TABLE OF CONTENTS

1........... Summary of Member States’ contributions:..................................................................... 4

1.1........ General legal framework applicable................................................................................. 4

1.2........ Available intelligence and risk analysis............................................................................. 4

1.3........ Information exchange...................................................................................................... 5

1.4........ Public procurement and transparency.............................................................................. 6

1.5........ Criminal proceedings...................................................................................................... 7

2........... KEY DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 325 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (TFEU)............................ 8

3........... THE RISK OF DOUBLE FINANCING OF PROJECTS IN THE AREA OF COHESION POLICY 20

3.1........ General legal framework applicable............................................................................... 21

3.2........ Available intelligence and risk analysis........................................................................... 36

3.3........ Information exchange.................................................................................................... 45

3.4........ Public procurement and transparency............................................................................ 77

3.5........ Criminal proceedings.................................................................................................... 90

INTRODUCTION

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

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

The Commission report is drafted on the basis of the Member States' replies to the "Article 325" questionnaire. The present questionnaire covers the period from 1 January to 31 December 2010.

This document lists all the answers of Member States to the 2010 questionnaire.

Over the time the report had become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and the European Parliament were concerned that its size was increasing and that its being annual, horizontal and multisectoral hampered a detailed assessment of all the aspects of the protection of the EU’s financial interests by the Member States. Since 2003, the Commission has therefore applied a new approach. After the traditional question asking Members States to report on new measures taken in 2010, the questionnaire focuses on a two major themes. The aim is to gather information on topics which go beyond the measures taken in the course of a calendar year, thereby allowing a more detailed analysis of these topics. The topics change from year to year.

As in the previous years, the first part of the questionnaire asks the Member States to present the main measures that give effect to Article 325, i.e. measures to combat fraud and all illegal activities affecting the financial interests of the EU. This part is structured the same as for the 2010 questionnaire. Member States are invited to describe two or three "key" measures taken in the year 2010 in order to implement Article 325 of the Treaty.

The second set of questions concerns the double financing of projects.

1. Summary of Member States’ contributions: 1.1. General legal framework applicable

Member States were asked about the national legislative provisions defining double financing and the legal consequences, criminal and administrative, of double financing of projects.

All Member States reported that financing of the same expenses from two or more different sources is not allowed. In a majority of the Member States[1] ‘double financing’ is well defined or the EU definitions are directly incorporated into their national legal framework. In some Member States[2] the term “double financing” is sufficiently clear to be directly applied and has not been transposed into national law.

The prohibition of the double financing of projects is in all Member States foreseen at one or more levels of national regulations: legislation[3], governmental decrees[4], contractual rules[5], case laws[6], guidelines[7], and documents of Managing Authorities[8].

Member States’ replies show that both administrative sanctions (e.g. recovery of misused funds, use of guarantees, subsidies reduced or not paid, revoked grant approval, rejection of financing, termination of contract, loss of entitlement to financial aid for a certain period of time) and criminal sanctions (financial penalty, confiscation of assets, dissolving of the company, prosecution, imprisonment) are in place against attempts of double financing of projects.

1.2. Available intelligence and risk analysis

Most Member States[9] reported that identified risk indicators applied to avoid double financing of projects. Risk indicators apply, whether the same beneficiary is involved in more projects co-financed by EU, being a partner in projects of other beneficiaries, being involved in one project approved to receive finances from various services.

Some Member States[10] are still working on identifying risk indicators or are at the early stages of using them.

In order to improve risk analysis in the area of prevention of double financing of projects the Member States propose the following measures: creation and use of single pan-European database, national databases, regular cross-checks of beneficiaries, exchange of information and enhanced cooperation between national authorities, further recommendations and guidance from EU, development of risk analysis methodology in relation to double financing, and awareness raising.

1.3. Information exchange

With regard to information exchange, all Member States reported about applying certain methods to prevent and reduce the risk of double financing of projects, such as: agreements between national authorities on cooperation and exchange of information, inter-service selection or supervisory committees, verifications of data by using databases and codes, cross-checks of accounting documents, stamping of invoices, and declarations provided by potential beneficiaries.

