongside the Forei gn Trade, Taxation and Intelligence and 
Investigation Departments, which control th e main processes. This strengthens the 
 
EN 42   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
significance of the functi on at the institutional le vel and reinforces the 
implementation of the matrix control model. Control units were established at the District Customs Offices. The tasks of the units are principally in line with the tasks of the Control Department of the National Board of Customs.  
SE Common framework for internal control – Internal Control re gulation (2007:603), 
Authority regulation (2007:515), Intern al Audit regulation (2006:1228) and 
regulation for Annual Reports and Budget Procedures (2000:605). 
On January 1, 2008, a general framework was intro duced for internal control 
by national authorities. The framework consists of several instruments. Apart 
from a new regulation concerned with in ternal control regu lation (2007:603), the 
framework comprises the new authorit y regulation (2007: 515) concerning 
management responsibility, the internal audit regulation (20 06:1228) concerning 
the objective of auditing and a regulation regarding annual reports and basic data 
for budget procedures (2000:605) with resp ect to the signing of annual reports. 
All the modifications have been deci ded by the Government. The Framework 
applies to EU funds that are administered nationally.  
The authorities concerned have to carry out a risk analysis, implement regulatory 
measures, follow up and appraise internal  regulation and control systematically 
and continuously and document risk anal ysis, regulatory measures, follow up and 
appraisal.  
The authorities with admini strative or attestation res ponsibility for EU resources 
are to establish internal auditing.  
By signing annual reports, the authority management certifies that the document 
presents a correct representation of the result of activities and expenses, income 
and the financial standing of the authority.  
By signing the annual report, the au thority management certifies to the 
Government that the accounts are reliab le and that the in ternal control is 
satisfactory. 
Through the decision to introduce a joint framework for internal control on a 
national basis, the Government can, for the first time concerning the financial year 
2008, provide a national declaration with respect to the administration of EU 
 
EN 43   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
funds. The framework provides an important  basis for a national declaration and 
the ambition is to create a more effectiv e administrative and control system with 
respect to EU resources. 
In this connection, the Government has commissioned Ekonomistyrningsverket 
ESV (The Swedish National Financial Management Authority) to act as a national 
audit organ for the EU resour ces that are handled in Sweden with effect from 1 
January 2007, Regulation (2007: 761) with instructions for ESV to examine the 
EU programmes and funds where responsib ility for sound financial administration 
and the implementation of effective controls is shared between the Swedish authorities and the Commission. The inten tion of this measure has been to 
concentrate Swedish competence and res ources for EU auditing on one authority 
in order to reinforce quality and efficiency  in auditing work and to make possible 
the flexible application of resources a nd competence between the old and the new 
programme periods. 
UK England, Communities and Local Government (CLG) - Administrative 
guidance notes to Government Offices  (GO) in the Regions, for ERDF. 
ERDF Management Note No.1 applyi ng to the 2000-06 ERDF programmes 
(issued in January 2007). This note gives advice on: 
– Grant claims supporting documenta tion - highlighting the practice 
in many GOs for the Region whereb y grant claim system must be 
made secure by the requirement of  grant recipients to provide 
sufficient supporting documentati on to permit effective desk 
checks.  
– Management of irregularities – rece nt audit work revealed a lot of 
good practice around the handling of irregularities. However, there were also concerns, in some cases , about the lack of comprehensive 
data and relatively slow rate of cl earance. CLG plan to revise the 
guidance note on this subject. 
– Planning Article 4 work – GOs bei ng strongly advised to plan their 
action to meet the Article 4 Monitoring Assurance Framework 
requirements to take account of the programme closure process. 
– PAV (progress and verification) Do cument retention – GOs are to 
ensure that evidence of audit trai l identified in Article 4 PAVs are 
available for subsequent audit inspections. Reasoning …  recent 
 
EN 44   EN 1.5. Description of key developments 
Member States are invited to describe th e two or three most important measures 
(whether legislative or administrative ) taken in the course of 2007  on which they wish to 
provide more detailed information. These should be measures adopted at Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures wh ich simply transpose Community legislation.  
round of audits noted the lack of sufficient evidence of the 
expenditure checking undert aken as part of PAV. 
Guidance Note (GN) 3.17 (issued in August 2007) on Managing ERDF 
Irregularities and Financial Correctio ns (2000-06 programmes). Following 
on from Management Note No.1, section b) , CLG issued a revised and 
comprehensive guidance note on the record ing, reporting and management of 
irregularities including th e impact on declarations to the Commission. The aim is 
to close (within reason) all irregularity cases befo re programme closure. 
GN1.9 (supplementary) (issued October 2007) on the procedures that need to be 
followed by GOs in order to produce a full drawdown request document set (declaration of expenditure) following th e implementation of the TESA (the new 
ERDF IT system) application.  
For Scotland , action plans have been agreed with DG Regio that will result in 
30% of approved projects being subject to an Article 4 visit. The visiting officers 
will verify a minimum of 20% of cumulative eligible expenditure and the scope of the visit has been widened.  
 
 
EN 45   EN 2. LIMITATION  PERIODS  FOR  PROCEEDINGS  ON  IRREGULARITIES  AND  
SUBSEQUENT  DECISIONS  ESTABLISHING  ADMINISTRATIVE  
PENALTIES  OR  MEASURES 
The Member States are responsible for proceedings on irregularities and for implementing the 
decisions taken on the outcome of such proceedi ngs as regards traditional resources such as 
customs levies or sums disbursed by the Commun ity in the field of indi rect expenditure, i.e. 
funds managed by the Member States on behalf  of the Communities, mainly funds of the 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (her einafter "EAGF", the former European 
agricultural guidan ce and guarantee fund, guarantee section3), structural funds, cohesion fund, 
European fisheries fund, and European agricultu ral fund for rural development. Statistics 
obtained on irregularities commun icated by the Member States appear to show that the 
possibility of imposing measures and sanctions in the wake of irregularities affecting the 
financial interests of the EC depends on action being taken within the set limitation periods. 
The implications for the protection of the Comm unity's financial interests are considerable. 
Article 3 of Council Regulati on (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 establishes a limitation period 
for proceedings of four years, and for implementing the decision establishing the 
administrative penalty of three years, ap plicable throughout the European Union.4 This 
limitation period applies to irregularities c oncerning traditional resources and funds under 
shared management.5  
On the limitation period for proceedings , Member States have the possibility of applying a 
period which is longer than that provided for in Article 3(1) of Re gulation No 2988/95. The 
Court has stated that the limitati on period of four years in Ar ticle 3(1) covers procedures 
possibly leading to both, admini strative measures (Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) and 
penalties (Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95), and that it is directly applicable in the 
Member States in the absence of national rules providing for a l onger limitation period.6 
As regards the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative 
penalty , national law may provide for a period exceed ing the three years la id down in Article 
3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95, but also govern instances of interrup tion and suspension.  
Article 3 of Regulation No 2988/95 contai ns no rules on the limitation period for 
implementing the decision establis hing an administrative measure  (in particular recovery), 
and thus it must be assumed that for these d ecisions national rules on limitation periods and 
their interruption and suspension apply. 
                                                 
3 As for the questions in this section, if they refer to the EAGF they are intended to comprise as well the 
European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guarantee section. 
4 Article 3 has been interpreted in various judgments of the European Court of Justice (notably Case C-
226/03 P, José Martí Peix SA v Commission, Case C-278/02, Herbert Handlbauer GmbH and Case C-279/05, Vonk Dairy Products BV v Productschap Zuiv el,), and is still subject to pending cases (joint 
cases C278/07, C279/07, C280/07, Vosding et al.) 
5 As regards direct expenditure administrated by the Commission, the limitation period of Article 73a of 
the Financial Regulation, further specified in Article 85b of the Implementing Rules, applies. The 
limitation period for direct expenditure is not subject to the present questionnaire. 
6 Case C-278/02, Herbert Handlbauer GmbH, ECR [2004] Page I-6171. 
 
EN 46   EN Member States have been asked to reply as co mprehensively and concisely as possible so as 
to enable the Commission to make useful co mparisons and provide feedback. The analysis 
has been restricted to administrative procedur es; therefore, neither criminal nor civil law 
limitation periods, nor Community law referen ces have been included. Limitation periods 
have been taken into account only if they we re longer than those se t by the Community law 
and starting dates for limitation peri ods have been only considered if they were different from 
the date in which the decision becomes final. If  the tables do not repo rt anything for a given 
Member State, it is to assume that Regulatio n 2988/95 or Sectoral Rule s apply or that the 
national law does not foresee any limitation pe riod. Since not all Memb er States provided 
references to the Official Journals and referenc es to amended laws, these references have been 
omitted. 
2.1. Limitation period for proceedings  
2.1.1. Normal limitation period for proceedin gs aimed at applying administrative 
measures (recovery) or penalties (sanctions) 
Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 provides fo r a limitation period for proceedings of four 
years  as from the time when the irregularity was committed. European sectoral rules, such as 
Article 221 of Council Regulation ( EEC) No 2913/92 of 12 October 19927 establishing the 
Community Customs Code, make provision for a shorter period, which may not be less than 
three years. 
Proceedings relating to irregularities  are investigations, checks and inspections, or any other 
legal proceedings undertaken in  accordance with na tional or Community laws, regulations 
and administrative provisions, to  detect irre gularities.  
The limitation period laid down in Article 3( 1) of Regulation No 2988/95 is directly 
applicable in the Member Stat es, unless national rule s provide for longer periods. The national 
laws, regulations and administrative provisi ons may differentiate the limitation periods 
depending on the purpose of the proceedings or the policy sectors. They may also foresee 
instances for their suspension or interruption be yond what is stated in Regulation No 2988/95. 
In this context, interruption means circumstan ces which lead to the limitation period being 
restarted. Suspension, on the other hand, covers  conditions under which the limitation period 
is brought to a standstill and continues to run fr om where it stopped. It would also be useful to 
clarify whether acts that can give rise to inte rruptions or suspensions must meet specific 
criteria, such as for example a sufficiently seriou s allegation of existence of an irregularity or 
an act of a competent administ rative or judicial authority. 
                                                 
7 OJ L 97, 18.4.1996, p. 38For instituting administrative and penal proceedings – within three months of 
discovery of the offender but not later than tw o years after the violation was committed.  
 
EN 47   EN 2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulatio n No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral  Rules apply or that the natio nal law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for 
procedures Member State 
that may lead to administrative 
measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
BE 10 Article 202 General Law on 
Customs and Excise of 18 July 1977 -  
-  5 Article 8(8) Act of 28 March 
1975 on trade in agricultural, horticultural and fisheries products 
Article 285 Administrative 
Procedure Code -  -  
5 Article 212, paragraph 2 
Customs Law 10 Article 171 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code BG 
5 Article 110 ff. Law of 
Obligations and Contracts -  
5 Regulations on implementing 
the 2007-2013 Rural Development Program     5 Article 285 Administrative 
Procedure Code 5 Article 285 Administrative 
Procedure Code 
10 Act No 137/2006 Coll. on 
public procurement  CZ -  -  -  -  6 Act No 552/1991 Coll., on 
state control  
Act No 337/1992 Coll., on 
the administration of taxes and fees 
Act No 218/2000 Coll., on 
budgetary rules  
Act No 320/2001 Coll., on 
financial control in public administration 
Act No 500/2004 Coll., 
rules of administrative 6 Act No 552/1991 Coll., on 
state control 
Act No 337/1992 Coll., on 
the administration of taxes and fees 
Act No 218/2000 Coll., on 
budgetary rules 
Act No 320/2001 Coll., on 
financial control in public 
 
EN 48   EN 2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulatio n No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral  Rules apply or that the natio nal law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for 
procedures Member State 
that may lead to administrative 
measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
procedure administration 
Act No 500/2004 Coll., 
rules of administrative procedure 
DK -  -  -  -    -  
DE 5 Tax Code §228 -  -  -  -  -  
EE -  -  10 § 66 EU CAP Implementation 
Act 
§ 71 Fisheries Market 
Organisation Act 10 § 66 EU CAP Implementation 
Act 
§ 71 Fisheries Market 
Organisation Act 5 §26 Structural Assistance 
Act 2004-06 
§26 Structural  Assistance 
Act 2007-13 5 §26 Structural Assistance 
Act 2004-06 
§26 Structural  Assistance 
Act 2007-13 
IE 10 Section 1078 Taxes 
Consolidation Act, 1997  -  6 Statute of Limitations Act 
1957 as amended by the Statute of Limitations 
(Amendment) Act 1991 and 
the Statute of Limitations (Amendment) Act 2000 6 Statutes of Limitations Acts 
1957 to 2000 
If recovery is initiated by 
legal action based on contract 
or quasi contract  6 Statutes of Limitations Acts 
1957 to 2000  
If recovery is initiated by 
legal action based on 
contract or quasi contract 6 Statutes of Limitations Acts 
1957 to 2000  
If recovery is initiated by 
legal action based on 
contract or quasi contract 
EL -  7 Article 152(4) law 2960/2001 
National Customs Code, for 
administrative fines for 
smuggling 5 Article 102 law 2362/1995 
about the Public Accounting 
control of the State's 
expenditure and other regulations 5 Article 102 law 2362/1995 
about the Public Accounting 
control of the State's 
expenditure and other regulations 5 Article 102 law 2362/1995 
about the Public 
Accounting control of the 
State's expenditure and other regulations  5 Article 102 law 2362/1995 
about the Public Accounting 
control of the State's 
expenditure and other regulations  
ES -  -  -  -  -  -  
FR -  -  -  -  -  -  
 
EN 49   EN 2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulatio n No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral  Rules apply or that the natio nal law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for 
procedures Member State 
that may lead to administrative 
measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
IT -  -  5 Section 1(2) Act No 20/1994 
on the jurisdiction and control of the Court of Auditors 5 Section 28 of Act No 
689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal system  5 Section 1(2) of Act No 
20/1994 on the jurisdiction and control of the Court of Auditors  5 Section 28 of Act No 
689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal system 
CY 12 Article 39(2) law on the 
customs code 94( Ι) of 2004. -  -  -  -  -  
LV -  -  -  -  -  -  
LT -  -  -  -  -  -  
LU -  -  -  -  -  -  
HU -  -  5 Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 
on certain aspects of the procedure connected to agricultural, rural 
developmental and fishery aid 
and other measures 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 
on the general rules of 5 Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 
on certain aspects of the procedure connected to agricultural, rural 
developmental and fishery aid 
and other measures 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 
on the general rules of 5 Article 45(2) Government 
Decree No. 360/2004 5 Article 45(2) Government 
Decree No. 360/2004 
 
EN 50   EN 2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulatio n No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral  Rules apply or that the natio nal law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for 
procedures Member State 
that may lead to administrative 
measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
administrative proceedings 
and services  administrative proceedings 
and services 
MT 6 Article 4(5) of the Import 
Duties Act (Cap. 337) 6 Article 4(5) of the Import 
Duties Act (Cap. 337) -  -  -  -  
NL 5 Article 22e(1) of the General 
Taxation Act of 2 July 1959 (Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 301), as last amended by Act of 24 February 2005 (Bulletin 
of Acts and Decrees 115)  -  -  5 Section 4(57) of the General 
Administrative Law Act  5 Section 4(57) of the 
General Administrative Law Act  5 Section 4(57) of the General 
Administrative Law Act  
10 Section 74(2) Customs Act 
implementing provisions AT -  
5 Section 31(2) of the Austrian 
Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG) 10 Section 5(2) Export Refund 
Act for certain types of financial fraud  10 Section 5(2) Export Refund 
Act for certain types of financial fraud  -  -  
PL 5 Article 56 Customs Act of 19 
March 2004  5 Article 13(2) Agricultural 
Markets Agency and Organisation of Certain Markets Act 2004 and Article 70 Tax Ordinance Act of 1997
8 5 Article 13(2) Agricultural 
Markets Agency and Organisation of Certain Markets Act of 2004 and Article 70 Tax Act of 1997  5 Article 13(2) Agricultural 
Markets Agency and Organisation of Certain Markets Act of 2004 and Article 70 of the Tax Act of 1997 10 Article 118 Act of 23 April 
1964, Civil Code  -  
PT 8 Article 99 Customs Reforms 
with the wording established by Legislative Decree No 472/1997 on general rules in the field of administrative 
sanctions for violating fiscal 5 Article 33 (1) General Tax 
Offences Scheme, applicable under Article 1(1)(b) of said act -  -  15 Item 20 (points 1 and 2) 
Order in Council 799-B/2000 (DR No 218, 1st series, of 20/9/2000)  
Article 118(1) Criminal -  
                                                 
8 In the case of amounts due relating to prove n irregularities, the Tax Ordinance Act of 1997, applies, with the exception of th e part of the provisions concerning the writing 
off of amounts due, the deferment of payments and instalment payments. 
 
EN 51   EN 2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulatio n No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral  Rules apply or that the natio nal law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for 
procedures Member State 
that may lead to administrative 
measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
rules 
Article 48 of the General Tax 
Law Code.  
10 Article 91(3) and (4) of 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 10 Article 91(1), (3) and (4) of 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 10 Article 91(3) and (4) of 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 10 Article 91(3) and (4) of the 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 10 Article 91(3) and (4) of the 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 
RO 
5 Article 91(1) of Government 
Ordinance No 92/2003 on the 
Fiscal Procedure Code 5 Article 91(1), (3) and (4) of 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code 5 Article 112(1) of Government 
Ordinance No 79/2003 on the 
control and recovery of 
Community funds in conjunction with Article 11 (5) of Government Decision No 1306/2007 5 Article 91(1), (3) and (4) of 
Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 
5 Article 11
2(1) of 
Government Ordinance No 
79/2003 on the control and 
recovery of Community funds in conjunction with Article 11(5) of Government Ordinance No 1306/2007 5 Article 11
2(1) of 
Government Ordinance No 
79/2003 on the control and 
recovery of Community funds in conjunction with Article 11(5) of Government Ordinance No 1306/2007 
10 Articles 125(1) and 126(4) 
Tax Procedure Act (ZdavP-2). SI 
5 Articles 125(1) and 126(4) 
Tax Procedure Act (ZdavP-2) -  5 Article 3(g) Agriculture Act – 
(Zkme). 
Article 263(5) and Article 
280(1) General 
Administrative Procedures 
Act (ZUP)  -  
-  -  
20 Article 60 of Act No. 
199/2004, the Customs Act, and amending some other acts 
as amended  SK 
10 Article 60 of Act No. 
199/2004, the Customs Act, and amending some other acts 
as amended  6 Article 76 of Act No. 
199/2004 (Customs Act)  -  - 5 Article 31(14) the Public 
Administration Budgeting Rules Act No. 523/2004 5 Article 31(14) the Public 
Administration Budgeting Rules Act No. 523/2004 
 
EN 52   EN 2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulatio n No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral  Rules apply or that the natio nal law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for 
procedures Member State 
that may lead to administrative 
measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
FI -  -  -  -  10 Section 46(3) of the Act on 
the Financing of Rural Industries (329/1999). 10 Section 46(3) of the Act on 
the Financing of Rural Industries (329/1999). 
SE 5 Paragraphs 3–4 in the Act 
(1982:188) relating to the 
prescription of tax demands, 
etc. 5 Paragraphs 3–4 in the Act 
(1982:188) relating to the 
prescription of tax demands, 
etc. -  -  10 Paragraph 27 in the 
Regulation (2007:14) 
concerned with the 
administration of EU structural funds  -  
UK -  5 Scotland 
Section 6 Prescription and 
Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as read with Schedule 1 5 Scotland 
Section 6 Prescription and 
Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as read with Schedule 1 5 Scotland 
Section 6 Prescription and 
Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as read with Schedule 1 5 Scotland 
Section 6 Prescription and 
Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as read with Schedule 1 5 Scotland   
Section 6 Prescription and 
Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973, as read with Schedule 
1 
 
2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
BE   
 
EN 53   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
INTERR        
SUSP Some legal actions (such as appeal 
for annulment of a decision) suspend the limitation period of public aid. They do not open a new time limit (Article 24 Act of 17 April 1878; Cass. 24 October 
1989, Pas. 1990, I, 231).  Some legal actions (such as appeal 
for annulment of a decision) suspend the limitation period of public aid. They do not open a new time limit (Article 24 Act of 17 April 1878; Cass. 24 October 
1989, Pas. 1990, I, 231).  Some legal actions (such as appeal 
for annulment of a decision) suspend the limitation period of public aid. They do not open a new time limit (Article 24 Act of 17 April 1878; Cass. 24 October 1989, 
Pas. 1990, I 231).  
BG  
INTERR    Article 172 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code 
Issuance of an instrument 
establish ing the public receivable or 
upon undertaking of coercive enforcement actions. 
If the instrument is revoked, the 
limitation is not considered as 
interrupted. Article 82, paragraph 2 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law  
Each act of duly authorised 
authorities taken against a penalised individual in respect of the execution of his or her penalty. 
Following the closure of the act 
whereby the limitation was interrupted, a new limitation period shall commence. Article 172 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code  
Issuance of an instrument 
establish ing the public receivable or 
upon undertaking of coercive enforcement actions. 
If the instrument is revoked, the 
limitation is not considered as 
interrupted. Article 43, paragraph 6 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law 
Each act of duly authorised 
authorities taken against a penalised individual in respect of the execution of his or her penalty. 
SUSP Article 34, paragraph 1 and 
paragraph 2 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code 
Illness of a person whose 
participation is indispensable; institution of an administrative, criminal or judicial proceeding, Article 43, paragraph 6 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law 
Where following a thorough search, 
the offender's whereabouts is unknown, the proceeding is suspended, as well as the limitation Article 172 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code 
Initiation of a proceeding for 
establishment of the public receivable; enforcement of the instrument whereby the claim has been established is brought to Article 43, paragraph 6 of the 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law 
Where following a thorough search, 
the offender's whereabouts is unknown, the proceeding is suspended, as well as the limitation Article 172 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code 
Initiation of a proceeding for 
establishment of the public receivable; enforcement of the instrument whereby the claim has been established is brought to Article 43, paragraph 6 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law 
Where following a thorough search, 
the offender's whereabouts is unknown, the proceeding is suspended, as well as the limitation 
 
EN 54   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
which is of relevance to the 
outcome of the proceeding; death of 
a legitimate representative of the 
person concerned; request submitted by the entity: on a single occasion, for a specified period. 
Where a reason to believe that a 
criminal offence relevant to the outcome of the proceeding is 
established in the course of the 
proceeding, the proceeding shall be suspended. period for issuing of penal decree.  
 standstill; when a rescheduling or 
deferral of the payment has been 
authorised; when the instrument 
whereby the obligation has been established is appealed against; by the imposition of precautionary measures; when a penal proceeding has been instituted and the establishment or collection of the 
public obligation is contingent on 
the outcome of the said proceeding. period for issuing of penal decree. standstill; when a rescheduling or 
deferral of the payment has been 
authorised; when the instrument 
whereby the obligation has been established is appealed against; by the imposition of precautionary measures; when a penal proceeding has been instituted and the establishment or collection of the 
public obligation is contingent on 
the outcome of the said proceeding. period for issuing of penal decree. 
CZ   
INTERR      §70 section 2 Act No. 337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 
yes, as a result of (due to) a legal 
barrier limitation period stops to run and after elimination/cancellation of 
the legal barrier new limitation 
period starts to run. §70 section 2 Act No. 337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 
yes, as a result of (due to) a legal 
barrier limitation period stops to run and after elimination/cancellation of 
the legal barrier new limitation 
period starts to run. 
SUSP  Section 20(2) Act No 200/1990 
Coll., Customs offences 
The limitation period does not 
include the time in which criminal 
prosecution was held concerning the same offence.   §70 section 3 Act No. 337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 
yes, limitation period does not run 
due to a legal barrier and after 
elimination/cancellation of this legal barrier the run of the same limitation period continues. §70 section 3 Act No. 337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 
yes, limitation period does not run 
due to a legal barrier and after 
elimination/cancellation of this legal barrier the run of the same limitation period continues. 
 