In order to identify possible attempts of double financing already at the stage of the application and authorisation of projects, Member States perform ex-ante risk analysis and checks[11], ex-ante consultations and exchange of information through the members of selection committees[12], make verifications using the available databases[13], and require declarations from the candidate beneficiaries[14] that there is no double financing taking place with regard to the announced projects.

All Member States reported that they had electronic database(s) holding all or parts of the information regarding the projects co-financed by the EU. In all Member States except in Germany the database(s) can be used at the national level. In some Member States[15] they can also be used at the regional level and in some[16] even at the local level. The authorities authorised to use these database(s) are typically involved in the administration of EU funds in the Member States: the managing authorities, certifying bodies, intermediate bodies, audit and control authorities, and other authorities such as the police and the prosecution service. Some information is also available to the public.

The databases are holding information about the content of the projects (management documents, project assessments, operations, progress charts), their financial aspects (payments, expenditure forecasts, irregularities, reports about checks and inspections), and information about beneficiaries involved in the projects co-financed by EU funds.

Most Member States[17] have developed at a national level other electronic tools, such as analytical applications and messaging systems, which can be combined with external data resources (e.g. public internet sites, public databases) in order to collect and analyse data about EU co-financed projects in the area of cohesion policy.

Member States reported that in order to prevent and reduce the risk of double financing the information flow between different competent national authorities involved in the publication, awarding and the implementation of the project contracts is organised through regular exchange of information between authorities concerned, also using databases and monitoring groups.

The information flows between respective national authorities of Member States[18] and the European Commission through various working groups and information systems. Information comes in the form of reports or response to requests.

1.4. Public procurement and transparency

With regard to the use of the Central Exclusion Database (CED) under article 95 of the Financial Regulation, one third of the Member States[19] reported that in 2010 they were not using it. Some Member States[20] are still setting CED up. In Latvia it is set up, but was not used. In Romania it was only partially used by some of the national authorities. Five Member States[21] are using it, six Member States[22] did not use the CED, however they use other kinds of national exclusion databases.

In order to collect the information at the national level about exclusion situations before sending it to the Commission, the majority of the Member States[23] does not use any specific mechanism. Other Member States[24] do this through different inter-institutional committees, monitoring groups, and liaison points, such as AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Co-ordination Service), using template reports, copies of authorities’ decisions, electronic registers, etc.

The Member States[25] reported that a beneficiary’s failure to pay social contributions or taxes[26] was the most common ground for exclusion from participation in procurement procedures.

The next most common grounds for exclusion reported by Member States[27] are the beneficiary’s bankruptcy or being wound up, being administered by the court, entering into an arrangement with creditors, suspending business activities[28], and being guilty of serious misrepresentation in supplying the information required or not supplying such information[29].

The beneficiary’s conviction by final judgement for participation in a criminal organisation, corruption, fraud, money laundering[30], and being guilty of grave professional misconduct[31] were reported by Member States[32] as the third most common grounds for exclusion.

A beneficiary being subject of proceedings for a declaration of bankruptcy, for an order for compulsory winding up or administration by the court or of an arrangement with creditors[33], and being convicted by a judgment which has the force of res judicata[34] was reported by Member States[35] as the last most common grounds for exclusion.

1.5. Criminal proceedings

Only Italy reported on initiated criminal proceedings started in 2010 and concerning the double financing of projects involving EU funds.

2. KEY DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 325 OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION (TFEU)

Maximum three most important legislative or administrative measures taken in the course of 2010 for the protection of the EU’s financial interests and the fight against fraud. These should be measures adopted at Member State’s own initiative and not measures which simply transpose EU legislation. In particular, Member States are asked to indicate: · Type of measure (law, regulation, etc.) and references (number, date of adoption and/or publication, name of programme, etc.) · Its scope (horizontal, specific field) · Why it was needed · Improvements made to the existing system.

BE || ABREVIATIONS: LPIS: Land Parcel Identification System CACS: Community Administration and Control System CAP: Common Agricultural Policy WR: Walloon Region FL: Flanders WPS: Wallon Public Service BCR: Brussels Capital Region Flemish Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries (ALV): improvements - CAP (Common Agricultural Policy) – area-related aid measures (Pillars 1 and 2 of the CAP) - control approach under the Community Administrative and Control System and LPIS (Land Parcel Identification System). The Large-Scale Reference Database (GRB) is a basic register for geographic elements with a mean accuracy level of 20cm, created by the Flemish Agency for Geographic Information (Agentschap voor Geografische Informatie Vlaanderen -AGIV). Five of the GRB geographic elements – buildings– outbuildings – roads – industrial premises and railway tracks – are precisely digitalised areas not eligible for subsidies. These areas can never be taken into account for the payment of European agricultural subsidies. The Agency for Agriculture and Fisheries (ALV) therefore makes use of these GRB elements in relation to agricultural parcels. For instance, overlapping areas between agricultural areas (ALV) and GRB elements not eligible for subsidies are removed. This means that GRB areas that are not eligible for subsidies are taken out of the agricultural parcels, resulting in a reduction of the reference areas in the agricultural parcel concerned. This eventually results in the reassessment and recovery of any excess per-hectare aid paid. The GRB covered approximately 50% of Flemish territory in 2010 and will cover all of Flanders in 2015. The ALV will continue to make use of the GRB in order to guarantee the quality of the LPIS. Federal public service – management budget and control: the Federal Authorities' Audit Committee (ACFO) was set up in 2010 by the Royal Decree of 21 February 2010 implementing the Royal Decree of 17 August 2007 on the establishment of the ACFO. The setting-up of the ACFO was the first major step towards the establishment of an effective authority. The ACFO guarantees the independence of internal audit activities and ensures their quality and efficiency. The law of 18 January 2010 amending the law of 11 January 1993 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for money-laundering and the financing of terrorism, and the Companies' Code (Moniteur Belge of 26 January 2010), is a very important legislative measure in terms of consolidating measures to prevent the risk of fraud involving the financial interests of the European Union and its Member States. This law achieves two objectives: it incorporates into Belgian law the third directive on money-laundering, Directive 2005/60/EC, together with the implementing directive, Commission Directive 2006/70/EC of 1 August 2006, and it brings the system into line with the recommendations by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) with a view to enhancing the effectiveness of the Belgian mechanism to combat money-laundering and the financing of terrorism. FPS Finance: The Royal Decree of 10 January 2010 amending Royal Decree No 1 of 29 December 1992 on measures aimed at ensuring the payment of value added tax (Moniteur belge of 18 January 2010, 1st edition). This Royal Decree inserted an Article 20b in Royal Decree No 1 in order to introduce the reverse charge rule for transfers of greenhouse gas emission quotas. Given that this type of fraud was a real threat for the Belgian Treasury in terms of tax losses, the Decree was adopted before the publication of Directive 2010/23/EU in the Official Journal, but was in line with the final proposal for this Council Directive.

BG || 1. Act Amending and Supplementing the Public Procurement Act (State Gazette No 52 of 9 July 2010). This act has broadened the scope of the joint ex-ante control by the Managing Authorities of the Operational Programmes (MAs of OPs) and the Public Procurement Agency (AOP) over the procurement procedures for contracts financed fully or partially by the EU. Pursuant to the amendment, all procedures for EU-funded supply and service contracts of an amount equal to or exceeding BGN 1 000 000 are subject to control. The amendment also introduces the possibility for tenderers or candidates to supplement their tenders with documents so that the selection criteria established by the contracting authority could be satisfied. This change should result in fewer cases of exclusion of candidates or tenderers on formal grounds only. Thus, it will contribute to the intended purpose of the law: to prevent manipulation of public contracts. 2. Decree of the Council of Ministers (PMS) No 134 of 5 July 2010 on the adoption of a methodology to determine the financial corrections applied to the expenditure related to the implementation of the OPs that are co-financed by the EU structural instruments, the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF) (State Gazette No 53 of 13 July 2010). This methodology concerns established irregularities in the execution of grant award contracts arising from breaches of the provisions of the Public Procurement Act (ZOP), the Regulation on Low-value Public Procurement (NVMOP) and PMS No 55/2007. The decree aims to improve project management, reduce the number of irregularities and recover the amounts that have been disbursed unlawfully. It introduces criteria for consistency in the determination of breach types and the corresponding financial corrections to be imposed by the competent control authorities. 3. Decree of the Council of Ministers (PMS) No 285 of 30 November 2009 on the adoption of a regulation determining the procedures for handling irregularities involving funds and programmes co-financed by the EU (State Gazette No 97 of 8 December 2009, amended in State Gazette No 5 of 19 January 2010, amended in State Gazette No 90 of 16 November 2010). The Regulation lays down the procedures for: recording and handling reports of irregularities involving funds and programmes co-financed by the EU; recording, handling and drawing up reports on established irregularities involving funds and programmes co-financed by the EU; and monitoring and control of the implementation of the above procedures. 4. Interface for data exchange between the Unified Information System for Management and Monitoring (ISUN), the Integrated Administration and Control System (ISAK) and Axter Popeye. The purpose: centralised storage of data on registered candidates, project proposals and concluded grant award contracts under the OPs co-financed by the EU Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund, the Rural Development Programme co-financed by the EAFRD, and the OP for Development of the Fisheries Sector co-financed by the EFF.