EN 55   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
DK  
INTERR        
SUSP       
DE  
INTERR  §231 Tax Code: 
Establishment of claim in writing, 
deferment of payment, stay of payment, suspension of enforcement, lodging of security, 
declaration of insolvency 
proceedings, inclusion in insolvency scheme or judicially imposed debt-servicing plan, procedure for discharge of remaining debts, procedure for determination of 
residence or abode.      
SUSP §230 Tax Code 
Claim cannot be pursued in event of 
force majeure within last six months of limitation period.      
EE  
INTERR        
 
EN 56   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
SUSP Article 99 Taxation Act 
Yes.      
IE  
INTERR       
SUSP      
EL  
INTERR        
SUSP   Article 87 law 2362/1995 about the Public Accounting cont rol of the State's expenditure and other regulations: 
for a period of time equal to the period of suspension of payment or the facility to pay in instalments granted to the debtor o r joint debtor during the last two 
(2) years of the period of limitation under the law or under a court judgment or notice issued by the relevant authority;  
for a period of time equal to the period of time during which the government has been prevented from collecting the debt by enf orcement due to suspension 
of enforcement granted under a provision of the law; 
while the debtor is a minor and for the first two years of adulthood if the estate has no assets, regardless of whether or not the minor has a guardian; 
the period of limitation of any government claim is extended for two (2) years if the debtor resided abroad for more than one m onth (not necessarily 
consecutive) during the last two years of the period of limitation; 
if anyone contests the legal title in general of the government’s  claim or the legality of the assessment of it in the narrow s ense of the term or the validity for 
any reason of a coll ection enforcement deed (administrative enforcement) through the courts, the period of limitation of the go vernment claim for assessment 
(in the broad sense) or for collecting its assessed claim is suspended pending a final decision by the court on the dispute and  cannot under any circumstances 
end within one year of notification of the final court judgment by the litigants, to be served by bailiff on the head of the re levant government department and 
 
EN 57   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
the Minister of Finance. 
Article 88 law 2362/1995 about the Public Accounting cont rol of the State's expenditure and other regulations : 
distress of the debtor’s or joint debtor’s or guarantor’s assets, regardless of whether it is exercised on property in their or  a third party’s hands; the issue of an 
auction schedule, regardless of whether it has been notified to the person against whom it has been issued; declaration of proo f of bankruptcy either by the 
debtor or by the natural or legal person who is a joint debtor wi th him or who is liable for his debts; declaration of bankrupt cy results in suspension provided 
that it is notified either to the registrar of the bankruptcy c ourt or to the meeting of creditors; declaration of auction of a ssets either of the debtor or of the 
natural or legal person who is a joint debtor with him or who is liable for his debts; declaration to the executor of an estate  or to the receiver of a legal person 
in liquidation; registration of a mortgage or lien on property belonging to the debtor or to a natural or legal person who is a  joint debtor with him or who is 
liable for his debts. 
ES  
INTERR  Article 68 General Tax Law 58/2003 
Lodging of complaints or appeals of 
any kind. 
Situations beyond the control of the 
administration: judicial actions or referral of the case to the criminal jurisdiction. Article 180 General Tax Law 
58/2003  
When the tax administration 
considers that  the infringement may 
constitute a crime against the public 
finances and refers the case to the competent jurisdiction or to the Public Prosecution Service. In this 
case the administrative procedure is 
suspended until the judicial procedure is concluded (by a final judgment, case not proceeding to judgment or dismissal of the case, or if the file is returned by the Public Prosecution Service). Articles 39.3 and 55 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 
Lodging of appeals of any kind, referral of  the case to the criminal jurisdiction or filing of a complaint with the Public Pros ecution Service, measures taken in 
relation to these appeals of which the beneficiary or the associated organisation is formally notified, any duly authenticated measure taken by the beneficiary 
or the associated organisation leading to pa yment of the grant or of the reimbursement. 
SUSP   Articles 39.3 and 55 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 
When the conduct may constitute a crime, the administration refers the case to the competent jurisdiction or files a complaint with the Public Prosecution 
Service and sends it the file. In this case the administration suspends the admi nistrative procedure until the judicial procedu re is resolved or until the Public 
 
EN 58   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
Prosecution Service returns the file. 
FR  
INTERR        
SUSP       
IT  
INTERR      -  -  
SUSP       
CY  
INTERR        
SUSP       
LV  
INTERR  Section 23(1) Law on Taxes and Fees 
Initiation of criminal proceedings.     
SUSP   Sections 45 and 80 Law On 
Administrative Proceedings  Sections 45 and 80 Law On 
Administrative Proceedings   
 
EN 59   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
Submission contesting an 
administrative decision. Submission contesting an 
administrative decision.  
LT  
INTERR        
SUSP       
LU  
INTERR        
SUSP       
HU  
INTERR        
SUSP   Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 on certain aspects of the procedure 
regarding agricultural, rural develo pment and fisheries aid and other 
measures 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services 
If a decision on the right to apply fo r aid is examined by a court, the 
limitation period for the right to recover the aid is suspended from the commencement of action until the ruling enters into force.   
 
EN 60   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
MT  
INTERR        
SUSP       
NL - 
INTERR        
SUSP       
AT  
INTERR        
SUSP  Section 31(4) Austrian Financial 
Criminal Act (FinStrG) 
Time limits for statutory obstacles 
to prosecution; criminal 
proceedings; Constitutional Court or 
Administrative Court proceedings relating to the offence or tax proceedings     
PL  
 
EN 61   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
INTERR  Article 401, Code of Penal 
Procedure 
Yes – need for proof, other 
important reason; up to 35 days. Postponement – more than 35 days.  Article 401, Code of Penal 
Procedure 
Yes – need for proof, other 
important reason; up to 35 days. Postponement – more than 35 days.      
SUSP Article 22 Code of Penal 
Procedure 
Yes – when there is a long-term 
obstacle (impossibility of collection, illness). Article 22 Code of Penal 
Procedure 
Yes – when there is a long-term 
obstacle (impossibility of collection, illness). Article 68 § 5 Tax Act. 
If settling the case depends on a 
prior decision of another authority 
or court on a preliminary issue.    
PT  
INTERR  Article 46 General Tax Law 
Summons for tax enforcement, 
claim, appeal to a higher court, contestation, application for official review. Article 28 General Scheme of 
Regulatory Offences 
Carrying out of any checks, 
especially exam inations and 
searches or applications for 
assistance from the police or 
administrative authorities 
Any statements the defendant has 
made during exercise of his right to a hearing 
Interruption of the criminal 
proceedings in the case of an 
economic infringement or a crime   Case law of the Supreme 
Administrative Court , chiefly 
established by the appeal decisions of the first subsection of the Administrative Council and the Full 
Bench pronounced on 4.3.2004 and 
10.11.2005 in Case 047187  
Any act by the competent authority 
designed to initiate an investigation or initiate the respective proceedings and to notify the party in question. 
Arts. 118, 120 and 121 Criminal 
Code  
When the payment order for the - 
 
EN 62   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
balance has been reviewed because 
a criminal offence is involved, the 
period in which it may occur is the 
limitation period for the respective criminal proceedings. 
SUSP Article 46 General Tax Law 
Start of the external inspection; 
judicial litigation resolution of 
which depends on payment of the tax. 
Article 49 General Tax Law 
Payment in legally authorised 
instalments. 
Article 169 (6) Le gislative Decree 
433/1999 (regarding the exceptional nature  of suspending 
the collection and subsequent suspension of the limitation in the 
case of traditional own resources). 
Claim, contestation, appeal or 
objection, when the competent 
authority decides that collection of the debt should be suspended. Article 27-A General Scheme of 
Regulatory Offences  
No legal authorisation for the 
procedure to commence or continue; no sentence to be pronounced because the court is not a tax court; return to a non-tax court of the question referred for a 
preliminary ruling.   - - 
RO  
INTERR  Articles 13 and 16 Decree no .167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription. 
Recognising the right whose action is limited, made by the person in whose benefit the limita tion runs; submitting a sue or arb itration petition, even if it was submitted to a law court or arbitration body that does not have competence; act 
for the initiation of the enforcement procedure. 
 
EN 63   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
SUSP Articles 13 and 16 D ecree no.167/1958 concerni ng the extinguished 
prescription 
As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an 
instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; 
During the period in which the creditor or the debtor is part of the Romanian 
Army Forces, and th ey are at war; 
Until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, 
regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursuant to a contract for transportation or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, 
but not later than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculated as of the date the 
claim is registered.  
Article 92(2) of Government Ordi nance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code  
During the period between the moment when the fiscal investigation starts 
and the one when the tax enforcement deci sion is issued as a consequence of 
the fiscal investigation. Articles 13 and 16 Decree no .167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription. 
As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an instance of force majeure to carry out interruption a cts; 
During the period in which the creditor or the debtor is part of the Romanian Army Fo rces, and they are at war; 
Until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursuant t o a contract for transportation 
or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, but not later than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculated as o f the date the claim is registered. 
SI  
INTERR        
SUSP - Article 2 Minor offences act (ZP-
1) 
If during a minor offence procedure, 
criminal proceedings in respect of a criminal act akin to a minor offence 
are initiated agai nst the offender, 
the minor offence procedure is suspended until the final decision is delivered in the criminal     
 
EN 64   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
proceedings. 
SK  
INTERR  Article 60 Act No. 199/2004, the 
Customs Act   
Action is taken to collect or recover 
the underpayment, a new limitation 
period begins at the end of the year 
in which the debtor was notified of this action.  - - -   
SUSP     Article 29(2) Act No. 71/1967 on 
administrative proceedings 
The provisions of the law allow the 
administrative body to suspend the procedure for a maximum of 30 days from the day the parties are informed of this decision.  
Also applied in the case of an action 
that may lead to the institution of criminal proceedings.  
FI  
INTERR  Section 11(2) Act on the Statute of 
Limitations  
When the recovery of a claim is 
brought up in a court of law or      
 
EN 65   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
enforcement procedure, the 
limitation period is interrupted for 
the duration of the procedure  
SUSP Section 7(3) Act on the Statute of 
Limitations  
The limitation period may be 
suspended when the claim for 
compensation is connected to a 
criminal offence. The limitation period shall not apply to a debt due to a criminal offence for as long as the criminal matter can be prosecuted or is pending in a court 
of law.      
SE  
INTERR      Paragraph 5 Prescription Act 
(1981:130). 
The debtor undertaking to make 
payment, pay interest or acknowledge the demand in another way to the creditor; the debtor receiving a written demands or a reminder of the claim or the creditor 
taking legal action or citing the 
claim on the debtor in a Court or corresponding institution.  
SUSP Paragraph 7 Act (1982:188)  
The prescription period for the      
 
EN 66   EN 2.1.1.2. Does your national law contain instances of interruptio n and suspension oth er than any act by the competent authority,  notified to the person in question, rela ting to investigation or legal proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Memb er State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provide d in Regulation 2988/95 or Eu ropean sectoral rules). 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference  between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national  law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  that may lead to 
administrative measures  that may lead to 
administrative penalties  
payment of demands may be 
extended by a general 
administrative Court after 
application by the authority concerned.  
UK  
INTERR       
SUSP      
 
2.1.2 “Absolute” limitation period for proceedings 
Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulati on No 2988/95 provides for the limitation to be come effective at the latest on the d ay on which a period 
equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competen t authority having imposed a penalty, except where the adminis trative procedure has 
been suspended by decision of the competent authority because crim inal proceedings have been initiated against the person conce rned in connection 
with the same facts. This period of twice four year s is referred to as the “absolute” limitation period . 
National laws, regulations and administrative provisions providing for a longer period th an in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 29 88/95 may also alter this 
“absolute” limitation period or regulate it differently. 
2.1.2. Does your national law provide fo r a period exceeding the twice four years  “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that  the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
 
EN 67   EN 2.1.2. Does your national law provide fo r a period exceeding the twice four years  “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that  the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
For traditional resources, in particular, cu stoms procedures For EAGF, in particular for procedures For structural and cohesion  funds, in particular for procedures Member 
State 
that may lead to 
administrative measures (as 
per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as 
per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) that may lead to 
administrative measures (as 
per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as 
per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) that may lead to 
administrative measures (as 
per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as 
per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
BE -  -  -  -  -  -  
BG 10 Article 171, paragraph 2 
Tax and Social Security 
Procedure Code  -  10 Article 171, paragraph 2 
Tax and Social Security 
Procedure Code for public 
receivables -  10 Article 171, paragraph 2 
Tax and Social Security 
Procedure Code for public 
receivables -  
CZ     10 Section 11a Act No 
256/2000 Coll. on the State 
Agricultural Intervention Fund (SAIF) 10 Section 11a Act No 
256/2000 Coll. on the State 
Agricultural Intervention Fund (SAIF) 20 Act No 552/1991 Coll., on 
state control  
Act No 337/1992 Coll., on 
the administration of taxes and fees  
Act No 218/2000 Coll., on 
budgetary rules 
Act No 320/2001 Coll., on 
financial control in public 
administration 20 Act No 552/1991 Coll., on 
state control  
Act No 337/1992 Coll., on 
the administration of taxes and fees  
Act No 218/2000 Coll., on 
budgetary rules 
Act No 320/2001 Coll., on 
financial control in public 
administration 
 
EN 68   EN 2.1.2. Does your national law provide fo r a period exceeding the twice four years  “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that  the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
Act No 500/2004 Coll., 
rules of administrative procedure Act No 500/2004 Coll., 
rules of administrative procedure 
DK -  -  -  -  -  -  
DE -  -  -  -  -  -  
EE -  -  10 § 66 EU CAP 
Implementation Act 
§ 71 Fisheries Market 
Organisation Act 10 § 66 EU CAP 
Implementation Act 
§ 71 Fisheries Market 
Organisation Act -  -  
IE -  -  -  -  -  -  
EL -  -  -  -  -  -  
ES -  -  -  -  -  -  
FR -  -  -  -  -  -  
IT -  -  -  -  -  -  
CY -  -  -  -  -  -  
LV -  -  -  -  -  -  
LT -  -  -  -  -  -  
LU -  -  -  -  -  -  
HU 10 Article 150(3) Act CXL of 
2004 on the general rules 10 Article 150(3) Act CXL of 
2004 on the general rules -  -  -  -  
 
EN 69   EN 2.1.2. Does your national law provide fo r a period exceeding the twice four years  “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that  the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
of administrative 
proceedings and services of administrative 
proceedings and services 
MT -  -  -  -  -  -  
NL -  -  -  -  -    
AT -  10 Section 31(5) Austrian 
Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG) in the case of administrative financial 
fraud proceedings -  -  -  -  
PL -  -  -  -  -  -  
PT -  -  -  -  -  -  
RO -  -  -  -  -  -  
SI 10 Articles 125 to 126 Tax 
Procedure Act (ZdavP-2) -  -  -  -  -  
SK 20 Article 60 Act No. 
199/2004, the Customs Act  -  -  -  -  -  
FI 10 Section 7(2) Act on the 
Statute of Limitations 
The Act on the Statute of 
Limitations does not apply when recovery is performed according to the Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL) 
Applicable "absolute" 
limitation period: ten years (applies to recovery) 10 Section 7(2) Act on the 
Statute of Limitations 
The Act on the Statute of 
Limitations does not apply when recovery is performed according to the Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL) 
Applicable "absolute" 
limitation period: ten years (applies to recovery) -  -  10 Section 46(3) Act on the 
Financing of Rural 
Industries (329/1999) 10 Sections 46(3) and 50. Act 
on the Financing of Rural 
Industries (329/1999) 
 
EN 70   EN 2.1.2. Does your national law provide fo r a period exceeding the twice four years  “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that  the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
SE -  -  10 Paragraph 43 Regulation 
(1999:1148) with respect to EC Regulations concerning Agricultural Products and Chapter 1(18) Regulation (2004:760)  10 Paragraph 43 Regulation 
(1999:1148) with respect to EC Regulations concerning Agricultural Products and Chapter 1(18) Regulation (2004:760)  10 Paragraph 27 Regulation 
(2007:14) concerned with the administration of EU structural funds -  
UK -  -  -  -  -  -  
 
2.2. Limitation period for implementing the decision es tablishing the administra tive penalty (sanction) 
The limitation period of three years set out in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 for implementing the decision establishin g the administrative 
penalty concerns the enforcement  of penalties (Article 5 of Regulati on No 2988/95), possibly decided upon after the end of proceedings relating to 
irregularities. To make it easier to understand the different national systems taking advantage of the freedom given to Member States under Article 3(3) 
of Regulation No 2988/95, it is also important to have an overview of when this enfor cement limitation period starts to run and  of how national law, 
applicable explicitly by refere nce, governs instances of interruption and suspension.  
2.2.1. Does your national  law provide for a period exceeding the three years  laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and, if so , for how long? (If the tables do not report anything for a given  Member 
State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rule s apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation  period). 
Member State For traditional resources , in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 
BE -  -  -  
BG -  5 Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 
Article 34 Paragraph 2 Administrative Violations and Sanctions La 
w 5 Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code  
CZ 6 Section 70(1) Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of 
taxes and fees 10 Section 11a Act No 256/2000 Coll. on the State Agricultural 
Intervention Fund (SAIF) 6 §70 Sections 1 and 2 Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of 
taxes and fees. 
 
EN 71   EN 2.2.1. Does your national  law provide for a period exceeding the three years  laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and, if so , for how long? (If the tables do not report anything for a given  Member 
State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rule s apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation  period). 
Member State For traditional resources , in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
DK -  -  -  
DE 5 §34(1) Administrative Penalties Act in case of fines of over €1000 -  -  
EE -  -  -  
IE 12 Section 11(6) Statute of Limitations Act 1957 12 Section 11(6) Statute of Limitations Act 1957  12 Section 11(6) Statute of Limitations Act 1957  
EL -  -  -  
ES 4 Articles 66 et seq. and 189 and 190 General Tax Law 58/2003  4 Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 
Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 Article 132.3 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure  4 Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 
Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 Article 132.3 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure  
FR -  -  -  
IT 5 Section 20(3) Legislat ive Decree No 472/97 on general rules in 
the field of administrative sanctions for violating fiscal rules 5 Section 28 Act No 689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal 
system. 5 Section 28 Act No 689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal 
system 
CY -  -  -  
LV -  -  -  
LT 5 Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration  5 Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 5 Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 
LU -  -  -  
 
EN 72   EN 2.2.1. Does your national  law provide for a period exceeding the three years  laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and, if so , for how long? (If the tables do not report anything for a given  Member 
State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rule s apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation  period). 
Member State For traditional resources , in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
HU -  5 Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services -  
MT -  -  -  
NL -  -  5 Section 4(57) of the General Administrative Law Act  
AT -  5 Section 32(1) Austrian Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG). Export 
refunds: Customs law applies  -  
PL -  -  -  
PT 5 Article 34 General System of Tax Infringement  -  -  
RO 5 Article 131(1) and (2) Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the 
Fiscal Procedure Code.; if relate d to fiscal obligations and fines 5 Article 112(3) Government Ordinance No 79/2003 on the control and 
recovery of Community funds; if related to fiscal obligations 5 Article 112(3) Government Ordinance No 79/2003 on the control and 
recovery of Community funds; if related to fiscal obligations 
SI 5 Minor Offences Act (ZP-1)  -  
-  
SK -  -  -  
FI 5 Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges 
(VeroTPL)  -  10 Section 29 Act on Discretionary Government Transfers for the 
Development of  Business (1336/2006) 
SE 5 Paragraphs 3-8 Act (1982:188) rela ting to the prescription of tax 
demands, etc. -  -  
UK -  -  -  
 
 
EN 73   EN 2.2.2. Does your national law specify a time from which the limita tion period starts to operate other that the day on which the  decision becomes final and, if so, when? (I f the tables do not re port anything for a 
given Member State, it is to assume that the limitation period starts to operate the day on which the decision becomes final). 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
BE    
BG Article 171 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code 
Public receivables shall be extinguished upon expiry of a 5-year limitation 
period, as from 1 January of the year following the year during which the 
public obligation became payable unless a law makes provision for a shorter period.    
CZ Section 70(1) Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of taxes and 
fees  
Right to recover an unpaid balance wi ll lapse six years after the year in 
which this unpaid balance has fallen due.   
DK    
DE    
EE    
IE    
EL Articles 150(4) and 152(7) Law 2960/2001 National Customs Code  
Once the administrative decision imposing a fine has been served and no 
appeal has been filed before the administrative courts (within 60 or 90 days of service), the decision is immediatel y enforceable. If an appeal is filed 
(after 60 or 90 days from service), 30% of the fine is payable immediately. 
Article 66 Law 2717/99 Admi nistrative Procedure Code   
ES Articles 66 et seq. General Tax Law 58/2003   
 
EN 74   EN 2.2.2. Does your national law specify a time from which the limita tion period starts to operate other that the day on which the  decision becomes final and, if so, when? (I f the tables do not re port anything for a 
given Member State, it is to assume that the limitation period starts to operate the day on which the decision becomes final). 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
From the day following the date on which the voluntary payment period 
expires, except in cases of joint and several or secondary liability. 
FR    
IT    
CY    
LV    
LT    
LU    
HU    
MT    
NL    
AT    
PL    
PT    
RO Article 131(1) and (2) Government Ordinance No92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code    
 
EN 75   EN 2.2.2. Does your national law specify a time from which the limita tion period starts to operate other that the day on which the  decision becomes final and, if so, when? (I f the tables do not re port anything for a 
given Member State, it is to assume that the limitation period starts to operate the day on which the decision becomes final). 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
In the case of fiscal obligations and fines, as of 1 January of the year 
following the year when the writ of execution is issued. 
SI   
 
SK Article 88(1) Act No. 372/1990, on infringements with reference to 
Article 71(2) Act No. 199/2004, the Customs Act 
From the expiry of the deadline stated in the decision to impose the fine   Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings  
The three-year period covering the enforc ement of a decision starts on expiry 
of the period for fulfilling the obligation imposed (i.e. the expiry of the period is related to the executability of  the decision issued in administrative 
procedures)  
FI Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges 
(VeroTPL) 
Within the scope of application of the Act 706/2007 on the Collection of 
Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL). (see above) from the beginning of the year 
following the year of imposing or debiting the penalty.   Section 29 Act on Discretionary Government Transfers for the 
Development of Business (1336/2006) 
From the payment of the final instalment / termination of the period of use 
for the acquisition. 
SE Paragraph 3 Act (1982:188) relating to the prescription of tax demands, etc. 
The day on which the demand is considered due for payment, with certain 
exceptions Paragraph 43 Regulation (1999:1148) with respect to EC Regulations 
concerning Agricultural Products and Chapter 1(18) of the regulation 
(2004:760) concerned with EC di rect support for farmers, etc. 
The day on which the faulty amount was paid out.  
UK -  UK limitation periods generally do not star t to run until the claimant’s cause 
of action is established, e.g. by sending a demand for repayment. So long as the demand is within the time limits specified in the relevant scheme, the UK 
will have its national limitation period in which to start court proceedings.  
 