CZ || Measures were adopted in the form of a further amendment to Act No 137/2006 on public procurement (hereinafter 'PPA' [Public Procurement Act]): a) by means of Act No 423/2010 – measures in respect of obligations relating to the establishment of the candidate's or tenderer's personal situation (transposition pursuant to Article 45 of Directive 2004/18/EC), b) by means of Act No 179/2010 - measures relating to the establishment of economic and financial standing and technical and/or professional ability, measures relating to the tightening up of the conditions under which a contracting authority is entitled to restrict the number of candidates by means of a lottery, measures relating to the requirement for a notary to be present when lots are drawn, measures relating to the persons responsible for selecting the most suitable bid and concluding a contract (amendment to Section 18(2) of the PPA), a measure pursuant to which a contracting authority is expressly required to draw up a report on the assessment of qualifications (so that any use of a non-transparent procedure in the assessment of qualifications can be penalised more effectively). Introduction of a de minimis register (Act No 215/2004 regulating certain relationships in the field of public aid and further amending the Act on support for research and development).

DK || Amendment to Section 46(1)(6) of the VAT Act (Act No 1134 of 4/12/2009) establishing a national reverse charge procedure for VAT on trade in CO2 emission allowances and carbon credits. The amendment entered into force on 9/4/2010 following adoption of Council Directive 2010/23/EU. The purpose of the Act is to prevent VAT carousel fraud on trade in CO2 emission allowances and carbon credits.

DE || /

EE || On 8 August 2010 the amendments to Regulation 278 "Conditions and rules for recovering and repaying aid and for providing information on infringements during the granting and use of aid" entered into force https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/13362963 - recovery requests linked to public procurement infringements comply with European Commission guidelines. On 16 January 2011 the amendments to the Public Procurement Act - improving the quality of procurement - entered into force https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/106012011020.

IE || Revenue Commissioners Type of measure: Law - Section 156 of the Finance Act, 2010 (3 April 2010). Scope: Collection of customs debts. Why it was needed: Tax-clearance Certificates are issued to tax payers where there are no tax debts outstanding against them. Hitherto, the definition of "tax" in the relevant legal provision did not include customs debts. The new provision has corrected the anomaly and now the existence of a customs debt will prevent the issue of a tax-clearance certificate. Improvements made to the existing system: Provision of an additional resource to assist the collection of customs debts. Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (D/AFF) Type of measure: D/AFF Fraud Policy statement, (January 2010). Scope: Information and guidelines for staff. Why it was needed: Updating of fraud reporting procedures, investigation procedures and D/AFF policy regarding protection for staff reporting fraud. Improvements made to the existing system: This was an updating of previous fraud guidelines published by the D/AFF in 1999. It is the aim of D/AFF to meet best corporate governance practice. Improvements to earlier guidelines relate to enhanced reporting and investigation procedures and policy on protection for staff reporting fraud. Department of Finance Type of measure: No major developments in 2010, however, the National Coordination Committee of the Funds remains in place. Scope: The Secretary General of each Government Department involved in the implementation of EU Structural Funds co-funded projects/operations 2007-2013 must sign a declaration annually to confirm that his/her Department and all bodies/agencies under its aegis involved in EU Structural Funds co-financed activities are bound by the Financial Management and Control Procedures for the EU Structural Funds Programmes (Further Details in Part 2.3.2). Why it was needed: To address cooperation and demarcation issues between ERDF/ESF/EFF and EAFRD. implementation issues that may warrant demarcation in the operational programmes and any plans for new programmes to ensure that the Funds are not overlapping.The committee presents an annual report to the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) Monitoring Committee Meeting. Improvements made to the existing system: There have been no significant issues of duplication or demarcation reported.

EL || Ministry of Justice: Act 3849/2010 on wealth declarations and the investigation of the financial status of members of parliament, public officials and employees, mass media owners and other categories of persons was adopted on 18 May 2010. The purpose of the Act is to introduce provisons for criminalisation of any behaviour aimed at the unjust enrichment of those occupying key government positions and their entourage, to enable illegal benefits to be better detected and those involved to be stripped of such benefits and prosecuted. Financial Police (SDOE): Issuing of Joint Decision 11130/2730/04.11.2010 of the Ministers for Finance and Justice, Transparency and Human Rights (Greek Government Gazette II 1818) laying down the procedures for imposing administrative sanctions on legal persons for corruption offenses. Financial Control Committee (EDEL): In its capacity as Audit Authority for the Operational Programmes (OP) of Objectives 1, 2 and 3 of the NSRF, and of the 2007-2013 Fisheries OP, EDEL has updated its Audit Manual (426th meeting of 27.12.2010) and sent it to the European Commission. The Manual makes systematic reference to issues concerning the investigation of cases of suspected fraud.

ES || a) Organic Law 5/2010 of 22 June 2010 amends Organic Law 10/1995 of 23 November on the Criminal Code. As regards subsidy fraud, the amended law sets the same amount as in the case of tax fraud to determine that a criminal act has been committed and it takes the calendar year as the reference for establishing the quantity defrauded. It also stipulates that these must be subsidies obtained to promote the same eligible private activity, even if they come from different administrations or public bodies. In particular, Article 309 is amended to read as follows: "Anyone who wrongfully obtains funds amounting to more than €50 000 from the general budget of the European Union or from budgets administered by it by falsifying the conditions required for their award or concealing the conditions that would have prevented it, shall be punished by a prison sentence of one to five years and a fine of up to six times the said amount." The reform may also have an effect on the EU's financial interests, and as regards the functions of the Customs Department, on the avoidance of payment of Community resources. The key elements of the reform are as follows: Tougher penalties for the offence in the form of longer prison sentences. Express introduction of a scheme whereby the tax authorities assist judges and courts in enforcing fines and civil liability, including the amounts defrauded from the Communities' finances. Establishment of a system of criminal liability for legal persons. b) Act 39/2010 of 22 December on the General State Budget amends the General Subsidies Act. Under this horizontal reform, the cases in which a grant or public aid cannot be obtained are further amplified to the extent that certain administrative penalties would be imposed on the persons concerned, greater emphasis is placed on the idea that the only eligible expenditure is that clearly linked to the subsidised activity and lastly, major improvements are made to the procedures followed by the Public Accounts and Internal Financial Control Department of the State (IGAE) for the financial checking of subsidies. c) Integrated Plan for the Prevention and Correction of Tax, Employment, and Social Security Fraud, approved by the Government on 5 March 2010. The aim of this horizontal instrument is to drive forward the fight against all forms of fraud by ensuring coordinated action by the three administrative bodies responsible for combating fraud and safeguarding the integrity of public revenue, namely the State Tax Administration Agency, the Social Security General Treasury, and the Labour and Social Security Inspectorate.

FR || Articles 67A to 67D were incorporated into the French Customs Code by the Finance Amendment Act for 2009 (Law No 2009-1674 of 30 December 2009). They concern the right to be heard before a decision is made. According to these articles, before a customs debt is notified, the person concerned must be handed or sent a document in which the administration indicates the proposed decision, the grounds therefor and the reference of the documents and information on which the decision will be based. The person concerned then has a period of 30 days in which to make any comments. This procedure can also be conducted orally. Decree No 2010-110 of 29 January 2010 on the system of penalties of the POSEI-France programme, Official Journal of the French Republic of 31 January 2010.