EN 76   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
BE  
INTERR     
SUSP    
BG  
INTERR  Article 82 Administrative Violations and Sanctions Law 
Each act of duly authorised authorities taken against a penalised individual in respect of the execution of his or her penalty.  
Article 172, par. 2 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code The limitation shall be terminated with the issue of the act for establishment of the public taking or with the undertaking of actions of enforcement. If the act for establishing shall be repealed, the limitation shall be considered terminated.  
SUSP Article 172, par. 1 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code 
The limitation shall be stopped when proceedings for establishment of the public taking have begun, when the execution of the a ct, by which the taking has been established, has been stopped, when has been given a permission for 
rescheduling or postponing of the payment, when the act, by which the obligation has been determined, has been appealed, by imp osing of securing measures, when penal proceedings have been instituted, on the decision on which 
depends the establishment or the collection of the public taking.  
CZ  
INTERR  Section 70(2) Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of taxes and fees 
Limitation periods are interrupted in case of an act to collect, seize or 
enforce an unpaid balance. Article 64 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  
In case of drawback of written form, in case of prelimiary question, when 
applicant don´t pay a charge. §70 section 2 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  
As a result of (due to) a legal barrier limitation period stops to run and after 
cancellation of the legal barrier new limitation period starts to run.  
SUSP  Article 66 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  §70 sect ion 3 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  
Due to legal barrier limitation period does not run and in case of 
 
EN 77   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
In case of retraction, non-execution of conditions of interruption etc.  elimination/cancellation of legal barrier  limitation period continues to run 
again from the point where it stopped.  
DK  
INTERR     
SUSP    
DE  
INTERR  §34(4) Administrative Penalties Act  
Enforcement has not begun or could not be continued; enforcement has 
been suspended or a payment facility has been granted   
SUSP    
EE  
INTERR     
SUSP    
IE  
INTERR     
SUSP    
EL  
INTERR     
 
EN 78   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
SUSP Article 150(4) law 2960/2001 National Customs Code 
If someone files an appeal against the administrative decision imposing a 
fine, 70% of the fine is suspended. Also, if someone files an application for suspension which is admitted by the administrative court, the entire 
amount assessed may be suspended. 
Articles 200-205 Law 2717/99 Asministrative Procedure Code     
ES  
INTERR  Article 190 General Tax Law 58/2003 
A measure effectively taken by the tax administration in order to collect a 
penalty, and of which the taxpayer is formally notified. Lodging of complaints or appeals of any kind and measures taken in relation to them of which the taxpayer is formally notified. Application for insolvency proceedings for debtor. Enforcement of  civil or criminal actions taken in 
order to collect the tax debt. Receipt of notification from judicial body 
ordering suspension of administrative proceeding. Any duly authenticated 
action taken by the taxpayer in order to pay or cancel the tax debt. Article 132.3 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 
Opening of enforcement proceeding, with notification of the party concerned. The time period starts to run again if it is suspe nded for more than a month for 
reasons not attributable to the offender. 
SUSP    
FR  
INTERR     
SUSP    
IT  
INTERR  Section 20(3) Legislative Decree No 472/97 on general rules in the field 
of administrative sanctions for violating fiscal rules 
The period of limitation is interrupted by any appeal against a ruling and Section 28 Act No 689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal system 
Service of document initiating proceedings which may be enforceable; application filed in the course of proceedings; formal not ice to pay served on the debtor 
 
EN 79   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
does not run until the proceedings have been completed. 
SUSP    
CY  
INTERR     
SUSP    
LV  
INTERR  Section 26(8) Law on Taxes and Fees 
Deadline for payment of the relevant taxes is extended, deferred or 
staggered – until the end of the deadline period. Where payment is staggered, the limitation period shall start again after the last payment deadline;  
Decision taken as the result of controls (checks, audits) performed by the 
tax administration, a tax calculation or a decision on the recovery of 
overdue tax payments is contested – for the period of time during which a 
submission is examined prior to court proceedings;  
Appeal is lodged against the activities of bailiffs – for the period of time 
during which the complaint is being reviewed;  
Debtor is deceased or the legal person has ceased to exist and the legal 
relationship established by the court allows for the transfer of rights – until 
the person assigned the debtor's rights has been determined; 
Debtor has lost his capacity to act – until the appointment of a trustee; Court decision has been taken on suspending the execution of the relevant 
tax administration decision – until the relevant court decision has been set aside or for the period of time indicated in the court decision;   
 
EN 80   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
Insolvency proceedings have been initi ated against a taxpayer – until the 
insolvency proceedings have concluded; 
Decision on the winding-up of a taxpayer has been taken and recorded – 
until winding-up proceedings have been concluded;  
Decision has been submitted for execution to a bailiff and a tax 
administration official, who in accordance with law are granted the rights of a bailiff – until the decision is enforced or until an act is issued declaring recovery to be impossible.  
SUSP    
LT  
INTERR     
SUSP Article 108 Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration. 
Where a tax credit agreement has been concluded; where other la ws or legal enactments (for instance a bailiff's order) provide for the suspension of enforced recovery of payment arrears. 
LU  
INTERR     
SUSP    
HU  
INTERR   Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 on certain aspects of the procedure 
regarding agricultural, rural development and fisheries aid and other measures, 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services  
 
EN 81   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
Any enforcement action. 
SUSP  Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 on certain aspects of the procedure 
regarding agricultural, rural development and fisheries aid and other 
measures, 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services 
If a decision on the right to apply for aid is examined by a court, the 
limitation period for the right to recover the aid is suspended from the 
commencement of action until the ruling enters into force. 
During the period of suspension of enforcement, enforcement actions, 
payment facilities allowed in the en forcement proceeding, and mortgage 
registration.  
MT  
INTERR     
SUSP    
NL  
INTERR  Section 4.4.3.2 of the General Administrative Law Act  
The expiry of a legal claim is interrupted by bringing criminal proceedings 
(before the civil courts) or through recognition of the creditor's rights.   
SUSP    
AT  
INTERR  Section 32(3) Austrian Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG) Export refunds: Customs law applies  
 
EN 82   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
Enforcement of prison sentence 
SUSP  Section 32(3) Austrian Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG) 
Probationary periods under conditi onal release; postponement of 
sentence/payment; detention by government order; period abroad.   
PL  
INTERR   Article 47(3) of the Agricultural Land and Sugar Payments Act of 27 
January 2007 
Yes: implementing the firs t enforcement proceedings  
SUSP Article 56 Enforcement Proceedings in Administration Act of 1966 
Withholding implementation, death, loss of capacity to enter into legal transactions.  
PT  
INTERR  Article 30-A General Scheme of Regulatory Offences (for cases of 
interruption to the limitation of the penalty). 
Commencement of tax enforcement of the penalty (enforced payment).   
SUSP Article 30 General Scheme of Regulatory Offences (for cases in which 
the limitation of the penalty is suspended) 
Legal impossibility of the tax enforcement of the penalty commencing or 
continuing (bankruptcy proceedings, judicial action on pledged assets and 
receipt of opposition to the tax enforcement); granting of payment facilities   
RO  
INTERR  Articles 132 and 133 Government Ordinance No  92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 
 
EN 83   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
In addition to Article 13 and Articl e 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription.  
(Recognising the right whose action is limited, made by the person in whose benefit the limitation runs; submitting a sue or ar bitration petition, even if it was submitted to a law court or arbitration body that does not have competence; act 
for the initiation of the enforcement procedure) 
When the debtor, before or during the initi ation of the forced execution procedure, makes a voluntary payment of the obligation  provided for in the writ of exec ution or when the debtor recognizes the debt in any other manner; when, 
during the forced execution procedure, a forced execution act is concluded. 
SUSP Articles 132 and 133 of Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code  
In addition to Article 13 and Articl e 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription  
(As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; during the period in which the creditor or the debto r is part of the Romanian Army Forces, and they are at 
war; until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursu ant to a contract for transportation or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, but not later 
than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculate d as of the date the claim is registered) 
During the validity period of the facility granted according to the law; as long as the debtor removes his incomes and goods fr om forced execution. 
SI  
INTERR  Article 126 (2) Tax Pro cedure Act (ZDavP-2)  
In cases where the sanction is not legally enforceable; if the body responsible for enforcing the sanction takes any action wit h a view to enforcing the 
sanction; any official action taken by the tax authority for the purposes of enforcement of which the debtor is informed.  
SUSP Article 153 General Administra tive Procedures Act (ZUP)  
If the other party dies; if the other party loses its legal capacity, but has no 
authorised representative for the proceedings and no temporary representative is appointed; if the lega l representative dies or loses legal 
capacity, but the party concerned has no authorised representative and no temporary representative is appointed; if a declaration of bankruptcy has had legal implications for the party concerned; if a body decides that it 
cannot resolve a preliminar y question or that it cannot resolve it according 
to the law.   
SK  
INTERR     
SUSP    
 
EN 84   EN 2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are containe d in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing th e administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference betw een interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as pe r Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
FI  
INTERR     
SUSP    
SE  
INTERR     
SUSP    
UK  
INTERR     
SUSP    
 
2.3. Limitation period for implementing the decision es tablishing an administrative measure (recovery)  
European law does not  provide for a limitation period for the enforcement of  the decision establishing the administrative measure9. This period is of 
particular importance for the success of recovery pr ocedures and may depend on reference to civil law.  
                                                 
9 Administrative measures are measures which have as a result the withdrawal of the adva ntage obtained plus, where so provided f or, interest (Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95). 
 
EN 85   EN 2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measu re? (If the tables do not report anything fo r a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
Member State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
BE 10 81bis VAT Code -  -  
BG 5 Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 5 Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 5 Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 
CZ -  10 Act No 256/2000 Coll. on the State Agricultural Intervention Fund 
(SAIF) 6  
§70 Section 1 Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of taxes 
and fees; 
 
DK 3 § 3 and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007  3 § 3 and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007  3 § 3 and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007  
DE 5 § 228 paragraph 2 Tax Code -  -  
EE 7 §132 Taxation Act -  -  
IE -  6 Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 6 Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 
EL -  -  -  
ES 4 General Tax Law 58/2003 4 Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 
Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 of 26-11 Article 132.2 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 4 Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 
Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 of 26-11 Article 132.2 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 
FR 4 Article 355 (3) of the Customs Code -   - 
 
EN 86   EN 2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measu re? (If the tables do not report anything fo r a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
Member State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
IT -  10 Section 1(174) Act No 266/2005 
Section 76 Royal Decree No 1214/1943 Consolidated Court of 
Auditors Act  10 Section 1(174) Act No 266/2005 
Section 76 Royal Decree No 1214/1943 Consolidated Court of 
Auditors Act 
CY -  -  -  
LV 3 Section 26(8) Law on Taxes and Fees 
 3 Section 360(4) Law On Administrative Proceedings. 3 Section 360(4) Law On Administrative Proceedings 
LT 5 Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 5 Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 5 Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 
LU -  -  -  
HU -  5 Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services -  
MT -  -  -  
NL 5 Section 27 of the Act of 30 May 1990 on the recovery of state 
taxes (1990 Recovery Act) 5 Section 4.4.3. of the General Administrative Law. -  
AT -  -  -  
PL 5 Article 65(7) Customs Act of 2004 5 Article 70 §1 of the Tax Act of 29 August 1997 
Article 47(1) of the Agricultural Land and Sugar Payments Act of 
27 January 2007 10 Articles 118, 125 § 1 of the Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code  
Article 125 § 1 of the Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code  
PT 8 Article 48(1) General Tax Law 5/20 Articles309 and 310 Civil Code. The limitation periods stipulated by 
civil law apply (of between 5 and 20 years) 20 Articles 309 and 310 Civil Code. The limitation periods stipulated 
by civil law apply (of between 5 and 20 years) 
Appeal Decisions of the 2nd Section of the STA pronounced in 
 
EN 87   EN 2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measu re? (If the tables do not report anything fo r a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
Member State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
proceedings 727/02, 153/03, 325/03, 369/05 and 462/06, of 
6.11.2002, 4.6.2003, 25.06.2003, 29.6.05 and 5.7.2006, and the appeal decisions pronounced by the Tax Dispute Section of the Central Administrative Court and the Southern Central 
Administrative Court, in proceedings 5698/01, 6756/02, 7536/02 
and 104/03 on 30.10.2001, 6.7.2004, 26.10.2004 and 15.6.2005. 
RO 5 Article 131(1) Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code 5 Article 112(3) Government Ordinance No 79/2003 on the control 
and recovery of Community funds 5 Article 112(3) Government Ordinance No 79/2003 on the control 
and recovery of Community funds 
SI 5 Articles 125 and 126 Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 5 Articles 125 and 126 Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) -  
SK 3 Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings 3 Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings 3 Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings 
5 Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges 
(VeroTPL) FI 5 Section 13(2) Act on the Statute of Limitations, section 20 of the 
Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL) 
 5 Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges 
(VeroTPL) 
10 Section 28 Act on Discretionary Government Transfers (688/2001). 
 
EN 88   EN 2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measu re? (If the tables do not report anything fo r a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 
Member State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) 
SE 5 Paragraphs 3-4 Act (1982:188) rela ting to the prescription of tax 
demands, etc. 10 Paragraph 43 Regulation (1999 :1148) with respect to EC 
Regulations concerning Agricultural Products and Chapter 1(18) Regulation (2004:760) concerned with direct support to farmers, etc. 10 Paragraph 2 Prescription Act (1981:130) 
UK -  -  6 
and 
5 The limitation period in UK law relating to civil proceedings for 
recovering money under a contract (applicable in this case) is 6 years but in Scotland, it is 5 years. 
 
2.3.2. When does the limitation pe riod for implementing the decision establishi ng an administrative measure start to run? 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 
BE    
BG Article 171 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code  
As from 1 January of the year follow ing the year during which the public 
obligation became payable unless a law makes provision for a shorter period .   
 
EN 89   EN 2.3.2. When does the limitation pe riod for implementing the decision establishi ng an administrative measure start to run? 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 
CZ  Act No 99/1963 Coll, on Civic Court Rule 
in 15 days from date of legal force of decision    
DK § 2(1) and (2) and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 
From the time when the original claim arose. 
DE § 229 paragraph 1 Tax Code 
From the end of the calendar  year in which claim firs t fell due. However, it 
does not start before the end of  the calendar year in which the 
establishment of a claim from the tax debt relationship became effective 
from which the claim arises.   
EE §132 Taxation Act  
1 January of the year following the year in which the decision was taken.   
IE Date on which debt is established  Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 
Date of the decision Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 
Date of the decision 
EL Article 66 Law 2717/99 Admi nistrative Procedure Code 
Following service of the decision on the administrative measure. Article 10(7) Law 2690/99 Code of Administrative Procedure, in 
conjunction with article 241 of the Civil Code  
From the day after proven service on the debtor of the decision imposing the 
administrative measure. Joint ministerial decision 907/052/2003  
This deadline commences on the date of assessment of the debt by the 
relevant tax office with registration of the relevant amount (cf. provisions of legislative decree 356/1974 Public Revenue Collection Code, and 
presidential decree 16/1989 Rules of procedure for tax departments and local 
offices and duties of their officers. 
ES  Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 
From the date of notification. 
FR    
 
EN 90   EN 2.3.2. When does the limitation pe riod for implementing the decision establishi ng an administrative measure start to run? 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 
IT    
CY    
LV    
LT Article 107(2) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 
From the date on which the right to enforced recovery of a payment arises. 
LU    
HU    
MT    
NL Section 27 of the Act of 30 May 1990 on the recovery of national taxes 
(1990 Recovery Act) 
Since the beginning of the day following that on which the tax assessment 
in its entirety falls due or, if this is at a later date, five years after the beginning of the day after that on which the last prosecuting document 
concerning the tax assessment was served to the tax debtor.   
AT    
PL Article 65(7) Customs Act of 2004 
From the day of entering the amount due. Article 70 §1 Tax Act of 1997  
From the end of the calendar year in which the tax payment date expired.  
 Article 120 § 1 and § 2, Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code  
From the day that the claim becomes mature. If the claim maturity depends 
on the taking up of a given measure by the authorised party, the course of the deadline commences from the day on which the claim would have been mature, had the authorised taken measur es at the earliest possible time. 
 
EN 91   EN 2.3.2. When does the limitation pe riod for implementing the decision establishi ng an administrative measure start to run? 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as pe r Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 
PT Article 48(1) General Tax Law 
Date on which the chargeable event occurred. Article 305 Civil Code, in conjunction with Article 132 Administrative 
Procedural Code. 
Date on which the decision is notified to the party.  
RO Article 131(1) Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code  
1 January of the year following the y ear when the writ of execution is 
issued .   
SI Article 125 Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 
Date when the duty was due for payment.  
SK Articles 52 and 71 Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings  
The three-year period covering th e enforcement of a decision starts on expiry of the period for fulfilling the obligation impos ed (i.e. the expiry of the period is related to the executability of the decision issued in administrative procedures) 
FI Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL) 
In recovery proceedings, from the beginning of the year following the year of making the decision. Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges 
(VeroTPL) 
In recovery proceedings, from the beginning of the year following the year of 
making the decision. 
Section 28 Act on Discretionary Government Transfers (688/2001) 
From the payment of the discretionary government transfer or the final 
instalment or from the termination of the period of use for the property in the financing decision. 
SE  Paragraph 43 Regulation (1999:1148) with respect to EC Regulations 
concerning Agricultural Products  and Chapter 1(18) Regulation 
(2004:760) concerned with dir ect support to farmers, etc  
The day when the faulty amount was paid out.  Paragraph 2 Prescription Act (1981:130) compared with paragraphs 26–
27 Regulation (2007:14) concerned with the administration of EC structural funds. 
When the demand occurred, i.e. on the occasion of the time when the 
decision to annul a decision about wrongly paid out support gained legal 
force, this implying a repayment obligation.  
UK   As soon as the debt/irregularity is identified. 
 
EN 92   EN  
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
BE  
INTERR     
SUSP    
BG  
INTERR  Article 172, par. 2 Tax and Soci al Security Procedure Code  
The prescription shall be terminated with the issue of the act fo r establishment of the public taking or with the undertaking o f actions of enforcement. If the act for establishing shall be repealed, the pres cription shall be considered 
terminated. 
Article 82 Administrative Violations and Sanctions Law 
(2) The legal prescription shall begin from the enforcement of the act by which the sanction has been imposed and shall be stop ped by any act of the respective bodies, undertaken regarding the punished person for incurring the sanction. 
Upon conclusion of the act which stops the legal prescription a new legal prescription shall begin. 
SUSP Article 172, par. 1 Tax and Soci al Security Procedure Code  
The prescription shall be stopped when proceedings for establishmen t of the public taking have begun, when the execution of the  act, by which the taking has been established, has been stopped, when has been given a permission for 
rescheduling or postponing of the payment, when the act, by which has been determined the obligation, has been appealed, by imp osing of securing measures, when penal proceedings have been instituted, on the decision of which 
depends the establishment or the collection of the public taking. 
CZ  
INTERR   Article 64 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  
In case of drawback of written form, in case of prelimiary question, when §70 section 2 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  
As a result of (due to) a legal barrier limitation period stops to run and after 
 
EN 93   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
applicant don´t pay a charge. cancellation of the lega l barrier new limitation period starts to run.  
SUSP  Article 66 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  
In case of retraction, non-execution of conditions of interruption etc.  §70 section 3 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  
Due to legal barrier limitation period does not run and in case of 
elimination/cancellation of legal barrier limitation period continues to run 
again from the point where it stopped.  
DK  
INTERR  §§ 20 to 22 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 
"Temporary" interruption is characterised by  the fact that , when the "temporary meas ure" takes place before the limitation per iod expires, a period of one year is allowed after the meas ure ends so that "real" interruption - typically in the 
event of legal proceedings – can take place  before this additional period expires. 
SUSP §§3(2) and 3 No 3 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 
Where the claim or debtor is unknown, th e 3-year limitation period is suspended unt il the time when the claimant became or shou ld have become aware of this. 
An absolute limitation period of 10 years  applies in connection with suspension. The "absolute" nature of the 10-year limitation period means that the limitation period runs even if the claimant is innocently unaware of its claim. The 
absolute limitation period can never be suspended. 
§ 14 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 
Furthermore, the Limitations Act lays down an additional 1-year period for claimants in cases where on grounds of various types  of obstacles the claimant has been prevented from interrupting the limitation. 
These are cases where the claimant has been prevented from inte rrupting the limitation owing to ignorance of the debtor's where abouts or by obstacles unconnected with the circumstances of the person concerned. 
DE  
INTERR  §232 Tax Code  
Establishment of claim in writing. Deferment of payment. Stay of 
payment. Suspension of enforcement. Lodging of security. Declaration of 
insolvency proceedings. Inclusion in insolvency scheme or judicially 
imposed debt-servicing plan. Procedure for discharge of remaining debts.   
 
EN 94   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
Procedure for determination of residence or abode. 
SUSP §230 Tax Code 
Claim cannot be pursued in event of force majeure within last six months 
of limitation period.   
EE  
INTERR  §132 Taxation Act 
Yes   
SUSP    
IE  
INTERR     
SUSP    
EL  
INTERR     
SUSP    
ES  
INTERR   Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 
 
EN 95   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
Article 132 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 
Any action taken by the administration of which formal notification is given to the beneficiary or associated organisation and which gives rise to one of the 
grounds for repayment. 
Lodging of appeals of any kind, referral of the case to the cr iminal jurisdiction or filing of a complaint with the Public Pros ecution Service, and measures 
taken in relation to these appeals of which the benefici ary or the associated organisation is formally notified. 
Any duly authenticated measure taken by the beneficiary or the associated organisation leading to payment of the grant or of th e reimbursement. 
SUSP - - - 
FR  
INTERR     
SUSP    
IT  
INTERR     
SUSP    
CY  
INTERR     
SUSP    
LV   
INTERR     
 
EN 96   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
SUSP Section 26(8) Law On Taxes and Fees 
Decision taken as the result of controls (checks, audits) performed by the 
tax administration, a tax calculation or a decision on the recovery of overdue tax payments is contested – for the period of time in which a submission is examined prior to court proceedings; 
Deadline for payment of the relevant taxes has been extended, deferred or 
staggered – with respect to the amount of tax whose deadline for payment 
has been extended or with respect to a deferred tax payment; 
Judgment declaring a taxpayer to be insolvent has entered into force. The 
taxpayer who has been declared insolvent shall make all regular tax payments in accordance with laws pertaining to the relevant taxes. 
Decision taken as the result of controls (checks, audits) performed by the 
tax administration, a tax calculation or a decision on the recovery of 
overdue tax payments is contested – for the period of time during which a 
submission is examined prior to court proceedings.  
Appeal is lodged against the activities of bailiffs – for the period of time 
during which the complaint is being reviewed;  
Debtor is deceased or the legal person has ceased to exist and the legal 
relationship established by the court allows for the transfer of rights – until 
the person assigned the debtor's rights has been determined; 
Debtor has lost his capacity to act – until the appointment of a trustee; Court decision has been taken suspending the execution of the relevant tax 
administration decision – until the relevant court decision has been set aside or for the period of time indicated in the court decision; 
Insolvency proceedings have been initi ated against a taxpayer – until the 
insolvency proceedings have concluded; 
Decision on the winding-up of a taxpayer has been taken and recorded – 
until winding-up proceedings have been concluded;  Sections 45 and 46 Law On Administrative Proceedings 
If court proceedings in a particular matter or the enforcement of an administrative de cision unfavourable to the addressee are suspended; where following the 
serving of an enforcement document recovery has not been effected in full and the docume nt has been returned to the enforcer of  the debt, a new deadline for 
submission of the document shall run from the day when the document is returned to the enforcer of the debt. 
 