IT || Law No 136 of 13 August 2010 (Wide-ranging anti-mafia plan and delegation of powers to the Government regarding anti-mafia legislation) amended by Decree Law No 187 of 12 November 2010, implemented by Law No 217 of 17 December 2010. The legislation, followed by appropriate resolutions by the Supervisory Authority for Public Works, Services and Supplies Contracts (No 8 of 18.11.2010 and No 10 of 22.12.2010), was adopted in order to ensure the traceability of financial flows and thereby prevent criminal infiltration. Contractors and subcontractors from the business sector and recipients of public funding, including European, of any type, involved in public works, supplies and services must use one or more bank or postal current accounts, opened with dedicated banks or the Poste Italiane Spa (Italian Post Office). All financial movements concerning public works, supplies and services must be conducted solely by bank or postal transfer, or by other means of payment that allow the full traceability of transactions. For Agricultural Policy, Law No 96 of 4 June 2010 introduced substantial changes to Law No 898 of 23 December 1986 which provides for a system of penalties for unlawful payments of Community assistance in the agriculture sector. Grounds for this measure: to make the system of administrative penalties fairer by matching the penalty to the seriousness of the offence committed; to adjust the threshold for the criminal implications of the offence to a value (€5 000) deemed to be significant. This has improved the system of penalties by making them more graduated and fairer. The Ministry of Education, Universities and Research issued Circular No 12697 of 27.10.2010 on checks and controls as regards: Programming of the European Structural Funds 2007-2013 – National Operational Programme "Skills for development " – ESF – 2007 IT 05 1 OP 007; National Operational Programme "Learning Environments" – ERDF – 2007 IT 16 1 OP 004. 1) Checks on the activities performed by educational institutions with co-financing from the European Structural Fund: recurrent errors and corrective measures or improvements. 2) Information and publicity requirements. 3) T.A. HelpDesk Service, new references and telephone numbers. The Region of Lombardy in respect of: ROP ESF 2007/2013 issued Decree No 6500/2010 concerning the approval of the Reporting Manual which introduces checks against the risk of double financing; ROP ERDF 2007/2010 issued Decree No 2240/2010 (amending Decree No 3078/2009) on the setting-up of the Group of on-the-spot Inspectors and approval of the Guidelines on Expenditure Accounts. These documents contain useful checks for preventing the risk of double financing.

CY || Cyprus has not adopted any important measures for 2010.

LV || Measures directed at the recovery of undue expenditure: Within the context of EU funding programmes, Cabinet Regulation No 740 was adopted on 10 August 2010 on the procedures for reporting irregularities in the implementation of EU Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund resources, taking decisions on the use of allocated funding, and recovering undue expenditure, which lays down a new procedure for reporting irregularities, specifies the procedure for recovering undue expenditure, and provides for regular quarterly meetings between bodies involved in the management of EU Funds concerning cases of irregularities with a view to preventively avoiding the application of various sanctions and simplifying and speeding up decision-making and information exchange. To harmonise the practices of bodies involved in the administration of EU Funds in respect of processing irregularities, recovering undue expenditure and applying proportionate financial corrections, the Managing Authority for EU Funds developed ‘Guidelines for reporting irregularities in the implementation of EU funds and the recovery of undue expenditure in the 2007-13 programming period’ of 15 July 2010 (updated on 30 November 2010), and ‘Guidelines for applying financial corrections to projects financed from EU Funds’ of 3 June 2010. In 2010, amendments were made to the description of the third objective (‘European territorial cooperation’) of the EU Structural Funds management and control system for the Latvian-Lithuanian cross-border cooperation programme. This involved defining ‘Procedures for the reporting of irregularities noted in the implementation of the programme and taking decisions on the recovery of undue expenditure’, approved by the programme’s Joint Management and Supervisory Committee on 4 December 2009. The updated description of the management and control system was submitted on 2 July 2010 to the programme's audit authority for inclusion in the annual audit report, which was submitted to the Commission on 28 December 2010 through the SFC2007 system. Measures directed at the improvement of procurement procedures: In 2010, amendments to Cabinet Regulation No 65 of 5 February 2008 on procurement procedure and its application to projects financed by a contractor were drawn up and are now under consideration by the Cabinet. These amendments provide a new definition of related parties, expanding the concept of a conflict of interests. The prohibition on concluding procurement agreements between related parties provided for in these amendments resolves the previously existing problem, where the prohibition on concluding such agreements in situations involving a conflict of interests did not apply to natural persons, associations, or foundations. The amendments contain provisions for the exclusion of suppliers which comply with the provisions included in the Law on Public Procurements, excluding suppliers who may be involved in the underground economy. Training: In 2010, the Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau provided training for 3 452 state officials on ethics and the prevention of conflicts of interest. Several seminars were organised for officials of the Rural Support Service and the State Employment Agency involved in taking decisions on the allocation of resources from EU Funds.