EN 97   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
Decision has been submitted for enforcement to a bailiff and a tax 
administration official, who in accordance with law are granted the rights of a bailiff – until the decision is enforced or until a document is issued declaring recovery to be impossible.  
LT  
INTERR     
SUSP Article 108 Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 
Where a tax credit agreement has been concluded; where other la ws or legal enactments (for instance a bailiff's order) provide for the suspension of enforced recovery of payment arrears. 
LU  
INTERR     
SUSP    
HU  
INTERR   Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 on certain aspects of the procedure 
regarding agricultural, rural develo pment and fisheries aid and other 
measures 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services 
Any enforcement action.  
SUSP  Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 on certain aspects of the procedure 
regarding agricultural, rural develo pment and fisheries aid and other 
measures 
Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative  
 
EN 98   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
proceedings and services 
If a decision on the right to apply for aid is examined by a court, the 
limitation period for the right to recover the aid is suspended from the commencement of action until the ruling enters into force. 
During the period of suspension of enforcement, enforcement actions, 
payment facilities allowed in the enforcement proceeding, and mortgage 
registration. 
MT  
INTERR     
SUSP    
NL  
INTERR  Section 27 of the Act of 30 May 1990  on the recovery of national tax 
(1990 Recovery Act) 
The limitation period is interrupted only by the service of an enforcement 
document to the tax debtor. This includes any service to the tax debtor of a document for prosecution purposes, such as an enforcement order, a repeated order to make payment or a writ of attachment, irrespective of 
whether the prosecution measure in question brings any results. Section 4.4.3.2 of the General Administrative Law Act  
The lapsing of a legal claim is interrupted by bringing a legal action (before the 
civil courts) or through recognition of the creditor's rights.  
SUSP Section 27 of the Act of 30 May 1990  on the recovery of national tax 
(1990 Recovery Act) 
Suspension of the limitation period on the basis of section 27(2)(a) of the 
applicable law takes place only on the grounds of a formally granted stay 
of payment, granted on request or ex officio . Unilateral cancellation of 
recovery, for whatever r eason, does not have the effect of suspension.    
AT  
 
EN 99   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
INTERR     
SUSP    
PL  
INTERR  Article 65(8) Customs Act of 2004 
Application of the enforcement m easure, of which the debtor was 
informed. Article 70 § (2), (3) and (6)(2) and (3) Tax Act of 1997  
By announcing bankruptcy (after interrupting the course of expiry of the 
limitation period it starts running again fr om the day after the decision to cease 
bankruptcy proceedings becomes final). 
Article 70 § (4) Tax Act of 1997 in connection with Article 1a (12)(a) 
Enforcement Proceedings in Ad ministration Act of 1966  
By applying the enforcement measure, of which the debtor was informed.  
SUSP Article 65(10) Customs Act of 2004  
Start of penal proceedings relating to treasury crime or treasury offence, 
lodging complaints to the administrative court. Article 70 § (2), (3) and (6)(2) and (3) Tax Act of 1997   
Deferment of the payment deadline of obligations or dividing the payment into 
instalments (basis: Article 70 § 2(1), Tax Act), 
Taking a complaint to the administrative  court (basis: Article 70 § 6(2), Tax 
Act), 
Lodging a demand that a civilian court establish the existence or non-existence 
of a legal relation (basis: Article 70 § 6(3), Tax Act). 
Article 97 § 1(4) in connection with Article 103 Code on Administrative 
Procedure 
The start of proceedings relating to tax crime or tax offence, if the suspicion of 
a crime or offence being committed is connected with the failure to carry out this obligation; lodging a complaint at the administrative court against the decision relating to this obligation; lodging a demand that a civilian court establish the existence or non-existence of a legal relation or in suspending proceedings, when the issue of a decision depends on settling the initial matter 
by a different authority or court. Suspension of proceedings halts the course of  
 
EN 100   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
deadlines provided for by the Code. Suspension is until the day that the court 
decision becomes binding or the day on which the decision of a different authority becomes final.  
PT  
INTERR  Article 49 General Tax Law 
Summons of the judgment debtor; claim; appeal to a higher court; 
contestation; application for official review of settlement.  Articles 50(1), 112 to 117, 128 Procedural Code of the Administrative 
Courts 
Any act which expresses the intention to  exercise the cred it claim against 
the recipient interrupts the limitation of the debt, e.g. claim for refund after the payment order for the final balance has been reviewed or, if so desired, 
summons to file opposition under tax proceedings. 
Through recognition of the right before the holder by the party against 
which the right may be exercised. 
The request for payment in instalments, as it involves acknowledgement of 
the debt. 
SUSP Article 49 General Tax Law 
Payment in legally authorised instalments. 
As long as there is no definitive or final decision, in cases of claims, 
contestations, appeals or objections, when the competent authority decides that collection of the debt should be suspended.  Articles 50(1) 112 to 117, 128, Procedural Code of the Administrative 
Courts (CPTA). 
Notification given to the administrative authority of the submission of an 
application for suspension of the administrative act, filed under a protective order, prevents it from commencing or continuing enforcement. 
The posting of a bond when the ca se involves only payment of an 
uncontested amount. 
The granting of the protective order filed for this purpose or the suspension 
of the effects of the decision as a result of posting of a bond therefore suspends recovery, until the final decision has been delivered in the main proceeding. 
RO  
 
EN 101   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
INTERR  Articles 132 and 133 Government Ordinance No  92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 
In addition to Article 13 and Articl e 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription.  
(Recognising the right whose action is limited, made by the person in whose benefit the limitation runs; submitting a sue or ar bitration petition, even if it was submitted to a law court or arbitration body that does not have competence; act 
for the initiation of the enforcement procedure.) 
When the debtor, before or during the initi ation of the forced execution procedure, makes a voluntary payment of the obligation  provided for in the writ of exec ution or when the debtor recognizes the debt in any other manner; when, 
during the forced execution procedure, a forced execution act is concluded. 
SUSP Articles 132 and 133 Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code  
For fiscal debts: 
In addition to Article 13 and Articl e 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription  
(As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; during the period in which the creditor or the debto r is part of the Romanian Army Forces, and they are at 
war; until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursu ant to a contract for transportation or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, but not later 
than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculate d as of the date the claim is registered)  
During the validity period of the facility granted according to the law; as long as the debtor removes his incomes and goods fr om forced execution.  
SI  
INTERR  Article 126(2) Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 
In cases where the sanction is not legally enforceable. If the body responsible for enforcing the sanction takes any action wit h a view to enforcing the sanction. 
Any official action taken by the tax authority for the pu rposes of enforcement of which the debtor is informed.  
SUSP Article 153 General Administra tive Procedures Act (ZUP) 
If the other party dies; if the other party loses its legal capacity, but has no 
authorised representative for the proceedings and no temporary representative is appointed; if the lega l representative dies or loses legal 
capacity, but the party concerned has no authorised representative and no temporary representative is appointed; if a declaration of bankruptcy has had 
legal implications for the party concerned; if a body decides that it cannot   
 
EN 102   EN 2.3.3. What instances of interruption and su spension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period fo r implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 
Please indicate also whether your national law makes a diff erence between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 
Member 
State For traditional resources, in pa rticular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  For EAGF, in particular for pr ocedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  
resolve a preliminary question or that it cannot resolve it according to the 
law. 
SK  
INTERR     
SUSP    
FI  
INTERR     
SUSP    
SE  
INTERR    Paragraph 5 Prescription Act (1981:130) 
The prescription is interrupted by the debtor undertaking to pay, paying 
interest or acknowledging the demand in another way to the creditor, the 
creditor receiving a written demand or a reminder of the demand, the 
creditor taking legal action or citing the claim on the debtor in a Court or corresponding institution. 
SUSP    
UK  
INTERR     
SUSP    
 
 
EN 103   EN 3. MANAGEMENT VERIFICATIONS IN RESPECT OF THE EUROPEAN REGIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT FUND10 
The Court of Auditors has so far given only a partially positive statement of assurance on 
payments from the European Union’s budget, poi nting out that the main  problem lies in the 
area where Member States are primarily respon sible for ensuring financial control of EU 
expenditure.  
Better knowledge of the natu re of irregularities, their causes and the measures 
Member States take on detection coul d contribute towards obtaining a positive 
statement of assurance. Therefore, this second specific part of  the questionnaire is 
designed to gather inform ation covering this field. 
To limit the extent of the ques tionnaire, it focuses only on the ar ea of Structural funds and, 
within this area, on the European Regiona l Development Fund (ERDF). The Commission 
already has information on second-level checks (e.g. through the annual reports required by 
Article 13 of Regulation 438/2001), and therefore th e questions in this section are confined 
only to the management verifications (so called “f irst-level checks”) in the area of ERDF i.e. 
the management verifications under Ar ticle 4 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001. 
Article 4 requires Member States ’ management and control system s to include procedures to 
verify the delivery of the products and services  co-financed and the r eality of expenditure 
claimed and to ensure compliance with the te rms of the relevant Co mmission Decision (under 
Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/199911) and with applicable national and Community 
rules on, in particular, the eligibility of expe nditure, public procurement, State aid, protection 
of the environment and equality of opportunity.  These management verifications are the 
normal day-to-day controls made by management within an organisation to ensure that the 
processes for which it is respons ible are being properly carried out. Such controls carried out 
systematically and effectively are the ma in procedure for preventing and detecting 
irregularities before certifica tion of expenditure to the Commissi on. The results can  be used as 
a basis for the risk analysis performed by the audit services  that carry out second level 
controls on the national manage ment and control systems. 
Member States are asked to describe their mana gement and control systems as they were set 
up at the end of 2007. When it comes to the repor ting about statistical da ta, the questionnaire 
is limited only to the year 2005, as the Member States should by now ha ve all the necessary 
data pertaining to that year. Bulgaria and Romania which at that time were not yet the beneficiaries of ERDF are asked to answer a ll the questions in this section, which do not 
require numerical data and in this way describe  the present situation in the field concerned. 
                                                
 
10 This information coming from Member States has not  been cross-checked with  data available in the 
Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy at  the date of publication of the present Report.  
11 OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1–42 
 
EN 104   EN 3.1. Guidelines for manage ment verifications 
The Commission (Directorate-Ge neral for Regional Policy) sent the Member States 
guidelines on the application of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 (doc. 
of 3 June 2006 entitled “Working document concerning good practic e in relation to 
management verifications to be carried out by Member States on projects co-financed by the 
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund”). Have these guidelines been sent to all the managing authorities (to be understood as covering also intermediate bodies where the task of 
management verifications has b een entrusted to one or more intermediate bodies) of all 
programmes in your Member State? If so, were they sent in thei r original form or did you use 
them to draw up or update national guidelines? Pl ease provide a list  of the managing 
authorities for each category. 
3.1. Guidelines for management verifications  
Member 
State Commission guidelines 
sent to managing authorities  in their original 
form  Guidelines sent to 
managing authorities in the form of national guidelines drawn up or updated on the basis of the Commission guidelines  Guidelines not sent to 
managing authorities  
(or no information in 
the answer to the questionnaire) 
BE Flemish Region Walloon Region German speaking 
Community 
(No information 
concerning Brussels-Capital Region). 
CZ Ministry for Regional 
Development (but not sent to 
entities in charge of grant schemes). Operational Programme 
of Rural Development 
and Multifunctional Agriculture. 
In some cases also 
Ministry for Regional Development.  
DK Agency for Enterprise and 
Construction MA.  (No information 
concerning other MA). 
DE X   
EE X (Ministry of Finance). 
Guidelines available at   
 
EN 105   EN 3.1. Guidelines for management verifications  
Member 
State Commission guidelines 
sent to managing authorities  in their original 
form  Guidelines sent to 
managing authorities in the form of national guidelines drawn up or updated on the basis of the Commission guidelines  Guidelines not sent to 
managing authorities  
(or no information in 
the answer to the questionnaire) 
www.sturktuurifondid.ee 
IE X X12  
EL X (some MAs) X13 (other MAs)  
ES X (all MAs) X (all MAs)  
FR X14   
IT Ministry for Economic 
Development, MA NOP Technical support and system actions; Ministry for Infrastructure, MAs for Transport and Urban II; Trento SF department, MA of Valle d’Aosta.  Ministry for Economic 
Development, Directorate-General for the Coordination of Incentives for Companies. Abruzzo MAs; Veneto MAs. 
(No information 
concerning other MAs). 
CY Planning bureau (MA) Ministry of the interior 
(IB)  
LV X   
LT  X15  
                                                 
12 Series of Checklists developed in early 2007 designed to ensure consistency and provide guidance and 
to improve documentation of Article 4 checks . Checklists sent to all Managing Authorities 
13 Revised guidelines for audits by managing auth orities under Art. [4] Reg. 438/2001, ref. no. 
4574/EYS570/ 31.01.2007, amending and supplementing guidelines for audits by managing authorities under Art. 4 Reg. 438/2001, ref. no. 13985/EYS 28 56/ 14.04.2005. Notified to all managing authorities 
of operational programmes under the 3rd CSF. 
14 Additionally, very precise national instructions have been sent to all the managing authorities without 
exception on the application of Article 4 of Regula tion (EC) No 438/2001 in respect of all French 
regional and national programmes. 
15 The procedure for carrying out on-the-spot checks pursuant Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 438/2001 is laid down in the Administrative and Financial Rules governing measures contained in 
Lithuania's 2004–2006 single programming document and projects financed under these measures, 
approved under Minster of Finance Order No 1K-033 of 28 January 2004 (Official Gazette 2004, No 
 
EN 106   EN 3.1. Guidelines for management verifications  
Member 
State Commission guidelines 
sent to managing authorities  in their original 
form  Guidelines sent to 
managing authorities in the form of national guidelines drawn up or updated on the basis of the Commission guidelines  Guidelines not sent to 
managing authorities  
(or no information in 
the answer to the questionnaire) 
LU X X No information. 
HU The guidelines are published 
in their original form on the homepage 
http://www2.pm.gov.hu/ 
web/home.nsf/portalarticles 
/5406CAEA6DE651BFC12571 
BE0034301C?OpenDocument     
MT X X  
NL X (all MAs) X (All MAs)  
AT X (all MAs) X16  
PL  IROP, IZ IROP17.  
PT   PONORTE, POLVT, 
PRODESA, POATQA and PICURBANI PORT. No information concerning other MAs. 
RO  X  
SI X X18  
SK MA Productive Sector OP 
and MA Competitiveness and Economic Growth OP. Intermediate bodies 
Competitiveness and Economic Growth OP. Ministry of 
Construction and Regional development: sent its own guidelines 
                                                                                                                                                         
19-599; 2005, No 21-667The Handbook on the Managing Authority's Working Procedures has been 
amended. 
16 Working documents are made available to all managing authorities in the ÖROK (Austrian Regional 
Planning Conference) working party. 
17 The updated document “IZ IROP Guidelines on on-the-spot Monitoring/Check Visits Issued Pursuant 
to Article 4 of Commission Regulation 438/2001” took into account EC guidelines. 
18 On the basis of the guidelines, the Managing Authority's Instructions for Structural Fund Management 
and Control Systems were updated in March 2007 and sent to all ministries acting as intermediate 
bodies. 
 
EN 107   EN 3.1. Guidelines for management verifications  
Member 
State Commission guidelines 
sent to managing authorities  in their original 
form  Guidelines sent to 
managing authorities in the form of national guidelines drawn up or updated on the basis of the Commission guidelines  Guidelines not sent to 
managing authorities  
(or no information in 
the answer to the questionnaire) 
(guidelines 2004 and 2005). 
FI  X  
SE X   
UK England19 Wales, Northern Ireland20Scotland21 
 
                                                 
19 Guidelines sent to Government offices in their original form as part of, and an updated, national 
guidance GN2.6 of November 2006. 
20 Northern Ireland: Guidelines have not been sent in th eir original form, they had to be amended to reflect 
local requirements. Guidance Note  on requirements and procedures for completing Article 4 checks – 
with detailed checklists - has been sent. 
21 As a monitoring authority (MA), the Scottish Government developed own guidelines (no information 
on the date of the document, nor the content). 
 
EN 108   EN 3.2. Actual conduct of verifications under Ar ticle 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 438/2001 and the authorities conducting them 
3.2.1.  Article 4 verifications are essentially th e responsibility of the managing authority,22 
which has the possibility of delega ting tasks to intermediate bodies.23 Under certain 
conditions some or all aspects of the verificatio ns may also be outsourced to external firms.  
Article 4 verifications compri se two key components, namely desk-based checks and on-the-
spot checks. 
3.2.1.1. As regards desk-based checks, please i ndicate whether all documents relating to 
projects and expenditure claims are always subject to in-depth desk-based checks at the 
various stages of project implementation.24 
3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No)  
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/compliance 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility  
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
r
equirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered  
BE Yes25    GSC
26 
FDE
27 
BC28 GSC 
BC BC GSC  GS
C 
BC GS
C 
BC BC BC 100% 
CZ Yes  
(except 
Ministr
y of 
Agricult MT29 ME30 ME 
MT 
MIT31 MIT 
MRD 
(Inter
reg)  ME 
MT     M T  
MI
T 13.84% 
(MA) 
95-
100% 
                                                 
22 For the definition of managing authorities, see Artic le 9 (n) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. 
23 Intermediate bodies are all public or private bodies or services acting under the responsibility of 
managing (or paying) authorities or performing tasks on their behalf in relation to final beneficiaries or the bodies or firms carrying out actual operations.
 
24 In-depth desk-based checks would include examinati on of the claim itself an d the relevant supporting 
documentation, such as invoices, delivery notes, ba nk statements, engineers' certificates, progress 
reports and timesheets. It would in clude, as a minimum, a list and de scription of the invoices which 
support the claim, and details of contracts awarded. 
25 Except a Flemish Institute for the Promotion of Scie ntific and Technical Research in Industry (IWT). 
26 German speaking Community.. 
27 Federal Department for the Economy. 
28 Brussels-Capital Region. 
 
EN 109   EN 3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No)  
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/compliance 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility  
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
r
equirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered  
ure). MRD
32 (other 
ministri
es) 
DK33 No   X      X    - 
DE34 Yes             1 0 0 %  
EE Yes X X X X   X X X X X X 100% 
IE Yes    X  X       100% 
EL Yes X   X X  X      100% 
ES Yes    X    X X X X X - 
FR Yes    X X  X    X X - 
IT Yes    X   X      100% 
(most 
bodies) 
50% 
(Piedmo
nt) 
14% 
(Basilic
ata) 
CY Yes    X   X X X X X X 100% 
LV Yes X X  X   X  X X X X 100% 
LT Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X 100% 
LU Yes    X  X       100% 
                                                                                                                                                         
29 Ministry of Transport. 
30 Ministry of Environment. 
31 Ministry of Industry and Trade. 
32 Ministry of Regional Development. 
33 For Denmark, information is available only for Objective 2 programmes. 
34 Only three Land ministries supplied the data for th is table. Germany indicated that « all statutory 
provisions are scrutinised », but did not give de tailed information on subjects matter of checks. 
 
EN 110   EN 3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No)  
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/compliance 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility  
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
r
equirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered  
HU Yes35             1 0 0 %  
MT Yes    X  X     X  100% 
NL Yes X X X X X  X X X X X X 100%36 
AT Yes    X    X X X X  100% 
PL Yes IROP IROP 
SOP 
ECG IROP IROP 
OP-
TA37 
SOP 
ECG IROP IR
OP 
SO
P 
EC
G IROP IR
OP 
SO
PT IR
OP 
SO
PT IR
OP 
SO
PT IR
OP 
SO
PT IR
OP 100% 
(except 
SOPT 
3.29%) 
PT  Yes  X  X       X X 100% 
(most 
MAs) 
20%, 
52% 
and 
74.85% 
(3 MAs) 
RO Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X - 
SI Yes    X    X X X X X - 
SK Yes X X  X  X X X X X X  94-
100% 
(except: 
3.62% 
PSOP, 
1% 
                                                 
35 Hungary indicated that the check is « complete »,  but did not give detailed information on subjects 
matter of checks. 
36 Except Municipality of Maastricht and Ministry of Internal affairs. 
37 OP Technical assistance. 
 
EN 111   EN 3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No)  
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/compliance 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility  
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
r
equirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered  
Interreg
) 
FI Yes38 X X  X X X X  X X X  100% 
SE Yes39             1 0 0 %  
UK Yes: 
England 
(E)40, 
Norther
n 
Ireland 
(NI)41 
No: 
Wales 
(W)42, 
Scotlan
d43.  W  E, NI   E, NI    NI  100% 
(E, NI) 
 
                                                 
38 Finnish authorities also verify that the expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation 
of the project, the compliance with employment law, VAT expenditures.  
39 No indication of subject matter of checks.  
40 Transactional chacklist of invoices and progress repo rt are made with each claim, and eligibility of 
invoices. 
41 Eligibility invoices, procurement, payroll and bank statements. 
42 All claims are checked for accu racy, compliance with approved expenditure categories/activity, 
progress against monitoring targets and special conditions of grants. 
43 In Scotland, sampling is used as basis for checks which covers all aspects of the expenditure.  
 
EN 112   EN 3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No) 
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/Compliance 
Compliance with 
programm e conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered 
BE Yes    GSC 
FDE 
BC GSC 
BC BC GSC  GS
C 
BC GSC 
BC BC BC - 
CZ Yes  
(except 
MT)    MF44 
MIT 
MRD ME 
MIT 
MRD 
(Inter
reg)      M I
T  5% (MIT) 
35% (ME) 
100% 
(ME, 
MRD) 
DK Yes X X X X  X X X X X X X - 
DE45 Yes             1 0 0 %  
EE Yes X X X X   X X X X X X 100% 
IE Yes    X  X X     X 100% 
EL Yes X   X X  X      100% 
ES Not 
applica
ble             -  
FR Yes    X X  X    X X - 
IT Yes    X X  X    X X 100% 
(most 
bodies) 
14% 
(Basilicata
) 
                                                 
44 Ministry of Finance. 
45 Only three Land ministries supplied the data for this table. Germany indicated that « all statutory 
provisions are scrutinised », but did not give de tailed information on subjects matter of checks. 
 
EN 113   EN 3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No) 
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/Compliance 
Compliance with 
programm e conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered 
CY Yes    X   X X X X X X 100% 
LV Yes X X  X X  X  X X X X 100% 
LT Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X 100% 
LU Not 
applica
ble46              
HU47 Yes             1 0 0 %  
MT Not 
applica
ble48             -  
NL Yes X X X X X  X X X X X X 100% 
AT Yes    X    X X X X  100% 
PL Yes49 IROP IROP 
SOP-
ECG IR
OP IROP 
OP-
TA50 
SOP-
ECG IROP IR
OP 
SO
P-
EC
G IROP IR
OP IROP
 IROP  IROP
 IR
OP 100% 
PT  Yes  X  X       X X 100% 
(most 
                                                 
46 All projects are verified 100% du ring the process of implementati on. No control takes place at the 
closure of the project.  
47 Hungary indicated that the check is « complete »,  but did not give detailed information on subjects 
matter of checks. 
48 No project was finalised in 2005 for Malta. 
49 As an exception, two managing authorities state that  the expenses are verified in the course of the 
projects. The final report verifies the conformity of the project’s results compar ed to the objectives 
stipulated in the candidacy. 
50 OP Technical assistance. 
 
EN 114   EN 3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No) 
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/Compliance 
Compliance with 
programm e conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered 
MAs) 
20%, 52% 
and 
74.85% (3 
MAs) 
RO Yes X X X X X X X X X X X X - 
SI Yes    X          -  
SK Yes X X  X X X X X X X X  94-100% 
(except: 
0.64% 
MA SOP, 
0% 
Interreg) 
FI51 Yes X X  X X X X X X X X X 100% 
SE52 Yes             1 0 0 %  
UK Yes 
(Englan
d (E)53, 
Norther
n 
Ireland 
(NI)54) 
No 
(Wales,  E            1 0 0 %  ( E ,  
NI) 
                                                 
51 Finnish authorities also verify that the monitoring information is correct, the project has attained its 
objectives and the on-the-spot verification has been appropriately performed and documented.  
52 No indication of subject matter of checks.  
53 In England, independent audit certificate is required under a threshold. If below the threshold, the final 
claim is checked by GO to ensure compliance with the grant offer.  
54 In compliance with agreed Closur e guidance and checklist (the answ er to the questionnaire did not 
contain information on subject matter of checks).  
 
EN 115   EN 3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  
In-depth desk-based checks of 
all projects during project 
implementation (Yes/No) 
Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 
Expenditure related to an 
approved 
project/Compliance 
Compliance with 
programm e conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of products/ 
services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of supporting 
documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental rules Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered 
Scotlan
d55). 
                                                                                                                                                         
55 In Scotland, sampling is used as basis for checks which covers all aspects of the expenditure.  
 
EN 116   EN 3.2.1.2. a) As regards on-the-spot checks, please provide the total number of checks carried 
out at the various stages of project implemen tation and specify which authorities carried 
them out.  
Verification during project implementation  Verification on cl osure of the project  Member State No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
managing 
authority No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
intermedi
ate body No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
outsourcin
g Percentage 
of expenditure 
for 2005 
covered No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
managing 
authority No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
intermedi
ate body No. of 
on-the-spot 
checks 
by outsour
cing Percentage 
of expenditure 
for 2005 
covered 
BE 39556 0 2 3.14% (GC) 368 6 0 - 
CZ 49 1802 37 100% (MT) 
97% (MIT) 
7% (MA) 
 88 635 0 5% (MIT) 
100% (MA) 
 
DK 0 0 0 0 0 0 All 
projects 100% 
DE 557 
Figures 
are not 
complete. 
See point 
3.3.1. - - 3.33% 
(Hamburg) 
38% 
(Thuringia)  2858  0.71% 
(Hamburg) 
12% 
(Thuringia) 
26% 
(Rhineland 
Palatinate) 
EE59 0 532 1 - 0 532 1 - 
IE 97 118860 0 5%-100%61 962 - - - 
EL63 2667 0 1454 30.89 2667 0 1454 30.89 
ES 41 273  83.34% N/a N/a N/a N/a 
FR 392 per programme64 
                                                 
56 For the Ministry of the Walloon Region, in relation 382 on-the-spot checks were conducted by the 
competent functional administrative units in these programme monitoring data base (not possible to 
give details concerning the stages of project implementation.  
57 5 checks carried out by the authorities of Hamburg. It comprises also intermediate bodies or outsourced 
checks. 
58 Rhineland Palatinate. 
59 It is not possible to distinguish upon completion of the checks or during implementation. The case 
number 532 consists of checks which were made from 2004 to 30.6.2007. 
60 MA have advised that this figure is correct due to there being many small projects in the Peace II OP. 
61 22%(BMW), 15% (S&E), 10%(Urban ), 5% (Peace II), 71% (Technical  Assistance), ESIOP: 100%. 
62 In most of MAs, data are not available yet. MAs ha ve advised that all projects are subject to the same 
degree of scrutiny by the MAs and the Implementing Bodies. No particular distinction is made between interim and final claims at a project level. 
63 Not possible to identify which verifications were conducted during implementation and which on 
closure. 
64 On an average basis, 392 potentially verifiable operations were carried out per programme for 2005, 
given that between January 2000 and 31 Decembe r 2005 the average number of operations per 
 
EN 117   EN 3.2.1.2. a) As regards on-the-spot checks, please provide the total number of checks carried 
out at the various stages of project implemen tation and specify which authorities carried 
them out.  
Verification during project implementation  Verification on cl osure of the project  Member State No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
managing 
authority No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
intermedi
ate body No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
outsourcin
g Percentage 
of expenditure 
for 2005 
covered No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
managing 
authority No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
intermedi
ate body No. of 
on-the-spot 
checks 
by outsour
cing Percentage 
of expenditure 
for 2005 
covered 
IT 482 101 117 100% (most 
bodies) 
2.16% - 
26% (other 
bodies65) 1308 2481 417 100% (most 
bodies) 
5.5%-15% 
(other 
bodies66) 
CY 0 1 - 100% N/a N/a N/a N/a 
LV 0 53 9 15% 0 6 3 4.27% 
LT 5 183 0 - - - - - 
LU 4667 - - 200% - - - - 
HU 31 3396 - - 13 730 - - 
MT 7 -68 - -69 - - - - 
NL -70 - - - - - - 100% 
AT71 1 (during 
project 
implement
ation + closure) 685 
(during 
project 
implementation + 
closure) 0 No data for 
on-the-spot 
checks
72. 1 (during 
project 
implement
ation + closure) 685 
(during 
project 
implementation + 
closure)  No data for 
on-the-spot 
checks. 
                                                                                                                                                         
programme was 2 355, with verification during project implementation for the most important ones, or 
upon closure before payment of the balance of the ERDF contribution. The on-the-spot checks are systematically followed with an inspection report att ached to the "service deliver ed" control certificate. 
65 26% (Liguria), 14% (Basilicata), 10% (Sicily), 4.92% (Calabria), 3% (Piedmont, Lombardy), 2.16% 
(Veneto). 
66 26% (Liguria), 23.27% (Veneto), 30% (Abruzzo), 10% (Sicily, Marche), 8.3% (Ministry of education), 
7% (Lombardy), 5.5% (Piedmont)), 14% (Basilicata), 10% (Sicily), 4.92% (Calabria), 3% (Piedmont, 
Lombardy), 2.16% (Veneto). 
67 Checks following payment requests. 
68 N o intermediate body for ERDF in Malta.  
69 In 2005, the Article 4 check template did not indicate the expenditure checked during the verification 
check. Following the EU Commission’s ERDF audit, the template was adjusted to include the table 
indicating the expenditure checked. 
70 Ministry of internal affair s : each project checked once. 
71 Statistics concerns year 2006. Under Austria's management and control system intermediate bodies are 
responsible for the implementation of projects and verifications pursuant to Article 4 of Regulation 
 
EN 118   EN 3.2.1.2. a) As regards on-the-spot checks, please provide the total number of checks carried 
out at the various stages of project implemen tation and specify which authorities carried 
them out.  
Verification during project implementation  Verification on cl osure of the project  Member State No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
managing 
authority No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
intermedi
ate body No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
outsourcin
g Percentage 
of expenditure 
for 2005 
covered No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
managing 
authority No. of on-
the-spot checks by 
intermedi
ate body No. of 
on-the-spot 
checks 
by outsour
cing Percentage 
of expenditure 
for 2005 
covered 
PL 207 191773 0 100% 
(IROP) 
2% (OP TA) 6 207674 0 100% 
(IROP) 
19% (SOP 
ECG) 
PT  1805 19 94 Over 51% 
(for more 
then half of 
MA) 784 88 0 Over 96% 
(for more 
then half of 
MA) 
SI 1 2575 0 - 9 0 0 - 
SK 83 165 0 0.07% to 
100%76 10 9 0 0.09% to 
100%77 
FI - 1390 + 15 
in Åland - 8 projects 
out of 12 
were visited 
(Åland). - - - 82% for 
Åland 
Objective 2 
programme 
2000-2006. 
SE78 - - - - - - - - 
UK 368879 1754 (NI) 8 (NI) 10% for 
England80 100 (W) - - 32.6% for 
England 
                                                                                                                                                         
(EC) No 438/2001. Furthermore, on-the-spot checks are usually carried out before the completion of 
projects and disbursement of funds. It is impossible to provide a breakdown for the project 
implementation and project closure phases as no data exist. 
72 Total of 113% of expenditure declared checked (desk check + on the spot). Duplication consequently 
unavoidable. 
73 In total the intermediate bodies carried out in 2005 1664 c ontrols at the project implem entation sites for IROP. On 
the basis of data held by MA IROP for 2005 it is not po ssible to establish how many controls were carried out 
during project implementation, and how many were completed.  
74 See footnote above concerning IROP 
75 25 checks were made in 2005, 89 in 2006 and 261 in 2007. 
76 3.36% Ministry of Economy, 100% Environment Ministry, 92% CPD 2, 96% BIOP, 0.07% Interreg.  
77 0.09% Ministry of Economy, 100% Environment Ministry, 92% CPD 2.  
78 No data available.  
79 3469 checks carried out by England GOs, some with the help of independent accountants; 119 checks 
carried out by Northern Ireland managing authorities, 100 by Wales managing authorities. No data available for Scotland. 
80 In England, as agreed by the Eu ropean Commission, 30% of the total ex penditure declared is subject to 
Article 4 checks. No data available for Northern Irela nd and Scotland. For Wales, on the spot visits are 
not based on percentage of eligible expenditure, WEFO agreed with the Commission to visit 50% of 
approved projects in every calendar year from  2006 until the end of the programme period. 
 
EN 119   EN 3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks.  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  Stage of the project: 
during project 
implementation/at 
the closure of the project 
Expenditure 
related to an approved project/Complianc
e 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of 
products/services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of 
supporting documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental 
rules 
Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public 
procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
During pr. impl.  FR82 GC 
FR GC 
FR FR GC GC GC GC GC GC BE81 
At the closure   GC 
FR GC  GC GC GC 
FR GC 
FR GC 
FR GC 
FR 
During pr. impl.  MT 
MIT MF, MT, 
MIT MIT    MF MF MF 
MT MF 
MT 
MIT CZ 
At the closure  MIT MF 
MIT MIT    MF MF MF MF 
MIT 
During pr. impl.            DK At the closure X         X  
During pr. impl.            DE83 At the closure            
During pr. impl. X   X X X  X X X X EE At the closure X  X X X X  X X X X 
During pr. impl.   X  X       IE 
At the closure   X  X X      
                                                 
81 Subject matter of checks not listed in the answer to the questionnaire for Walloon Region. 
82 Flemish Region.  
83 Subject matter of checks not listed in the German answer to the questionnaire (the answer mentions “all statutory provisions”) . 
 
EN 120   EN 3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks.  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  Stage of the project: 
during project 
implementation/at 
the closure of the project 
Expenditure 
related to an approved project/Complianc
e 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of 
products/services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of 
supporting documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental 
rules 
Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public 
procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
During pr. impl.    X   X   X X EL84 At the closure    X   X   X X 
During pr. impl.            ES At the closure            
During pr. impl.    X         FR At the closure    X         
During pr. impl.   X    X X X X X IT At the closure  X         X 
During pr. impl.   X    X X X X X CY At the closure            
During pr. impl. X X X X  X  X X X X LV At the closure X X X X X X  X X X X 
During pr. impl. X X X X X X X X X X X LT At the closure X X X X X X X X X X X 
During pr. impl.   X X X     X  LU At the closure            
During pr. impl.            HU85 At the closure            
MTDuring pr. impl.   X  X X      
                                                 
84 Not possible to identify which verifications were conducted during implementation and which on closure. 
85 Hungary indicated that the check is « complete », but di d not give detailed information on subjects matter of checks. 
 
EN 121   EN 3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks.  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  Stage of the project: 
during project 
implementation/at 
the closure of the project 
Expenditure 
related to an approved project/Complianc
e 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of 
products/services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of 
supporting documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental 
rules 
Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public 
procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
At the closure            
During pr. impl.   X          NL At the closure   X          
During pr. impl.   X X        AT At the closure   X X        
During pr. impl. IROP  IROP 
OP -TA IROP 
SOP-
ECG SOP-
ECG SOP-ECG SOPT SOPT SOPT SOPT 
SOP-
ECG SOPT PL 
At the closure IROP  IROP IROP 
SOP-
ECG SOP-
ECG SOP-ECG SOPT SOPT SOPT SOPT 
SOP-
ECG SOPT 
During pr. impl.    X  X     X PT86 At the closure    X  X      
During pr. impl. X  X X   X X X X X SI 
At the closure87            
During pr. impl. X  X X X      X SK At the closure X  X X X X    X X 
FI88 During pr. impl. X  X X X X      
                                                 
86 Some managing authorities did not submit st atistical data regarding the on-the-spot checks, because the 2005 figures were not recorded. 
87 No data available. 
88 No data available, except Åland. 
 
EN 122   EN 3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks.  
Subject matter of checks  Member State  Stage of the project: 
during project 
implementation/at 
the closure of the project 
Expenditure 
related to an approved project/Complianc
e 
Compliance with 
programme conditions 
Eligibility 
Delivery of 
products/services co-financed 
Accounting checks 
Adequacy of 
supporting documents 
State aid rules 
Environmental 
rules 
Equal opportunity 
requirements 
Public 
procurement rules 
Publicity rules 
At the closure X  X X X X      
During pr. impl.      X      SE At the closure      X      
During pr. impl.    X  X X X X X X UK At the closure89            
                                                 
89 No data available. 
 
EN 123   EN 3.2.1.3. Are records of checks performed and irregul arities detected in projects kept in 
the programme monitoring database? (Yes/No)  
BE Yes (except Brussels-Capital). 
CZ Yes. 
DK Yes. Information only on Objective 2 programmes. Other programmes: no 
information.  
DE Yes. 
EE Yes. 
IE Yes. 
EL Yes. 
ES Yes. 
FR Yes. 
IT Yes:  Valle d’Aosta RA, Ministry for Ec onomic Development, Basilicata RA, 
Sicily RA, Calabria RA, Ministry fo r Infrastructure, Emilia Romagna RA, 
Piedmont RA, Ministry of the Interior, Abruzzi RA, Lombardy RA, Ministry of 
Education, Marche RA, Autonomous  Province of Trento, Veneto RA90. 
No: Campania RA, Tuscany RA, Ministry fo r Universities and Research, Veneto 
RA91, Lazio RA, Liguria RA, Puglia RA. 
CY Yes. 
LV Yes. 
LT Yes. 
LU Yes. 
HU Yes. 
MT Yes. 
NL Yes. 
AT Yes92 
                                                 
90 SPD Objective 2 2000/2006 and Interreg III Italy-Slovenia 
91 Interreg III Italy-Austria 
 
EN 124   EN 3.2.1.3. Are records of checks performed and irregul arities detected in projects kept in 
the programme monitoring database? (Yes/No)  
PL Yes:  IROP93, SOPT, OP – Technica l Assistance, SOP ECG 
No: IROP94, INTERREG  
PT Yes. Certain managing authorities mentioned there is a record of all irregularities 
detected in the management control sy stem. However, there is no systematic 
record in computer applica tions of all the checks made. 
SI No. 
SK Yes (ITMS). 
FI Yes95 (except Åland).  
SE Yes. Summaries are available at th e administrative authorities.  
UK Northern Ireland, Wales and England:  Yes.  
Scotland: No. 
                                                                                                                                                         
92 Verification reports were drawn up. In the case of recoveries information recorded in ERDF monitoring 
system/payment agency system. 
93 The SIMIK system registers management and control systems of controls and irregularities relating to reporting to 
the EC.  
94 The SIMIK system does not register the control of projec ts carried out under controls pursuant to Article 4 of 
Regulation 438/2001. In the programme implementation repor ts the Intermediate and Implementing Institutions 
inform the Managing Authority about the number of contro ls carried out. Fu rthermore, MA IROP verifies and 
approves Intermediate Inst itution control plans.  
95 Yes, but the Fimos2000 monitoring system's information content is not in a standard form but has been 
based on an open text field. Therefore, a paying authority guideline (SM-2005-02936/Ha-63) has been 
issued, according to which the Ministries and Regional Councils using ERDF funds have to report to 
the paying authority recorded information on all verifications that gave rise to comments. The 
information can be reported either as copies of the original forms or the monitoring system, provided 
that the information has been comp rehensively recorded therein (code/ name of the project, date of the 
verification, name of the verifier, results of the verification and measures implemented in respect of irregularities). If the above information has been record ed in or transferred to Fimos, separate reporting 
to the paying authority is not necessary. Also th e follow-up measures, if any, are reported. The 
information is reported to the paying authority twice a year. 
 
EN 125   EN 3.2.2.  If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method is used to determine what operati ons will be subject to such checks? Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling?  
BE German speaking community: random principle  (7.14% of the projects), and risk 
analysis  based on previous reporting, prev ious errors or irregularities. 
Walloon Region: in general, 100% of f iles are checked, but when a sampling 
method is used, it is a random sampling method  (some Directorate Generald); or 
random principle combined with risk analysis . Directorate General Natural 
Resources and Environment: checks when problem detected  by the 
Accompaniment Committee. 
CZ When 100% is not checked, the sampling method used is a combination of 
analysis and representative sampling , or a risk analysis based sampling . Risk 
analysis is related to, in particular, the amount of the subsidy for a project, number 
of stages, rating determined in selecting a project, number of employees and so on. 
MRD: systematic checks of all pr ojects up to a defined amount , risk analysis 
for the other projects. 
DK A model with weighted risk and significance  is used. 
EE When 100% is not checked, samples based on a risk-assessment . 
IE BMW, S&E, Urban: Risk Analysis- Based.  
PSOP, Peace II, Tech. Asst., ESIOP: Representative Sampling.  
EL The sampling method used is multi-stage, layered sampling to determine 
representative sample . 
 
EN 126   EN 3.2.2.  If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method is used to determine what operati ons will be subject to such checks? Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling?  
ES Risk analysis  and cover of all executive bodies  at the end of the period. 
FR There are two possibilities: 
1) Based on representative sampling  of operations and beneficiaries, 
incorporating the following risk criteria: amount  of the operation and of the 
grant; type of operation ; status of beneficiaries . 
2) Systematic inspection before payment of the balance of the ERDF contribution. 
In France, many provisions on the allocation of public funds enta il compulsory on-
the-spot inspections (approval of tourism services, for example). 
There is also a systematic  requirement for the commissioning of certain types of 
projects  to be inspected on the spot by the competent State technical 
departments.96 
IT The most commonly used method used to determine which operations have to be 
checked is the “ representative sample ,” adjusted where necessary following 
risk assessment.  
CY Risk analysis. 
LV Checks are carried out on all beneficiaries. If the beneficiary implements more 
than one structural fund project, project risk assessment  is taken into account 
when establishing the set of projects to  be checked. All pr ojects assessed as 
presenting a high risk ar e included in the set. 
LT Implementing authorities perform scheduled  and unscheduled on-the-spot checks: 
1. Scheduled on-the-spot checks are performed in accordance with an annual 
schedule which is reviewed and renewed every 3 months in view of the 
progress made in implementing each project and any difficulties ascertained 
during implementation . The annual schedule of on-the-spot checks and its 
amendments are approved by the head of the implementing authority concerned or an authorised representative; 
2. An implementing authority must carry out an unscheduled on-the-spot check 
where suspicion has arisen that inform ation supplied by a project manager 
may be imprecise, incomplete or misleading . 
                                                 
96 Coverage of operations is assessed during system audits of the programmes by the CICC-Structural 
Funds (the Interministerial Commission for Coordination of Controls in respect of operations part-
financed by European Structural Funds) on the basis of two/three audits per period for the most 
important of them. 
 
EN 127   EN 3.2.2.  If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method is used to determine what operati ons will be subject to such checks? Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling?  
LU Checks are carried out on every project as a rule. 
HU Risk analysis  considering representativity  requirements. 
MT Malta performs on-the-spot checks up to 100%. 
NL The method varies from one management au thority to another. Some of them opt 
for a comprehensive check , while others make a sele ction on the ba sis of the 
risks  affecting the projects under examination. The programme accountants note 
that the management authorities of all programmes have established the sampling 
method. This method is appropriately a pplied, with the exception of two cities 
belonging to the Cities Programme. 
AT On-the-spot checks are carried out usually fo r 100% of projects, at the latest when 
the individual projects are completed.  
PL Most of managing authorities state that all projects are subject to on-the-spot 
check at least once during the project implementation. 
When this is not the case, sampling is done on the basis of risk analysis . Risk 
analysis can take into account for example the am ount of the subsidy, the 
information on the beneficiary, information about the suspicion of irregularity, etc. 
In some cases, projects exceeding a certain amount  are systematically subjects 
to check. Detailed risk assessment me thods have been communicated to the 
Commission.  
PT Most of the managing authorities state that  all projects are s ubject to on-the-spot 
checks. Authorities that conduct on-the-s pot checks on a sample of operations 
indicated 5 times the representative sample , 4 times the risk analysis  and once 
both methods . 
RO Both methods are used: risk analysis  and representative sampling . 
SI On-the-spot checks are carried out at leas t once during the impl ementation of each 
project before the final payment of funds. 
In the programme on Improving the enterp rise support framewor k, the choice of 
checks was made on the basis of representative sampling  (amount of the project, 
regional coverage). 
In on-the-spot checks of individua l projects, checks are made on a representative 
cross-section of a number of invoices  out of the total number of paid invoices 
submitted by the final recipient in request for payment. These must account for not 
less than 30% of the total eligible costs. 
In 2008  a sample will be checked again on the basis of risk analysis . 
 
EN 128   EN 3.2.2.  If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method is used to determine what operati ons will be subject to such checks? Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling?  
SK On the spot verification is carried out on a representative sampling  basis for the 
accepted requests for payment (administrative verification: 100%). 
The selection of samples of demand-based projects is based a risk analysis , or the 
combination of project risk analysis and representative selection.  
Risk analysis can take into account the phase of the project, and whether the demand-
based project was subjected to on-the-spot verifications, whether it was instigated through 
the discovery of failures during administrative verification of the payment request, or by 
the Paying Authority or the authorities re sponsible for implementing Article 10 of 
Commission Regulation 438/201, etc.  
FI The procedures used by the intermediate bodi es vary. They have been described in the 
management and control system. According to the managing authority guideline, at least 
40% of the projects and all projects with c onsiderable funding have to be verified. Risk 
analysis-based sampling  may be based on the characteristics of the project or the 
beneficiary. Some bodies use random sampling . 
Åland, INTERREG IIII A Skärgarden: The princi ple is that someone from the Secretariat 
visits each project at least once a year. 
Åland, Objective 21 programme 2000-2006: Random sampling . 
SE Both risk-based control  and representative sampling  investigations are used. 
UK For England , the sample is representative  of the types of activity  being funded 
through the programme, the types of delivery organisations  and the amount  of 
grant involved. An assessment of risk  is taken  into account , with the inclusion 
of those projects thought to be at higher risk of default.  All high risk rated projects 
are included in the sample . To ensure coverage of all project types, 10% of the 
sample is taken from the low risk  banded project ca tegory. The remaining 
balance is taken randomly from the medium risk projects. 
Wales, Northern Ireland  – no sampling (100% checks).  
Risk analyses  are used to select projects visited under Article 4 and 10 in  
Scotland . 
 
EN 129   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
BE Yes:  Flemish Region, German speaking 
Community. Brussels-Capital: Not 
applicable.  Risk analysis takes place on the basis of three pa rameters and results either in controls or no 
controls.  
– By means of a percentage  as well as categorisation into risk groups  on the basis 
of the increased financial volume ; simultaneous involvement in several EU-
funded measures  (danger of double funding); irregularities noticed  during 
previous checks (checking of  the corrective measures). 
CZ Yes (except for MA were checks are done 
on a basis of 100% sample).  Risk is expressed by the amount ; starting in 2008, it will be given a rating  (Ministry of 
Transport). 
The OPIE/MIT managing authority prevents the occurrence of the risk of early termination 
of subsidising a supported OPIE project by laying stress on the a pplicant’s rating in 
selecting a project similarly to the way banks ev aluate loan applicants. As regards OPIE, it 
has been proven that if a company applying for a subsidy has a rating (financial health test) 
above “+B”, the risk of an OPIE project expe riencing early termination within five years 
(according to Regulation No 1260/1999, Article 30(4b)) is eliminated significantly 
(Ministry of Industry and Trade). 
In ex-post checks (not made in 2005 yet) – risks are given a rating based on a project’s 
financial demands, either on a time basis (upon th e expiration of 2/3 – 3/3 of the obligation 
period, e.g., checks regarding EAGF/part of HR DP upon payment of a five-year amount are 
initiated after 2/3 of this period), or base d on 3 or more projects submitted by a single 
 
EN 130   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
applicant within a year (frequency is  risk). (Ministry of Agriculture). 
MRD: Interreg: Depends on the amount of subs idy from structural funds and the project 
period, subsidy beneficiary type and so on. 
JROP: Quantified risk (scale).  
DK Yes. (Objective 2 programmes)  The risk assessment is banded according to points assigned for assessed risk and on the 
basis of type of project (c omplexity), type of benefici ary and amount involved etc. 
DE Yes.  
EE 50 %  of implementers do. Various methods ar e used: e.g. risk expressed as a level: high, medium, low; 10% of 
projects checked , etc. 
IE Yes. Medium/High Risk 
EL Yes. According to no. 4574/ ΕΥS/570/31.01.2007 (Revised guidelines for audits by managing 
authorities under Art. 4 Reg. 438/2001), the risk is  expressed as an amount (project budget). 
This amount is determined/estimated by the programme managing authority in order to 
obtain reasonable assurance of the legality a nd regularity of declarations of expenditure 
submitted to the Commission. All projects wh ich overshoot the budget set as a limit by the 
managing authority are aud ited in their entirety.  
 
EN 131   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
ES Yes. A qualitative assessment is made. 
FR No. The risk is not an exclusive criterion. 
IT Yes:  
Valle d’Aosta RA, Ministry for Economic 
Development97, Basilicata RA, Sicily RA, 
Campania RA, Calabria RA, Ministry for Infrastructure, Piedmont RA, Lombardy RA, Liguria RA 
No: Ministry for Economic Development
98, 
Emilia Romagna RA, Ministry of the 
Interior, Abruzzi RA, Ministry for Universities and Res earch, Ministry of 
Education, Marche RA, Autonomous 
Province of Trento, Veneto RA
99, Lazio RA. As a rule, the risk is quantified on the basis of the following criteria: 
– the number of operations; 
– the amounts involved; 
– the type of intervention. 
When checks are planned and conducted account is taken of certain qualitative aspects (state of 
procedure) and quantitative aspects (financial progr ess) and the findings of any previous checks  
                                                 
97 Coverage of operations is assessed during system audits of the programmes by the CICC-Structural Funds (the Interministerial C ommission for Coordination of Controls in 
respect of operations part-financed by European Structural Funds) on the basis of two/three audits per period for the most impo rtant of them. 
98 Ministry of Economic Development (NOP and Technical assistance and systems measures). 
99 Veneto RA: Interreg III Italy-Slove nia and Interreg III Italy-Austria. 
 
EN 132   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
CY Yes. Given a rating  
LV Yes. A risk assessment is undertaken, taking into account the fo llowing criteria:  
- the amount of expenditure to be assi gned to a project or grant scheme;  
- the duration of the proj ect or grant scheme;  
- the complexity of the project or grant scheme  (number and scope of ac itivities, amount of 
procurement foreseen, planned administrative expenditure, partnershi p arrangements and 
number of partners, amount of construction wo rk envisaged (in the case of a construction 
project), confidence in the recipient – assessment of the recipient, his or  her reputation, prior 
co-operation).  
The risk is expressed in figures, taking into acc ount a quantitative asse ssment of each of the 
criteria mentioned. Depending on the outcome of the quantitative risk assessment the 
project is classified as a high-, medium- or low-risk project.  
The risk assessment is taken into account when  determining the set of projects, original 
supporting documents and amount of fixed assets to be checked. 
At least once a year the relevant project is re-e valuated and as a result the set of projects to 
 
EN 133   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
be checked is updated.  
LT Yes.  All authorities responsible fo r administering EU Structural Funds develop methods for 
identifying risks in accordance with their own internal procedures and use these methods as 
a basis when planning scheduled on-the-spot checks and carrying out unscheduled on-the-
spot project checks.  
LU No.  
HU Yes. Planning of a field-day covers  the following sub-tasks: 
– elaborating a sampling methodology to conduct a field-day based on risk 
analysis, 
– risk analysis based on the sampling methodology, 
– preparing a yearly control plan. 
Cooperating organisations (KSz) elaborate the sampling methodology to field-days that are 
based on risk analysis. This job is done unde r the coordination of the Managing Authority 
(MA) following the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Fi nance and the Common 
Operational Handbook. The methodology is a pproved by the MA. The methodology 
provides for inter alia guidelines on risk analysis and the interim review of the yearly 
control plan. On the basis of the approved methodology th e cooperations organisation 
 
EN 134   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
conduct the risk analysis and set up a yearly field-day plan that is sent to MA for 
information. In cooperation with the MA. Th e cooperation organisa ction provide for a 
yearly review of the sampling methodology, the ri sk analysis and the design of the yearly 
field-day plan. 
On a field-day, the applied sampling methodo logy must be presente d and explained, the 
registation about the individual ca ses taken into the sample must be kept and the results of 
the controls recorded. The a pplied sampling methodology must be revised regularly with 
attention being paid to error rates and other well-known risk factors. The review proceeding 
must also be recorded. 
The yearly field-day plan must contai n at least the following information: 
– organizations and projects to be examin ed: beneficiaries or projects indicated 
in agreements and chosen on the basis of risk analysis, 
– reference to the applied sampli ng methodology and risk analysis, 
– aim of the examination: see the introductory part, points to be checked on the 
field-day, 
– examined period: e.g. from the signing of  the grant agreement or the end of 
the previous control period up to  the date of the examination, 
 
EN 135   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
– agenda of the examination: at least in quarterly breakdown but a monthly 
breakdown is recommended (checking the dates with beneficiaries), 
– necessary sources1: number of specialists’ days, foreseeing ad hoc  controls. 
Aspects for consideration at risk analysis (e.g.): 
– type of project, 
– dimension of project (hi gh-value projects bear a higher level of risk), 
– type of beneficiary (e.g. on the basis of the control procedures of the 
beneficiary), 
– number of projects comp leted by the beneficiary, 
– rate of assistance, 
– type of account, 
number of problems or irregular ities arising during the project.  
MT N/a. In the case of ERDF, the Managing 
Authority performs 100% checks on  
 
EN 136   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
expenditure prior to  sending any payment 
claim to the Commission. 
NL Yes. Given a rating, percentage and amount. 
AT N/a  
PL Yes: IROP, SOP Transpor t, OP – Technical 
Assistance, SOP ECG 
No: INTERREG IROP  : The Managing Authority IROP in terms of control of the management and control system chooses a 
Region for checks in keeping with risk analysis for the given calendar year, in wh ich it checks the correctness 
of the functioning of the system. Risk areas are taken in to consideration during risk analysis in choosing the 
Region for checking, risk is expressed on a scale (low, average, high). 
Next, the  MA IROP chooses at least one measure on the basis of risk analysis, under which it selects sample 
projects on the basis of which it checks the application of procedure. (Complementary information on risk analysis has been communi cated to the Commission).  
SOP Transport. Risk is calculated by means of a number indicat or – from 1 to 4, where 1 signifies the lowest 
risk, and 4 the highest. 
OP – Technical Assistance. Risk is expressed on a scale of 1 to 5 allo cated to given criteria in risk analysis 
SOP ECG. For Implementing Institute (PARP) checks relating to e.g. Measure 2.3 – this is a points value 
(later calculated as a percentage share).
 
PT No, except two managing authorities. Two managing authorities indicated the risk  was taken into account. In response to point 
3.2.3.2,  they stated that the risk was cal culated based on previous knowledge and 
 
EN 137   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
experience, according to the complexity of  the operations and executors involved. The 
following interval ranges were adopted for the i nherent risk and control risk: high risk (60% 
to 90%) medium risk (30% to 60%) low risk (10% to 30%).  
RO Yes. Based on the risk factors established by each Management Authority and by the Authority 
for Certification and Payment, each risk has a percentage and a score. Thus, risks are 
grouped in a risk class: high, me dium and low risk. Verifications  mainly concern those from 
the high risk class.  
SI Yes. Risk level: high, medium, low. 
SK Yes. Preliminary financial verification of project s is based on a risk factor analysis.  
The risk factors are:  
– The financial scale of the project (s ize of non-repayable financial aid) 
– Sources of funding 
– Level of beneficiary debts and liabilities  
– Financial results for the past year 
– Ownership or personal links of th e beneficiary with other firms. 
 
EN 138   EN 3.2.3.  Use of risk in planning and execution 
Member 
State 3.2.3.1. Is risk formally taken into 
account when planning individual 
assignments or determining overall coverage of verificati ons (based on, e.g., 
the potential financial loss, reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in whic h risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 
 
– Sector 
– Information arising from monitoring re ports – project implementation stage 
(IB/MB). 
Additional details have been communicated to the Commission. 
FI Yes (except Åland).  All projects in which public assistance exceeds 100 000 € have to be verified.  
SE Yes. The risk is quantified as an amount. 
UK Yes. The UK risk is assessed on the track record of the applicant, the nature of the project and the 
amount of grant/total project value and gi ven a rating of High, Medium or Low. The 
assessment takes into account the views from appraisal, payment and inspection staff who 
have knowledge of a pplicants/projects.  All high risk rated projects are included in the sample. To 
ensure coverage of all project types, 10% of th e sample is taken from the low risk banded project 
category. The remaining balance is taken randomly from the medium risk projects.  
 
EN 139   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
BE No (except Walloon Region). Walloon Region: At testations from auditors or review ers are used as supporting documents 
in providing assurance, where necessary. 
German speaking Community: not in every case. External auditors do not always 
adequately take into acc ount EU-specific controls.  
CZ Yes. Provided that final beneficiaries themselves deci de to submit accountants’ certificates (such 
as auditor’s reports), such documents are c onsidered trustworthy by the managing authority.  
DK Yes. (Objective 2 programmes)  Yes, accountants' certificates are regard ed as useful in providing assurance. 
The accountants' certificates ar e issued by a registered or chartered accountant. After 
receiving the letter of authorisation, the pr oject accountant issues a certificate that the 
accountant has been acquainte d with Notice No 1059 of the Agency for Enterprise and 
Construction of 4 De-cember 2000 on respons ibilities and competence etc. for the 
management of aid from the Euro-pean Regiona l Fund and related national co-financing and 
Notice No 1166 of 15 December 2000 on accounts and accountancy in connection with the 
payment of aid from the European Regional Fu nd and related national co-financing and that 
the person concerned is acquainted with the content of these documents. The accountant must also state that he has carried out an ex amination of the project management procedures 
and registration systems and that he con-siders  them to be satisfactory and in compliance 
with the requirements of the aforesaid Notices.  
DE Yes. While accountants’ certificates are useful on the on hand, on the other hand additional 
financial demands act as a disincentive to potential applicants for EU resources. 
 
EN 140   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
EE No. No. 
IE No. In general and from our experience accounta nt’s certificates are not that useful as 
commercial accountants have limited experi ence in dealing with EU Regulations. 
The Managing Authority for Peace II has made the following statement:  
“UK Government Accounting practice advocates the use of auditor’s certificates. A number 
of Government Departments in th e UK insist that these certificates are used. In these cases 
they are viewed as an additional level of contro l. However, it is recognised that they do not 
cover all required aspects and in  particular the eligibility of expenditure in terms of 
compliance with EC Regulation”. 
EL No. As most operational programmes are implem ented by public bodies and verifications under 
Art. 4 Reg. 438/2001 include verification of the natural object of the actions implemented, 
this option was not considered useful fo r operational programmes under the 3rd CSF. 
ES No.  
FR Yes. Yes because, when endorsed by an auditor or chartered accountant in the case of private 
beneficiaries, or by a public accounting officer in the case of public beneficiaries, they 
provide assurance that the invoices submitted by the operator have been settled with the 
suppliers. 
In the case of private beneficiaries, the ba nk statement showing the debit corresp onding to 
 
EN 141   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
the invoice is also deemed to be third-party proof of acquittal of expenditure incurred by 
beneficiaries.  
IT Yes: Basilicata RA; Campania RA; Calabria 
RA; Ministry for Infrastructure; Piedmont RA; 
Ministry of the Interior; Abruzzi RA; Marche 
RA; Apulia RA; Lazio RA; Liguria RA;  
No: Valle d’Aosta RA; Tuscany RA; Ministry 
of Economic Development; Emilia Romagna RA; Lombardy RA; Autonomous Province of 
Trento; Ministry for Universities and Research; 
Veneto RA.
 Accountants' certificates are usef ul for tracing payment flows and actual expenditure by the 
final beneficiary or user in connection with Articl e 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 438/01.  
CY Yes. - 
LV Yes. The Central Finance and Contracting Agency (C FCA) requests that the beneficiary submits 
a sworn auditor's report on expenditure claimed in any request  for structural funds that has a 
total value in excess of LVL 500 000. Given that  the CFCA carries out complete checks of 
all structural-fund-related supporting documents , the sworn auditor's reports submitted by 
the beneficiary are used only to obtain addi tional assurance of the relevance of the 
recipient's expenditure, but do not serve as inco ntrovertible confirmati on of the relevance of 
the expenditure submitted.  
LT Yes, but not in all cases. Pursuant to the Administrative and Financ ial Rules governing me asures contained in 
 
EN 142   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
Lithuania's 2004–2006 single programming document  and projects financed under these 
measures, approved under Minster of Fina nce Order No 1K-033 of 28 January 2004 
(Official Gazette 2004, No 19-599; 2005, No 21-667) , intermediate bodies administering 
EU Structural Funds financing can specify that the final repo rt on project implementation 
must be accompanied by an audit report. 
However, authorities have noted that the requ irement to provide an audit report together 
with the final report on project implementation has not always proved justified. The auditors 
employed by project implementers did not always  carry out their work in a satisfactory 
manner – errors were found by implementing au thorities when they verified documents 
supporting payment requests and expenditure, and it was not always possible to trust 
auditors' work.  
LU No  
HU No. Art. 33(2) of Joint Decree 14/2004 (VIII. 13.) TNM-GKM-FMM-FVM-PM requires that the 
application for payment be countersigned by a certified accountant. By the amendment of 
the Decree the above measure was repealed as it  had significantly increased administrative 
burdens while it had not substantially veri fied the adequacy of the declarations.  
MT No. Malta pre-finances all expenditure. Expenditure  is checked at line Ministry level, at 
Treasury level and subsequently by the Ma naging Authority during the verification of 
expenditure.  
 
EN 143   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
NL Yes. During the 2000-2006 programme, th e practice at both progra mme and project level under 
the ERDF was for an accountant's certificate to be issued by external accountants (with the 
exception of D-2 cities where the Accountancy Department of the Ministry of Internal 
Affairs acted as programme accountant). This  means that an accountant's certificate was 
submitted on completion of projects at project level, and with the annual report and the Article 13 report at programme level. Each  Single Programming Document used an 
individually employed programme accountan t. The Commission ha s indicated on many 
occasions that, under Regulation (EC) 438/2001, an accountant's certificate is required only 
before the final conclusion. For this and other reasons, a pilot project is under way in the Single Programming Document for the Northe rn Netherlands which dispenses with the 
project account, so that the management author ity itself carries out th e required checks. For 
the new 2007-2013 programme period, the duties of  the audit authority are centralised 
within the Financial Audit De partment, which will be responsible for the checks and 
products referred to in the ne w Regulation 1083/2006. This centr alisation means that there 
is less need for accountants' certificates over  and above those requir ed under the relevant 
regulations.  
AT No. 
Promoters are required  to submit detailed 
financial statements. In some cases banks carry out preliminary checks. Article 4 audits always have to be carried out by the authorities (to ensure independence).  Accountants' certificates are of  use only if they are issued by an independent certified 
accountant. 
 
EN 144   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
PL No. Not applicable 
PT Most managing authorities: No. 8 managing 
authorities: Yes.  In cases where the requirement applies to the me asure the certification of the expenditure by 
accredited accountants according to th e rules of the Order of Official Auditors and the Chamber of 
Official Accountants facilitates the entire process.  By confirming that investment expenditure has 
been incurred and by providing the elements necessar y to verify the expenditure’s eligibility, it 
provides assurance of reliability. 
RO No.  
SI Yes. Yes, insofar as they would simplify the approval of payment requests and provide a high level of 
assurance.   
SK No.  
FI No100 (Åland: Yes). Accountants' knowledge of the special terms applicable to the structural funds differs. The regularity 
of the project and the eligibility of expenditure canno t be assured by an audit. Some of the financing 
bodies require, as a rule, the auditor's statem ent as a condition for processing the payment 
application, some on a case-by-case basis (on the basis of the beneficiary or project type). In very small projects the costs incurred from this would be di sproportionate. It is considered important that 
it is clear to the implementing body whether the cost s of the auditor's statement are eligible or not. 
The interpretation depends on whether the financing au thority has required it to be included in the 
                                                 
100 It is in the discretion of the financing authority to decide upon the need and to set the requirements in the financing decisi on; the requirement may become applicable on the 
basis of the national aid system. However, there is no provision that would extend to all ERDF co-financed activity. 
 
EN 145   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
financing decision or not.  
The practice of the intermediate bodies may be that the financing authority determines when an audit 
is required in the project and decides to perform it as its own measure performed by its auditor or as 
an outsourced service on its own account. The financi ng authority shall pay the costs. The extent of 
the audit shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. 
Åland: Yes. Accountants' verifications are made  on the spot and the projects' applications, 
bookkeeping and results are checked.  
SE No. No, the auditors responsible fo r the regional fund ha ve found a low leve l of confidence in 
what the auditor can certify in practice.  
UK For England , yes but thresholds exist. 
However, at the end of 2007, GO were 
instructed that a risk-based system could be 
applied in order to reduce the burden. 
Wales  – yes. 
Northern Ireland - No ( although there is no 
requirement to obtain Accountants 
certificates one Implementing Body obtained certificates for 100% of its 
projects). England: Yes, it can be an added assurance to the control systems already in place. 
However, as far as expenditure checks are concerned, they do not ge nerally report on the 
eligibility of the project expenditure. 
Wales : Yes. They confirm eligibility or othe rwise of all expenditure claimed through 
reference back to supporting documentation. WEFO require independent audit certificates at 
project level on an annual basis and at final claim stage. Where audit qualifications arise 
adjustments are made to the payment claim ac cordingly. WEFO retains 5% of grant on all 
projects until the satisfactory receipt of a final claim and i ndependent audit certificate.  
For NI, all responses indicated that Accountants’ cer tificates are considered to be of benefit 
across the whole range of programmes, as they  provide an independent assurance of the 
finances of the project and also an addi tional level of control which supports both 
 
EN 146   EN 3.2.4.  The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provi de an accountant’s certificate with exp enditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  
Member State 3.2.4.1. Are accountants’ certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No)  
 3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 
 
Scotland – No. Investigating Bodies and Monitoring Authorities. 
Scotland  stated that Accountants Certificates can usefully enhance levels of assurance but 
are not mandatory. Recent Comm ission advice also casts doubt on the extent to which the 
Commission will accept Accountants Certificates . 
 
EN 147   EN 3.3. Results of Article 4 verifications 
3.3.1. Number of irregularit ies detected in 2005 and financial value 
Although the Community legislation applicable in the field of st ructural funds in the year 
2005 (Article 12 of Regulation No 1681/94) provi ded for notification of irregularities 
involving more than €40 00 (and irregularities  of less than €4000 only at  the express request of 
the Commission), to gain a complete picture of the situation in the Member States it would be 
useful to gather information on all irregularities detected in management verifications, 
including those below the €4000 threshold and not communicated to Commission (OLAF) in 
application of the COCOLAF working document from 11th April 2002. Therefore, Member 
States were asked to  provide the number of all irregularities101 detected in 2005 under 
Article 4 of Regulation (E C) No 438/2001, including those not communicated to the 
Commission (i.e. irregularities involving le ss than €4000 or detected before payment). 
The following tables summarize the information provided by the Member States concerning 
this question. The first table displays the absolute number of irregularities, while the second table deals with the percentages of the irregularities.  
It should be pointed out that Bulgaria and Ro mania are not included in the tables since they 
were not Member States in the concerned period (2005). Furt hermore, most of the EU-10 
Member States detected no or very few irregularities due to the fact that in 2005 these Member States did not dispose of a large amou nt of funds yet. Fina lly, some old Member 
States did not provide their figures or provided only partial figures.  
                                                
 
101 The definition of "irregularity" is to be found in Regulation No 2988/95, Article 1(2) of which states 
that “‘irregularity’ shall mean any infringement of  a provision of Community law resulting from an act 
or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general 
budget of the Comm unities or budgets managed by them, eith er by reducing or losing revenue accruing 
from own resources collected directly on behalf of the Communities, or by an unjustified item of 
expenditure”.  
 
EN 148   EN NUMBER OF IRREGULARITI ES DETECTED IN 2005  
Number of irregularities 
detected by managing 
authorities Number of irregularities 
detected by intermediate bodies Not 
specified
  
 Detected by desk-based 
check  
 Detected by on-the-spot 
check  
Not specified  
Total  
 Detected by desk-based 
check  
 Detected by on-the-spot 
check  
Not specified 
Total  
 TOTAL 
NUMBER OF 
DETECTED 
IRREGULARITI
ES 
Expenditure ineligible under eligibility rules or grant conditions  230 74 114 418 119 60 264 443   861 
Failure to meet deadlines  12 18 1 31 15  31 46 1 78 
Missing or incomplete supporting documents  130 9  139 64 4 128 196   335 
Infringement of rules concerning public procurement  22 20  42 9 7 62 78 2 122 
Failure to meet other regulation/contra ct conditions, such as state aid 
rules, publicity  27 34  61 53 23 89 165   226 
False or falsified supporting documents  2   2 8 7 4 19   21 
Failure to take account of revenue  40   40 8 4  12   52 
Other irregularities  22 27 1 50 181 55 192 428   478 
Not specified   7 97 104 10 8  18 20 142 
Total  485 189 213 887 467 168 770 1405 23 2315 
 
EN 149   EN PERCENTAGES OF IRREGULA RITIES DETECTED IN 2005  
% of irregularities detected by 
managing authorities % of irregularities detected by 
intermediate bodies Not 
specified
  
 Detected by desk-based 
check  
 Detected by on-the-spot 
check  
Not specified  
Total  
 Detected by desk-based 
check  
 Detected by on-the-spot 
check  
Not specified 
Total  
 TOTAL % OF 
DETECTED 
IRREGULARITI
ES 
Expenditure ineligible under eligibility rules or grant conditions  9,94 3,20 4,92 18,06 5,14 2,59 11,40 19,14 0,00 37,19 
Failure to meet deadlines  0,52 0,78 0,04 1,34 0,65 0,00 1,34 1,99 0,04 3,37 
issing or incomplete supporting documents  5,62 0,39 0,00 6,00 2,76 0,17 5,53 8,47 0,00 14,47 
Infringement of rules concerning public procurement  0,95 0,86 0,00 1,81 0,39 0,30 2,68 3,37 0,09 5,27 
Failure to meet other regulation/contra ct conditions, such as state aid 
rules, publicity  1,17 1,47 0,00 2,63 2,29 0,99 3,84 7,13 0,00 9,76 
False or falsified supporting documents  0,09 0,00 0,00 0,09 0,35 0,30 0,17 0,82 0,00 0,91 
Failure to take account of revenue  1,73 0,00 0,00 1,73 0,35 0,17 0,00 0,52 0,00 2,25 
Other irregularities  0,95 1,17 0,04 2,16 7,82 2,38 8,29 18,49 0,00 20,65 
Not specified 0,00 0,30 4,19 4,49 0,43 0,35 0,00 0,78 0,86 6,13 
Total  20,95 8,16 9,20 38,32 20,17 7,26 33,26 60,69 0,99 100,00 
 
EN 150   EN 3.3.2. Based on you experience, what are the root causes of irregularities? Why do 
irregularities occur? 
Description of root causes: Unclear eligibility rules and c ondition (if possible, indicate 
provisions); Not enough guidance on the implementa tion of the rules and conditions; Frequent 
changing of staff/shortage of staff; Difficu lties in training staff; other possible causes.  
If possible, please state a percentage  for each category.  
3.3.2. Based on your experience, what are the root causes of irregularities? Why do 
irregularities occur? 
BE Unclear eligibility rules and condition (Flemish Region 60%), not enough guidance 
on the implementation of the rules and conditions (Flemish Region 40%), frequent changing of staff/shortage of staff (German speaking Community 30%), difficulties in training staff (German speaking Commun ity 70%). Brussels-Capital Region: Poor 
area distribution key for projects located in buildings shared with other projects that 
are not part of by structural funds, poor  identification of revenues generated by 
ERDF projects, problems of sustainabi lity (project abandoned after 31/12/2006), 
project abandoned and non-completed given th e inability to drum up co-financing 
within the eligibility period. German speaking Community: insufficient knowledge 
of the beneficiary on the criteria and guidelines. 
CZ Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (30%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (30%), frequent changing of staff/shortage of staff (20%), difficulties in  training staff (10%). For the Ministry of 
Environment, 95% of identified suspected ir regularities comprise breach of the terms 
and conditions laid down in Act No 137/2006 Coll. on public procurement (and its previous versions). However, analysis of individual cases has shown that they need 
not comprise intentional breach; rather th an that, irregulariti es are based on the 
enormous complexity of the law, inconsiste nt interpretation of so me of its provisions 
and the ensuing possibility of errors in a pplying the law. Interreg: Using funds for 
other purposes than the project’s pur pose (goal) – 20%. JROP: Note: In 2005, no 
irregularities were detected; as a result, it is impossible to make an objective list of 
reasons for irregularities. 
DK Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (5%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (5 %), frequent changing of staff/shortage 
of staff (10%), bankruptcy (70%), ai d rules and conditions not understood by 
beneficiary (10%). 
EE Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (24%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditi ons (23% problems with following 
procurement rules 15% authorised actions  not performed 15% problems with proper 
use of aid under 5a), frequent changing of staff/shortage of staff (1%), difficulties in training staff (1%). 
Expenditure eligibility is regulated in vari ous legal acts, of which it is difficult for 
aid recipients to get an overview. Aid recipients do not always fully familiarise themselves with their obligations (obtaini ng three offers, conserving documentation, 
continuing action until after the end of the eligibility period), and do not apply to 
 
EN 151   EN 3.3.2. Based on your experience, what are the root causes of irregularities? Why do 
irregularities occur? 
implementation units when they have problems in a timely manner. There can be several people responsible for a project, with the division of labour not clearly 
defined; handovers not documented at time s of staff changes, with new project 
leaders lacking a historical record. 
IE Unclear eligibility rules and condition, in particular Land Issues, Receipts, 
Overheads (Medium to High percentage), Misapplication of Rule 5, Inclusion of 
overheads, Administrative e rrors (Low percentage). 
Not enough guidance on the implementation of the rules and conditi ons, in particular 
lack of familiarity of the regulations at  the beginning of the programme led to the 
occurrence of irregulariti es (low percentage). 
From experience misinterpretation is one of  the main contributors but this is often 
not a result of lack of gui dance but rather misinterpr etation of that guidance. 
Frequent changing of staff/shortage of sta ff. (Low to Medium percentage. At final 
beneficiary and implementing body level, it is difficult to quantify with any degree 
of certainty as it has not been officially ci ted as a reason for irregularities occurring). 
Difficulties in training staff (at impl ementing body level. Low percentage). 
Miscalculation of overhead apportionments. 
Inadequate supporting documentation with claims 
EL Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (75%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (5 %), frequent changing of staff/shortage 
of staff (5%), difficulties in training staff (15%). 
ES Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (10%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (90%). 
FR Over-financing of operations. By a Government decision, since mid-2002, to avoid 
penalising operators for factors over whic h they have no control, such as the 
payment of a grant by a local or regional authority which in France has legal and 
financial autonomy under the Constitution of the Vth Republic, the payment of aid 
from the Structural Funds has no longer be en subject to the payment of national co-
financing (Ministerial circular of 19 August 2002 introducing simplifying measures 
in the management of the Structural Funds). 
If national co-financing is paid on a flat-r ate basis, in cases of under-implementation 
of a project the amount of the Structural Fund contribution is adjusted to real 
expenditure and a repayment order is issued. 
IT Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (25%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and condi tions (22.5%), frequent changing of 
staff/shortage of staff (21,43%), di fficulties in training staff (23,86%). 
 
EN 152   EN 3.3.2. Based on your experience, what are the root causes of irregularities? Why do 
irregularities occur? 
Falsification at the preliminary stage (in particular false self-certification regarding requirements). These declarations may al so involve double f unding (where the 
operator presenting the application declares  that no other funding has been received 
for the same project);  
Falsification of accounts, particularly th e beneficiary’s internal accounts (false 
invoices, etc.) 
CY Unclear eligibility rules and condi tion in specific aid schemes. 
LT Frequent changing of staff/shortage of st aff (20%), difficulties in training staff 
(80%). One of the most important causes is  the shortfall in the capacity of project 
implementers, particularly in th e area of public procurement. 
HU Primary causes for irregularities are to be found in the incidentally  illegal utilization 
by the beneficiary or in a manner differing from the intended pur pose. Irregularities 
are partly unintended and arise from admini strative failures or misinterpretation of 
rules. There are no data available fo r the categories of the above chart. 
MT Frequent changing of staff/shortage of sta ff, different approaches used for national 
funds and Structural Funds, different syst ems of control as between Structural 
Funds’ systems and other Commun ity Programmes / Initiatives. 
NL Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (95%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and condi tions (4.5%), frequent changing of 
staff/shortage of staff (0.5%). Other possible causes: The final  beneficiaries supply 
unclear, incomplete or incorrect informa tion (not necessarily on purpose), including 
incomplete progress and final reports. Arithmetical errors. Increase in costs that are not eligible for subsidisation. Costs paid prior to  the date after which they would be 
eligible for subsidisation or after the final date. Failure to abide by applicable rules 
on tendering.  
AT Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (10%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (5 %), frequent changing of staff/shortage 
of staff (10%), difficulties in training staff (50%). 
PL Unclear eligibility rules and conditi on (16%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and cond itions (35%), frequent changing of 
staff/shortage of staff ( 15%), difficulties in training staff (8%), Incorrect 
understanding of the principles on expe nding structural funds on the part of 
beneficiaries, lack of sufficient know ledge of the Public Procurement Act, 
beneficiary negligence, capital and pers onal links – purchasers and contractors. 
PT Unclear eligibility rules and condition (in particular the eligibility rule s relating to 
the performance of public procurement rules) , frequent changing of staff/shortage of 
staff, failure by prosecutors in interpreting the eligibility rules and conditions. Difficulties ensuring a balanced economic and fi nancial situation in the course of the 
 
EN 153   EN 3.3.2. Based on your experience, what are the root causes of irregularities? Why do 
irregularities occur? 
project/contract. 
SI Unclear eligibility rules and cond ition (65%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (25%), frequent changing of 
staff/shortage of staff (10%). 
SK Unclear eligibility rules and conditi on (10-30%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditi ons (10-30%), fre quent changing of 
staff/shortage of staff (10-25%), difficulties in training staff (5-25%). 
Failure to adhere to the obligations arising from the NRFC provision agreements by the final 
beneficiaries/recipients. Changes in conditions  in the course of project implementation and 
failure to communicate them within the cont ractual deadline to the MA or the IB/MB. 
Failure to comply with NRFC agreements  by the recipients, problems with public 
procurement, invoicing works not completed by  the contractor. Inadequate staffing for the 
IB/MB – project managers for SF projects have other tasks within the organisation, which 
prevents them from investing the right amount of time into project implementation 
conditions. In respect of criminal law, where i rregularities of a criminal nature are taken to 
court, along with the factors mentioned above , the most common reasons are subsequent 
checks of the persons requesting assistance and ch ecks as to whether they meet the criteria 
for assistance, and whether they meet the form al requirements. Failure to comply with 
NRFC agreements by the final beneficiaries/reci pients. Substituting materials contrary to the 
approved project budget. Submitting accounting reco rds for payments for works, goods and 
services that have not been provided.  
FI Small projects, small project volume of fi nancing authorities. No critical mass for 
knowledge is created.  
Skärgården: Unclear eligibility rules a nd conditions (20% ), not enough guidance on 
the implementation of the rules and condi tions (80% - and, by extension, the 
projects’ planning of inputs and measure). Inadequate information and communication.  
UK Northern Ireland:  unclear eligib ility rules and conditi on (30%), not enough 
guidance on the implementation of the rules and conditions (30%), frequent 
changing of staff/shortage of staff (20%),  difficulties in training staff (10%), 
miscalculation of overheads or inade quate supporting documents (10%). In  England 
and Wales , difficulties in training staff and organisations (grant recipients) failing to 
observe the terms and conditions of the gr ant offer. Also, it is believed that 
organisations often fail to cascade these terms and conditions to relevant staff. 
Scotland : difficulties in training staff (100%). 
 
EN 154   EN 3.4. Measures taken after detection of irregularity 
3.4.1. Please state the number of measu res taken for each category below. 
Member 
State Corrective measures in 
form of improvements in 
systems/procedures Decision to 
recover Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 Failure to 
recover103  Reallocation of money to 
other expenditure within 
the same project of the 
same beneficiary Other 
BE 2 9 0 0 2  
CZ Not applicable (no 
irregularities detected in 
2005). Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. Not applicable. 
DK  16  6  10 (6 repaid, 4 
still under 
consideration) 
DE104       
EE Procedures and legislation 
are amended as 
shortcomings emerge – separate account is not 
taken of them 37     
IE Matters brought to Because all See above See above   
                                                 
102 See Article 5, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 1681/94 , OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 43–46. 
103 See Article 5, paragraph 2 of Regulation No 1681/94 as modified by Regulation No 2035/2005, OJ L 328, 15.12.2005, p. 8–12. 
104 No data available. In future data to be recorded by listing pursuant to art.2 Regulation (EU) No 448/2001. 
 
EN 155   EN 3.4.1. Please state the number of measu res taken for each category below. 
Member 
State Corrective measures in 
form of improvements in 
systems/procedures Decision to 
recover Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 Failure to 
recover103  Reallocation of money to 
other expenditure within 
the same project of the 
same beneficiary Other 
attention of offending 
body; guidance provided for future treatment of similar items; training 
seminars provided to 
relevant personnel; for all cases there is a subsequent adjustment out of the next 
interim claim. irregularities are 
adjusted out of subsequent claims all 
amounts are 
recovered. Due to the nature of the Irish system all losses are borne by the 
Exchequer. 
EL  3 1    
ES - 110 0 0  0 
FR 0 53 0 0105 45 0 
IT 2 196 6 12 2  
CY - - - - - - 
LT 1      
                                                 
105 So far no cases of actual failure to recover, but payment fac ilities have been granted to beneficiaries (repayment in stages).  
 
EN 156   EN 3.4.1. Please state the number of measu res taken for each category below. 
Member 
State Corrective measures in 
form of improvements in 
systems/procedures Decision to 
recover Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 Failure to 
recover103  Reallocation of money to 
other expenditure within 
the same project of the 
same beneficiary Other 
LU - 0106 0107 0108 - - 
HU 1 14 0 0 0 133 (??) 
MT109 N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 
NL X X    X 
AT    15 – so called 5(2) 
reports issued.   
PL 9 10 0 0 2 0 
PT 11 166 0 (Not frequent) 34 6110 
SI    1111   
SK       
                                                 
106 All irregularities detected have been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. 
107 All irregularities detected have been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. 
108 All irregularities detected have been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. 
109 No irregularity was di scovered in 2005 as a result of Article 4 checks. 
110 Regularisation of subsequent payment request or final request, resulting in reduction of the eligible investment. 
111 Recovery not effected as the recipient wa s the Centre for school and out-of-school activities and the funds were covered by th e Ministry of Education and Sport. 
 
EN 157   EN 3.4.1. Please state the number of measu res taken for each category below. 
Member 
State Corrective measures in 
form of improvements in 
systems/procedures Decision to 
recover Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 Failure to 
recover103  Reallocation of money to 
other expenditure within 
the same project of the 
same beneficiary Other 
FI Aland/Skärgården: 100%. 
Supplementary information is 
required. Aid is not paid out 
unless satisfactory 
information is received.       
SE Apart from reports to 
Ekobrottsmyndigheten (The 
Financial Crime Authority), 
corrective measures are 
applied in the form of improvements in the systems/procedures where payment has not been carried 
out.  Where payment 
has been carried 
out, decisions are 
made concerning 
recovery.
     
UK112 5 44   6 13 
                                                 
112 As data concerning irregularities detected  following art.4 checks is incomplete, data included in this table should be conside red with caution, because it includes for England 
also irregularities detected following art.10 checks. 
 
 158   EN 3.4.2. If a waiver of a recovery is made or there is a failure to recover, state the possible 
reasons.  
BE Generally, the waiver of a recovery or failu re to recover is justified by the fact 
that the irregularity is no longer reco gnized, or the operator is insolvent.  
CZ Care is always taken to recover amounts that become ineligible, even if they 
become ineligible at a later date.   
DE Debtor is insolvent to pay. 
IE Not applicable as all monies are effectively recovered.  
FR – Insolvency of the benefici ary (judicial liquidation).  
IT – Bankruptcy, untraceable companies; strong likelihood of lack of assets  
LT The procedure for recovering funds is laid down in the Rules on Recovery for the 
national budget funds arising from EU fi nancial assistance, the financial 
mechanisms of the European Economic Area and Norway and co-financing paid 
through special programmes under the Lit huanian State Budget and (or) used 
contrary to legislation,  registering and entering into accounts such funds, 
establishing whether a project implementers ' debts may be dubious and writing off 
such debts (hereinafter the 'Rules on Recovery'), approved under Lithuanian 
Government Resolution No 590 of 30 Ma y 2005 on approving the above Rules on 
Recovery. 
The Rules on Recovery lay down that wh ere a project implementer who has been 
sent a decision on the recovery of funds  fails to repay these funds during the 
period of time specified in the decision, repays only part of the funds or an 
amount of funds deducted from the next payment request submitted by the project 
implementer or from other allocations from the State budget, and where this 
amount is greater than LTL 10 000, and the project implementer is not a 
budgetary authority, the subroga tion right to the recovery  of this amount shall, 
within 30 days of the time limit specified for repayment, be transferred to AB Turto Bankas (hereinafter ‘Turto Bankas’ ) under an agreement on the transfer of 
subrogation rights. Turto Banka s undertakes recovery of the debt in accordance 
with the agreement on the tr ansfer of subrogation rights,  taking into account the 
procedure laid down in the Rules on Recovery. 
The Rules on Recovery lay down that th e administering authority or the EU 
Structural Funds implementing authority (where it has been granted authority by 
the administering authority), or Turto Banka s (where the debt has been transferred 
under an agreement on the transfer of subr ogation rights) shall write off a project 
implementer's dubious debts where, more than  24 months since the dispatch of the 
decision to the project implementer, no assets have been found to belong to the project implementer or the assets found are not liquid (w here any assets are found 
and these are sold according to establishe d procedures and part of the debt is 
covered, only the remaining part of the debt shall be written off); the project 
implementer has died and liab ilities have not been tran sferred to another person; 
the project implementer is bankrupt and any assets are insufficient to cover the 
 
 159   EN 3.4.2. If a waiver of a recovery is made or there is a failure to recover, state the possible 
reasons.  
debt; the project implementer is in liqui dation and any assets are insufficient to 
cover the debt. 
A project implementer's dubi ous debts are written o ff only where the project 
implementer is in liquidation and has failed  to meet liabilities in respect of the 
administering authority or the implemen ting authority (where authorised by the 
administering authority). Where the projec t implementer is in liquidation but any 
rights and obligations are transferred to a successor, the dubious debts may not be 
written off, except in cases where the a ssets of the succe ssor to the project 
implementer’s rights and obligations are not sufficient to cover the debts.  
HU The National Development Agency (NFÜ) doe s not waive recovery. If there is no 
voluntary performance and the guarantees are not enforceable, a last possibility to 
recover the amount of aid is to  recover it in the form of taxes, which is a task of 
the tax authority.  
MT No irregularity was discovered in 2005. 
Nonetheless, as a general principle, the Government of Malta is said to have 
waived his right of recovery when he re frains from applying within the stipulated 
period the recovery / remedi al action contemplated in the applicable Laws and 
Regulations. 
NL Bankruptcy. 
AT In most cases this concerns bankruptci es which also had to be reported as 
irregularities until the end of 2005. The rele vant court proceedings are in progress 
– the number of recoveries is very low. 
PL Not applicable 
PT In general, managing authorities consider  that recovery is always possible. 
A recovery process is only abandoned wh en, in addition to the voluntary payment 
by the company and insufficient coverage of the bank guarantee, it is found there are insufficient assets to attach the amount of the debt, i.e. when a tax 
enforcement is “ruled insufficient” (l ack of tangible asse ts) or under an 
irrecoverable insolvency proceeding. 
SI The recipient was the Centre for school and out-of-school activities and the funds 
were covered by the Ministry  of Education and Sport 
FI The corrections are always made prior to payment. The resources are never paid 
out and recovery is th erefore not appropriate. 
SE The project owner has acted in good faith  and the administrative authority must 
accept the expense. In certain cas es, bankruptcy can be one reason. 
 
 
 160   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
BE Brussels-Capital Region: Withdrawal of certified sums and identification of other 
eligible expenditure for the same project or  reallocation of available funds to other 
projects. 
Walloon Region: Follow-up of irregulariti es is done within each functional 
administrative unit. Irregularities for which ERDF shares are above €10,000 of 
ERDF share are first presented to the OLAF inter-administrative taskforce for the Walloon Region before they are communicated to OLAF via the AFIS system 
(Anti-fraud Information System). 
German-speaking Community: an ad-hoc check of the corrective measures 
constitutes a prerequisite for concluding the on- the-spot check. 
CZ Financial corrections are determined. 
Procedure according to the Methodology of  Financial Flows within subject-matter 
jurisdiction of the MF. 
DRC: Follow up is listed in the programme complement. JROP: Follow up is undertaken in order to find out whether or not the entity being 
checked has taken corrective measures. It is undertaken based on previous check 
results and based on notice/failure to gi ve notice of taking corrective measures. 
Follow up is undertaken depending on assessment by the head of the control group or the department head or the section director. 
DK The beneficiary is notified of the repa yment demand by letter. Irregularities 
greater than €4000 (2005) ar e reported to OLAF. Payment is consistently 
surveyed and collection may be trans-ferre d to a collection agency. Amounts paid 
are recorded and set against the next  payment re-quest to the Commission. 
DE By means of recovery procedure or adju stments to the administration and control 
system in the field concerned. 
EE All identified cases are documented. Cases involving total aid (EU and Estonian 
targeted funding) of more than EEK 40 000 (€2 556) are communicated in an 
infringement report to the Ministry of Finance (pursuant to Regulation No 278 of 
22 December 2006 https://www.riigiteataj a.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12769549). Reports 
are submitted quarterly until a definitive solution for the case has been reached. 
Aid implementers monitor irregularities, with no need for any involvement of 
MA. 
IE There is a subsequent adjustment a nd reallocation of expenditure. Managing 
Authority follows up Intermediate Bodies to complete and submit Irregularity Forms. Irregularities discovered are highlight ed at seminars to create awareness of 
issues arising. All detected Irregularities are adjusted out  of a subsequent claim to 
the Commission. See answer to 3.4.1 in relation to follow up. 
The MA for Peace II has added the fo llowing: “In 2007 SEUPB introduced 
 
 161   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
guidance on recoveries whic h sets out the steps all implementers must follow. 
Where these are exhausted and recovery has not been affected the accountable 
department will need to take appr opriate legal or write-off action”.  
EL Integrated IT system.  
ES The application for the management  of European funds, Fondos 2000, is 
monitored; all irregularities and check s carried out are recorded and the 
corresponding financial corrections are ma de. The state of play as regards the 
corrections is checked before new expe nditure is reported to the Commission.  
FR The management authority of the programme  concerned, in c onsultation with the 
paying agency, makes the financial corrections and follows up on them.  
IT Follow-up is performed in accordance with  the reporting procedure laid down in 
Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No  1681/94 as amended by Regulation (EC) 
No 2035/05. The Italian authorities report every case of irregul arities connected 
with the use of EU funds when it is detected. Where the conditions of the 
abovementioned Regulations are met, they fill out the report form and forward it 
to the Department for EU policies at the Prime Minister's Office, which notifies the European Commission using the AFIS system. At the same time the authorities in question take the admi nistrative measures required of them 
(suspension – cancellation etc). The Co mmission is kept abreast of every 
administrative or judicial development in connection with the ir regularity detected 
by means of the update forms which are forwarded under the abovementioned procedures.  
Where irregularities have been reported  the management and paying authorities: 
– Do not include the amounts covere d by the irregularities in the 
declarations of expenditure and a pplications for repayment to the 
European Commission 
– Assume the risk regarding recove ry of the sums unduly paid out, 
stripping out the payments made fr om the certification of expenditure.  
CY Quarterly reporting to competent authority.  
LV If it is established that an irregularity has occurred, it is corrected by averting its 
financial consequences. Financial cons equences are averted by withholding a 
certain amount from the current or next request for structural funds, recovering 
irregular expenditure, submitting reports  on irregularities and informing the 
managing authority (the supreme State budget institution and the State Audit 
Office, as well as the Cabinet of Minister s) of irregular expenditure effected by 
State budget institutions.  
Monitoring of irregularities takes place w ith the second-level intermediate body 
(the Central Finance and Contracting Agency) keeping track of whether the 
beneficiary is respecting dead lines for repayment of funds . If need be, procedural 
documents are prepared, the recovery of  irregular expenditure ensured and law 
 
 162   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
enforcement services engaged to investigate any irregularity.  
LT Pursuant to the Administrative and Fina ncial Rules governing measures contained 
in Lithuania's 2004–2006 single programmi ng document and projects financed 
under these measures (hereinafter the 'R ules'), approved under Minster of Finance 
Order No 1K-033 of 28 January 2004 (Official Gazette 2004, No 19-599; 2005, 
No 21-667): 
– where an authority ascertains an infringement which, in its opinion, 
may be rectified, the project im plementer is granted a maximum 
period of 10 working days to rect ify the infringement. Where the 
project implementer fails to rectify the infringement within this period, the Rules provide for sanctions against the project implementer (including recovery of part or all of project funds). 
– where an authority ascertains an infringement which, in its opinion, 
is irresolvable or cannot be rectified, the Rules provide for 
sanctions against the project impl ementer (including recovery of 
part or all of project funds). 
Officials from the authorities respons ible for administering infringements 
regularly monitor the implementation of recommendations or requirements by 
project implementers both where a fixed period has been laid down for a project 
implementer to rectify an infringement a nd where a decision has been adopted to 
recover project funds.  
HU It differs according to the type of irregularity.  
MT The responsibility for co-ordinating correc tive action and the monitoring of such 
action with respect to irregularities is  vested with the Managing Authority. 
The onus to identify and repor t any kind of irregularity sh all rest with all the key 
players who are involved in the Structur al Funds operations. These include the 
Paying Authority, the Managing Aut hority, the Treasury Department, the 
Department of Contracts, the Final Be neficiaries and the Internal Audit and 
Investigations Directorate. Every body i nvolved in the implemen tation of projects 
financed by the Structural Funds is responsible to re port any irregularity it may 
detect to the Managing Authority copying the Internal Audit and Investigations 
Directorate – the Audit B ody and the Paying Authority. 
In case of an irregularity which neces sitates recovery of funds, the Final 
Beneficiary shall ensure that recovery is effected. The Managing Authority (MA) 
will ensure that:  
– Recovery proceedings are initiated a nd finalised by the Final Beneficiary 
without unjustified delay (not more than two months);  
– The Paying Authority (PA) is informed of the reported irregularities 
which necessitate a recovery of funds and of developments made in the recovery of funds by the Final Beneficiary.  
 
 163   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
The PA will keep an account of amounts recoverable from payments of 
Community assistance already made accord ing to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) 
438/2001. 
Following recovery, the PA will repay the irregular payments recovered, together 
with interest received on account of late payment, by deducting the amounts 
concerned from its next statement of expe nditure and request for payment to the 
Commission, or, if this is insufficient,  by affecting a refund to the Commission. 
In an Annex to the fourth quarterly re port on irregularities se nt to the Commission 
by the Internal Audit and Investigations Directorate (IAID), the PA will prepare a 
statement of the amounts awaiti ng recovery at that  date, classified by the year of 
initiation of the recovery proceedings. 
(1) The PA has made the following arrangements to maintain a 
debtors’ ledger and to de duct amounts recovered from 
expenditure to be declared: 
– A separate ledger will be kept fo r each Structural Fund showing the 
details of the individual de btor and cross reference to the appropriate file 
pertaining to the in dividual project. 
– Any amount recovered would be set off in the appropriate debtor’s ledger 
and recorded in the individual project file. 
– Data would also be kept regarding the receipts of the amounts recovered. 
It is pertinent to poin t out that Article 39 of Council Regulation (EC) No. 
1260/1999 provides that the Member States shall make the financial corrections 
required in connection with the individua l or systemic irregularities. The Manual 
of Procedures for Structural Funds 2004–2006 distinguishes between 3 types of 
financial corrections: 
– Specifically Quantified Corrections  – Corrections made where a 
quantifiable irregularity is detect ed for an individual operation or 
several individual operations. 
– Extrapolated Corrections – Corrections applicable where a 
quantifiable error has occurred and there is a high probability that 
the irregularity has occurred also in other operations of the same 
type or throughout a measure or programme. 
– Flat-Rate Corrections – Corrections applicable with respect to 
individual breaches or systemic irregularities that are not in 
practice quantifiable such as those resulting from a failure to undertake checks effectively to prev ent or detect irregularities.  
NL Irregularities are recorded in the irregularity registration system. The next Article 
4 check (involving a progress report, a fina l report, an on-the-s pot inspection or a 
5% check) involves checking whether the observed irregularity still requires 
 
 164   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
follow-up, or whether it has already been resolved. 
Recovery claims are recorded in an a ppropriate administrative system. Measures 
are taken at regular intervals to assess th e state of affairs. This may result in a 
reminder, a summons or some other communication.  
AT Every reported irregularity has to be dealt with – either by recovery, reduction of 
eligible expenditure or introduction of  a 5(2) procedure (special report). 
PL Withholding refunds, the performance of ch ecking control measures (on-the-spot 
and desk-based), issue of post-control recommendations. 
PT Irregularities detected during monitori ng of the project are corrected during 
validation of the expenditure. 
As soon as an irregularity has been det ected, the prosecutor is authorised to 
initiate adversary proceedings . If the irregularity is c onfirmed, the amount of the 
debt resulting from the irregul arity is calculated and a dema nd made to return it. If 
the amount is not returned voluntarily, the appropriate judicial proc eedings are 
filed. Monitoring generally occurs th rough telephone/e-mail/fax contacts and 
notifications. 
CCDR: 1ST level control and return applic ation. If the amount is not returned, it 
is deducted from other payment application. 
SI The instructions of the management a nd control systems for the use of the 
structural funds are updated with preven tive and corrective m easures based on the 
irregularities and de ficiencies detected. 
SK The state of individual irre gularities is constantly follo wed up in the ITMS and by 
individual implementation managers of  the MA PSOP when PSOP measures are 
subjected to verification. Irregularities are corrected either by requesting a refund 
of the irregular funds, or by restoring the situ ation to what it was before the 
irregularity arose 
The manager responsible for irregularities  keeps a database of irregularities, 
which is used to monitor the resolution st atus of irregularitie s – the database is 
updated at least once per month, and if it is found that the irregularity was not 
corrected within the time set, the manager warns the final beneficiary/recipient of their obligation to refund the money. 
The Paying Authority and Paying Unit: keep a record of selected debtors and the 
debts of final beneficiaries/recipients because of irregularities and financial 
correction 
The MA cooperates with the Paying Aut hority and the Paying Unit in resolving 
irregularities 
On the basis of the SF financial mana gement system: Reports on confirmed 
 
 165   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
irregularities, recording in ITMS 
For correcting irregularities, the SRTA gi ves the final beneficiary/recipient a 
deadline for remedying the irregularity. Th e final beneficiar y/recipient gives 
written notification of the remedy. The ve rification group carries out on the spot 
checks to ensure the irregul arity has been remedied. 
Preliminary financial control (formal, mate rial and mathematical verification of a 
payment request, checks on th e site of the project, checks for non-duplication of 
expenditure) Request to repay irregular funding.  
In 2005 the occurrence of irregularities was prevented by providing training for 
the final recipients. In s ubsequent years a variety of  measures were taken to 
correct irregularities by improving information for final recipients. 
Verification of the status of irregularities on the basis of irregul arities recorded in 
the ITMS and Detected Irregularities Reports entered into the ITMS.  
FI The intermediate body is under national law responsible for the monitoring of 
actions,  control and recovery proceedings. Procedures are specified in the 
description of the management and control system of each intermediate body. Intermediate bodies inform the certifying authorities and the Ministry in their 
administrative sector according to EC legi slation of any irregul arities, recoveries 
and other measures taken in order to  rectify the irregul arities detected. 
Information is recorded on the Fi mos2000 information system. Those 
intermediate bodies whose in formation is not included in Fimos have to submit 
the information to the paying authority.  
The ineligible part is deducted from th e payment made to the beneficiary on the 
basis of the payment applicati on. If the irregularity is dete cted at a later stage, the 
amount can be deducted from a future pa yment. Before the final payment, the 
project is examined as a whole. Each Mini stry controls in its administrative sector 
that the financing authorities take the necessary measures. The authority that 
granted the assistance is primarily  responsible for any measures: 
acknowledgement, recovery, transfer of the project und er national funding. 
Skärgården  : Supplementary information requi red. Aid is not paid out unless 
satisfactory supplementary information is received.  
SE Re-crediting is followed up by the administrating authority. Cases reported to 
Ekobrottsmyndigheten (The Financial Cr ime Authority) are also followed up.  
UK For England and Wales  - day-to-day action by appr opriate offices. Recovery 
usually from next claim or if not feasible , a recovery order is issued to the grant 
recipient, who is not permitted to re use the ineligible amount. CLG request 
quarterly updates from the GOs. 
In Northern Ireland , projects are informed verbally and in writing. Adjustments 
made, moneys recovered or clawed back. Database adjusted to record details. 
 
 166   EN 3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 
Those above threshold are notified to Commission for submission to OLAF (if 
required). 
Reviewed and investigated by the Managing Authority concerned in Scotland 
 
 167   EN 3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 
BE Additional checks, more on-the-spot  checks. Walloon Region: the OLAF 
taskforce for the Walloon Region provides ti ps to its members on how to avoid a 
high rate of irregularities (reminder of the importance of first level checks, respect 
of audit trail, etc.). 
CZ As of 31 December 2007, only two confir med irregularities with closed 
investigation – see 3.3.2. 
Procedure according to the Methodol ogy of Financial Flows (systemic 
irregularities during the programmi ng period 2007-2013 are provided for on p. 
29). 
DRC: No irregularit ies were detected. 
Interreg: Increase in intensity of checks.  JROP: As JROP has not found a high irregu larity rate or a pparently systemic 
irregularities, no special measures needed to be taken to reduce irregularity rate. 
DK The general analysis of the causes of i rregularities has prompted a greater input 
concerning aid conditions etc. (e.g. the brochure "Good Advice about Regional 
Fund Projects"), which is sent to the bene ficiaries. Data about project guidelines 
etc. serve to explain the rules on aid a nd their application in greater detail. 
The importance of the aid rules is al so strongly impressed on the project 
accountant. 
The beneficiaries are otherwise clos ely monitored by the administrative 
authorities while the project manager or othe rs is/are required to provide an audit 
trail as proof of accounting pro cedures and in-house inspection. 
DE Adjustment of checking strategy/risk an alysis in regard sampling. Increasing 
intensity of checks. 
EE If need be, a greater number of  such projects are checked. 
IE Increase in the intensity and depth of check s. If an error is of serious systemic 
nature revised guidance will be issued and further training where relevant and appropriate will be provided  
EL Recommendations in audit reports and gene ral instructions based on findings or 
documents, questions.  
ES When checks are carried out on a sample and systemic irregularities are identified, 
the rest of expenditure is analysed in re lation to the irregularity detected, and if 
this is difficult, a flat-rate assessment is carried out. In the event of high indexes for non-systemic irregularities, checks  were carried out more intensively.  
 
 168   EN 3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 
FR Not applicable. This is because the Article 4 audit is carried out systematically in 
France before each aid payment (advance and balance). 
IT Adoption of user manuals to make ev eryone aware of the procedures for 
conducting checks.  
Where systematic irregularities are di scovered level I and level II checks are 
stepped up and closer checks are co nducted on all persons involved.  
LT In accordance with Lithuanian Minist er of Finance Order No 1K-315 of 
25 September 2006 on the creation of a working party, an infringement 
monitoring working party was establishe d, comprising representatives of all 
institutions administering EU Structur al Funds, and the following tasks were 
assigned to it: 
– sharing experience and examples of good practice in establishing 
infringements relating to the use of EU Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund 
and co-financing resources; 
– examining issues concerning the asce rtainment of infringements relating 
to EU Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and co-financing resources; 
– where necessary, putting forward proposals for improving infringement 
administration procedures. 
– The infringement monitoring work ing party performs the following 
functions: 
– discusses issues relating to the appl ication, clarification and amendment 
of legal enactments governing infringement administration; 
– puts proposals to the managing aut hority on improving procedures for 
dealing with infringements; 
– analyses information relating to infr ingements ascertained by authorities; 
– shares experience and examples of good practice in dealing with 
infringements; 
– discusses issues relating to managing the risk of illegal use of funds; 
– discusses issues relating to  infringement prevention; 
– performs other functions relating to dealing with infringements. 
With a view to dealing with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities, the systems for dealing with infringements is continually being improved in line with the working party's proposals.  
 
 169   EN 3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 
HU In case of frequent irregularities the inte nsity of controls is increased and projects 
possibly involved are reclassified to a hi gher-level risk group of projects. In case 
of systemic irregularities the NFÜ Coordinating Managing Authority in 
cooperation with the relevant departme nt or unit provides for a normative 
environment necessary to remedy the irre gularity. It should be noted that most 
irregularities are individual and sy stemic irregularities rarely come up.  
MT Amend Manual of Procedures where applicab le. Issue explanatory circulars to the 
stakeholders involved. Hold meetings with  relevant stakeholder/s to discuss and 
find a permanent solution.  
NL National Action Plan, report by Directorat e General for Regional Affairs dated 
31 January 2008, measures to improve matters.  
AT The general rule is that systemic problems are not necessarily irregularities within 
the meaning of the Regulation – administrative errors are not always irregularities. 
In the case of systemic deficiencies co rrective measures are taken and this may 
well lead to financial corrections. The corrected amounts may in some 
circumstances be reported as irregular ities. However the AFIS system is not 
designed for such reporting. 
PL IROP: The Managing Authority IROP, commencing from August 2006, organises 
quarterly meetings on fraud and fi nancial abuse for Implementing and 
Intermediate Institutions. The purpose of these meeting sis to exchange experience and knowledge on the topic – cont rollers from Articl e 4 participate in 
the meetings. Furthermore, MA IROP orga nises training on cont rol, irregularities 
and consolidation of EU and Republic of Poland financial interests – trainings are 
organised with the participation of MF representatives, the Police, controllers 
from Article 10. 
In order to improve control, increase its  effectiveness and standardise binding 
principles in this resp ect under IROP, MA IROP drew up in 2006 Guidelines on 
Checks from Article 4 (updated on 31 July 2007). Furthermore, it was 
recommended to carry out cross-checki ng at the Beneficiaries implementing a 
number of projects fr om structural funds. 
In order to improve public procuremen t checks training was organised on the 
Public Procurement Act, guidelines were  drawn up on public procurement checks 
together with check lists, cooperation wa s started with the Public Procurement 
Office. 
Concerning the intensity of checks, the Implementing and Intermediate Bodies 
check 100% of secondary sources (documen tation attached to the beneficiary’s 
payment application). 
 
 170   EN 3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 
Furthermore, system simplifications a nd improvements have been carried out: 
In January 2006 a number of simplifications were also  carried out concerning 
confirmation of expenditure  incurred by the Final Bene ficiary under Measure 2.2. 
A new form of paying out grants to pup ils was introduced in keeping with 
suggestions of DG EMPL representatives (the obligation that Measure 2.2. Final 
Beneficiaries present copies of invoices  has been replaced by the obligation to 
present certificates signed by school Directors confirming that a pupil has 
participated in the educational course).  Guidelines concerning this improvement 
were consulted in an ongoing fashion w ith Regional represen tatives and were 
submitted to the Regions. These changes were accepted by the IROP Monitoring Committee and came into force on the da y of entry into force of the IROP 
Addendum.  
Concerning on-the-spot checks: From the beginning of implementing IROP to mid-2006 institutions involved in 
the implementation of IROP had the obliga tion to carry out on-the-spot checks of 
100% of completed projects. In June 2006 the IROP Managing Authority made it 
possible to carry out on-the-spot checks on a sample of projects under Priority 2 – 
sample checks could be carried out on a sample of projects chosen on the basis of risk analysis described in the selec tion methodology for on-the-spot samples of 
projects. Concerning Priorities 1 and 3 it is possible to carry out a check on a 
sample, on condition that an Annex is adde d to the project subsidy contract base 
don the obligatory model of December 2006. In  practical terms, the majority of 
institutions involved in implementing IROP  carried out on-the-spot checks after 
the completion of the project. In the event of there being suspicion that the 
irregularity is of a systemic charact er the check becomes more intensive. 
CI INTERREG: In the event of the irre gularity coefficient increasing, the checks 
on the threat of irregularity become more intensive.  
SOP Transport: For projects with the larg est number of irre gularities (both in 
terms of number and magnitude) the check s become more intensive (frequent). 
PT Stepping-up checks, demarcation of  error perimeters and respective 
quantification. 
Tighter demands in the initial assessment of the project and reinforced monitoring 
of the project. 
SI An increase in the intensity of checks, or a request to correct the irregularity, 
failing which the recipient is asked to return the funds.  
SK Systemising checks, increasing the intensity on the basis of risk analyses and 
communications of the intermed iate bodies, and of the final 
beneficiaries/recipients themselves. 
 
 171   EN 3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 
Increasing the intensity of  spot checks, updating MA handbooks and guidelines 
for final beneficiaries/recipients, issuing methodological aids on the most frequent 
errors in ESF projects, training fo r final beneficiaries/recipients. 
Increasing the intensity of checks, direct consultation and operat ional decision of 
problems with the final beneficiary, 100% verification of payment requests and on 
the spot checks within the scope of fina l payment requests, when the project is 
verified as a whole.  
Intensive communication with the final be neficiary/recipient, more frequent 
checks. 
Increasing the intensity of on the spot ve rification, closer communication with the 
final beneficiary/recipient to prevent failings and irre gularities from arising. 
Increasing the intensity of checks. Despite the low level of irregularitie s, measures aimed at improving the 
information of final beneficiaries, mo re detailed physical checks of project 
implementation, and refunding non-eligible funding. 
Assignment as a risk project for the pur pose of ongoing intensive verification of 
compliance with the terms of the NRFC Agreement.  
FI Mainly by preventive measures. Thus, the primary measures are control and 
guidance according to the pr inciple of good governance to keep the number of 
irregularities as low as possible.  
A so-called steering group is establishe d, for instance for projects under the 
Regional Development Act with consid erable estimated budgets or those 
receiving funding from various sources, as  well as interregiona l projects, and if 
necessary, also in other cases. The task of the steering group is, first and foremost, 
to act as a support group for the benefi ciary. Members of the steering group must 
include a sufficient number of experts, in cluding representatives of the financing 
parties (supervisor) and project pers onnel. The steering group follows the 
implementation of the project in relation to  the project plan an d financing decision 
and, if necessary, suggests amendments to the implementer of the project. The steering group must evaluate the results obtained by the project in relation to the objectives set for it and, for its part , develop procedures  to enhance the 
implementation of the project. Depending on the nature of the project, it is the 
task of the steering group to advance the project networking. The steering group 
must also approve the final report of the project before it can be submitted to the authorities. In addition, the steering group deals with, for example, interim 
reports, payment application and suggested amendments.  
In preparing the financing decisions, th e backgrounds of the project actors are 
checked, including financial resources a nd other conditions for implementing the 
project. In the evaluation of expertise a nd solvency, for instance, the applicant's 
 
 172   EN 3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 
credit information and familiarity with financial  management are checked. 
Especially a beneficiary who has not pr eviously been granted aid from the 
structural funds is familiarised with the operational principles.  
Details with the relevant instructions contained in the verification form, which is 
completed during the processing of the payment application, are discussed as 
applicable with the implementer of th e project in the st art-up meeting or 
equivalent in order for the implem enter to acknowledge its obligations 
beforehand.  
SE The administrative authority and the res ponsible Article 15 organ use information 
in their control and audit procedure work. Reports are generally submitted to Ekobrottsmyndigheten (The Fi nancial Crime Authority).  
UK England : Increased checks/monitoring. Meeti ngs/discussions with organisation 
about the issues and recommendations to  improve systems etc. Some GOs have 
taken action through workshops, forming monitoring/irregularities committees 
and/or pre-engagement visits when the terms and conditions of grant are 
explained and the likely actions if grant recipients fail to comply. This latter point has proved very successful in GO East. 
Northern Ireland: Revised guidance issued and checks were increased.  
Scotland: Targeting of projects  / applicants likely to be affected.  
 
 173   EN 3.5. Information to fina l beneficiaries. 
Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possi ble consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 
BE Yes. Granting convention, Vademecum  and organization of project follow-up 
committees 
CZ Yes. By the intermediate body in the course of processing  applications, or through 
conditions of allocating contributions (par t of the Decision to provide a subsidy). 
Interreg: Conditions of providing a su bsidy/financing agreement (applicable 
section on the procedure to be taken by the Managing/National Authority in case 
of finding suspected irregularity).  
Potential applicants are already informed of irregularities upon submitting project 
applications (and beneficiaries during implementation) as implied by Instructions for subsidy applicants and beneficiaries. 
JROP: Final beneficiaries ar e given advance notice of i rregularity consequences 
in the Conditions of the Decision to provide a subsidy and instructions for 
applicants and instructio ns for beneficiaries. 
In case of detecting a specific irregularit y, final beneficiaries are informed about 
the detection of and the subsequent m easures to investigate and rectify the 
irregularity via specific documents, such as check reports/certificates, copies of 
notices for the tax office and so on.  
DK Yes. The letter of authorisation c ontains relevant information.  
DE Principles of the law on administrative procedures are sufficiently well known. 
See §§ 48 and 49 General Administrative Procedures Act(s) of the Länder. 
EE Yes. Verbally and/or in writing. The order sets  out a list of the activities which the 
beneficiary failed to carry out by the dead line, the measures required and all rights 
and obligations. 
IE Yes. Through financial management training seminars, in writing and also on site-
visits. A series of on-site pre-closur e visits are currently under way both at 
Managing Authority and Intermediate Body le vel which facilitates an even greater 
level of communication on co mmon type errors which co uld potentially lead to 
irregularities.  
EL Yes. Final beneficiaries are fully informed of their legal obligations and of the 
consequences of possible irregularities as a result of failure to comply with the 
obligations undertaken in re turn for financing from th e operational programme in 
the integration decision. Whenever an ir regularity is identified during on-the-spot 
administrative verifications by the managi ng authority, the fina l beneficiary is 
advised of the consequences of the irregula rities (letter or audit results sent to 
beneficiary setting out a ll the findings of the ve rification and the proposed 
 
 174   EN 3.5. Information to fina l beneficiaries. 
Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possi ble consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 
consequences). 
ES Yes. In writing. 
FR Yes. The beneficiaries are informed in the acts awarding ER DF funding, which 
specify their rights and obligations a nd the scope of their responsibilities.  
IT Yes. The relevant EU, national and regional rules are referred to in the forms, 
information sheets and notices setting out the final beneficiary’s obligations and the consequences of any failure to m eet them. Reference is made to these 
documents in the notification th at the funding has been awarded. 
CY Yes. Via terms in the grant letter. 
LV Yes. In accordance with contracts conclude d on project implementation and the 
provision of ERDF co-financing, the interm ediate body has the right to reduce the 
amount of ERDF co-financing that  needs to be paid back or  to refuse to pay it out 
at all, or alternatively to request that all or part of the ERDF co-financing that the 
intermediate body has already paid be paid  back, should it ascertain that a funding 
beneficiary has not complied with European  Community or Latvian legislation on 
the implementation of structural funds. The contract indicates th at the beneficiary 
of funding from a structural fund must  implement the relevant project in 
accordance with European Community a nd Latvian legislation. By signing a 
project implementation contract, the fundi ng beneficiary affirms that not only has 
he or she become acquainted with the term s, but also with the requirements of 
regulations pertaining to the Structural Funds. For this re ason it can be considered 
that the beneficiary is also aware of th e consequences of permitting irregularities.  
LT Yes. The procedure for informing funding recipi ents of their legal obligations and 
rights and the possible conseque nces of financial infringements is laid down in the 
Administrative and Financia l Rules governing measures contained in Lithuania's 
2004–2006 single programming document and projects financed under these measures (hereinafter the 'Rules'), appr oved under Minster of  Finance Order No 
1K-033 of 28 January 2004 (Official Gazette 2004, No 19-599; 2005, No 21-667). 
Paragraph 213 of the Rules lays down th at where an author ity ascertains an 
infringement which, in its opinion, may be  rectified, the project implementer is 
granted a maximum period of 10 working days to rectify the infringement. 
Where, in the opinion of the authority, an  infringement is irresolvable or cannot 
be rectified, the project implementer may be subject to the sa nctions laid down in 
paragraph 213 of the Rules (inc luding financial sanctions). 
Paragraph 217 of the Rules lays down that a project im plementer must be notified 
immediately of any decision concerning an infringement.  
 
 175   EN 3.5. Information to fina l beneficiaries. 
Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possi ble consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 
LU Yes. In the grant agreement.  
HU Yes. Following the closure of an irregul arity procedure the NFÜ informs the 
beneficiary in written form, by post. 
MT Yes.  
– The Letter of Offer stipulates the legal obligations of the Final 
Beneficiaries.  
– The Manual of Procedures for Stru ctural Funds 2004–2006 issued by the 
Managing Authority was distribute d to all Final Beneficiaries. 
Additionally the MA informs the Proj ect Leader on update s issued by the 
MA itself via circulars or other means. 
– The Managing Authority organised trai ning seminars e xplaining to the 
Final Beneficiaries their legal ob ligations and rights including those 
related to irregularities. 
NL Yes. Brochures, information meetings, inspectio ns and training courses for project 
applicants.  
AT Yes. The consequences are set out in th e grant agreements and the general 
conditions for beneficiaries of ERDF funds.  
PL Yes.  
IROP: There are provisions in the model pr oject subsidy contracts defined by 
MA IROP, which inform the Beneficiary about the consequences of detected 
irregularities and obligate the Beneficiar y to remove the irre gularities and to 
inform institutions being a party to th e subsidy contract of the existence of 
irregularities. In the contract there is a description of procedure for recovering 
unduly collected means or means collected at an excess level together with 
interest as in tax in arrears. In keepi ng with the contract, failure to remove the 
irregularities within the set period may l ead to the project subsidy contract being 
terminated.  
In the event of irregularities being di scovered during verification of secondary 
sources the Beneficiary is informed about  the consequences by means of a letter 
on the verification results. However, in th e event of irregularities being discovered 
as a result of an on-t he-spot check the Beneficiary receives post-control 
information and post-control recommendati ons, by means of which he is informed 
of the consequences of th e discovered irregularities. 
Furthermore, the Intermediate Body a nd Implementing Institution organise 
training for the Beneficiaries, during whic h the Beneficiaries are informed of the 
 
 176   EN 3.5. Information to fina l beneficiaries. 
Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possi ble consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 
principles of the Programme, amongst ot hers, of the principles of expending 
resources. 
CI INTERREG: Information is submitted during training organised by the 
Regional Offices and as part of worki ng contacts with Intermediate Bodies. 
SOP Transport: Basic information is contained in  every subsidy contract (also 
relating to the manner of cal culating interest on inappr opriately expended means). 
OP – Technical Assistance: Part of the entries (concerning financial 
consequences) are contained in the subs idy contracts/decisions. Furthermore, 
TAOP 2004-6 beneficiaries ar e the most important instit utions in the structural 
fund implementation system, they search  for knowledge in an ongoing fashion 
whilst creating, managing and implementing the system.  
SOP ECG: Appropriate entries are contained in the contents of the subsidy 
contract and guidelines for beneficiaries.  
PT Yes. In generic terms: Written contract, official letters, e-mails containing 
guidance, rules and procedures regardi ng the measure. Beneficiaries are kept 
informed throughout the candid acy and through an appropri ate official letter in 
the event of an irregularit y. CCDR: Offici al letter.  
RO Yes. The beneficiaries are informed of th eir rights and obliga tions, as well as 
regarding irregularities and the consequences thereof w ithin the Applicant's Guide 
and the financing contract model. The beneficiaries assume these obligations 
when signing the financing contract.  
SI Yes. The possible consequences of any irre gularities detected are mentioned in 
the co-financing agreement.  
SK Yes. The rights of final beneficiaries/recipi ents are set out in the NRFC Funding 
Agreement. During on the spot verification, the team informs the final beneficiary/recipients of possible sancti ons and consequences so that they are 
aware of them and can prevent them. The final beneficiary/re cipients are also 
informed by e-mail or telephone. 
Contractually within the scope of provi ding information in relation to the 
implementation of ŠF projects, in the Non-Refundable Financial Aid Agreement 
and at final beneficiary/reci pient training sessions. Where ineligible expenditure is 
found, the recipients are warned in the course of irregularities in writing, 
beneficiaries are informed of the SF Fi nancial Management Concept and via the 
Finance Ministry website, beneficiaries are informed in personal consultations 
and verifications of public proc urement and on the spot checks. 
Agreements with the final beneficiary/reci pient contain provisi ons that deal with 
sanctions for irregularities, and where di sputes arise project managers consult 
 
 177   EN 3.5. Information to fina l beneficiaries. 
Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possi ble consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 
with final beneficiaries/recipients, as we ll as members of the control group, warn 
them of potential irregularities and thereby help avoid them. 
Agreement on the provision of NRFC, handbooks for final 
beneficiaries/recipients. 
Training for final beneficiaries thr ough public information published on the 
managing authority website, and personal consultations. 
The rights of final benefici aries/recipients are set out  in the NRFC Agreement. 
Before signing NRFC Agreements, the final beneficiaries/recipients are informed 
of their main duties as regards fulfilment. Recipients are informed of failures to meet their obligations (late submission of data, e.g. for monitoring) by telephone 
or e-mail. In the case of further failure to meet their obligations under the NRFC 
Agreement, the recipients are given written warning.  
FI Yes. It is noted in general in the financi ng decision that if the terms set in the 
decision are not complied with, the payments can be suspended and the aid already paid can be recovered with interest . In addition, measures will be taken, if 
necessary, to bring charges in order to impose criminal sanctions.  
The terms of the financing decision also  include the obligation to immediately 
inform the financing authority of any ch anges and obstacles to implementing the 
project according to the d ecision under the threat of discontinuance and recovery 
of payments. The grounds for lawful rec overy have also been  specified in the 
decision.  
During the programming period of 2007–2013, a standard electr onic financing 
decision form will be used, which combines the key obligations of the beneficiary and, furthermore, addresses, for instance,  the exceptional and se vere regulation in 
respect of the permanent nature of th e operations and the monitoring thereof. 
Åland: In the financing decision, the steering committee decides on the funding allocated 
to the project and the Secretariat's technical project checks always provide information on 
the provisions (legal and administrative) the project must comply with in order to receive funding from the European Regional Developm ent Fund (ERDF). The legal provisions to 
be listed are the various Council and Commissi on regulations regarding financing within 
the framework of the structural funds, the provincial government's policy decision 
regarding payment obligations and eligible expenditure, which are co-financed from the 
structural funds, decisions on public procurement, etc. 
 
The project has also been continuously in formed by providing information when the 
Secretariat has participated in the meetings and in the project meetings arranged for the 
project actors.  
Information is also available on the programme's homepage www.skargarden.com . 
SE Yes. In the conditions supplement that accompanies the decision concerning the 
 
 178   EN 3.5. Information to fina l beneficiaries. 
Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possi ble consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 
project. 
UK Yes. Grant Offer Letter and verbally.