LT || An amendment to Resolution No 590 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 30 May 2005 on the approval of the Rules for the repayment into the State budget of the Republic of Lithuania of financial support paid out and/or used in violation of the law was approved by Resolution No 293 of the Government of the Republic of Lithuania of 17 March 2010 (Valstybės žinios (Official Gazette) 2005, No 69-2469; 2010, No 33-1570) (hereinafter referred to as the Amendment to Resolution No 590), which amended the Rules for the repayment into the State budget of the Republic of Lithuania of financial support paid out and/or used in violation of the law (hereinafter referred to as the Repayment Rules). This amendment to the Rules: 1. Established a general procedure for the repayment into the budget of support provided under all EU and other international support programmes administered in Lithuania which was paid out and/or used in violation of the law; 2. Made improvements to the previously applicable procedure for recovering funds, taking account of Lithuania’s economic situation and its experience of implementing EU and other international support programmes by: 2.1. Extending the period of time for repayment of funds (from 30 calendar days to 60 calendar days); 2.2. Simplifying the decision-making procedure as regards funds recovery (it has become possible to adopt decisions on funds recovery by using the functionalities introduced into the information systems, thus shortening the decision-making period and simplifying the administrative process); 2.3. Making it possible, at the debtor’s request, to return repayable funds in instalments with payment of interest; 2.4. Establishing clearer responsibility for the performance of functions relating to the recovery of funds.

LU || Not applicable

HU || 1. Pursuant to Government Decree No 210/2010 of 30 June 2010 on the Directorate-General for the Audit of European Grants, EUTAF was established by dividing the Government Control Office (KEHI). EUTAF's primary mission is to act as control authority as regards grants from the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and to perform control tasks established by the Government in respect of other EU and international support. The primary objective of the organisational change was to enable a single body to concentrate on the tasks of auditing EU projects and combating fraud, providing it with the experts and technical equipment to do so. Moreover, KEHI can continue to check the use of international grants. 2. To achieve more effective and economical central budget revenue estimates and to protect the interests of the state budget, Act No 122/2010 on the National Tax and Customs Office (NAV) integrated the Tax and Financial Control Office and the Customs and Finance Guard from 1 January 2011. The new organisation will be more effective than its predecessor in administering customs revenue due to the EU and in collecting the revenue necessary for the VAT-based contribution, thus indirectly contributing to securing the GNI-based resources. From 2011, the ex-post checks (Special Service) provided for by Article 11 of Council Regulation (EC) No 485/2008 on scrutiny by Member States of transactions forming part of the system of financing by the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund fall under the jurisdiction of NAV as the customs authority. The activity of the OLAF Coordination Office, whose tasks remain unchanged, comes under the direction of NAV's deputy head for external relations. 3. Act No 153/2010 amending the acts establishing the 2011 budget of the Republic of Hungary supplements Act No 38/1992 on the state budget, which details and supplements the concept of EU resources, extending it to also include, besides resources from the EU budget, resources from the budget of non-EU members of the European Economic Area or from the 'Swiss Contribution' programme. The amendment clarifies and ensures the accountability of beneficiaries as regards the appropriate use of non-social Union grants. It provides for stricter penalties for infringements of the rules on financing, including EU financing, defines the general rules on exclusion from the grant scheme, and establishes the central database of beneficiaries excluded from the grant scheme.

MT || 1. The VAT Dep. reviewed the procedure of issuing new fiscal receipt books. In case of a newly registered person, as a general policy, now the VAT Dep. will only issue 2 receipt books and subsequently 1 new book will be supplied only where the old book is returned. In case of existing registered persons only 1 additional receipt book will be supplied against the return of an old receipt book. In cases where an operator requires a number of books he should specifically write to the Dep. requesting the number of books required and the reasons thereof. The Dep. would consider such request. The scope is to prevent abuses. 2. A new initiative by the Customs Department was a thorough revision of the penalties for infringements of Customs legislation so as to ensure that they are both proportionate and sufficiently dissuasive and thus provide the maximum degree of protection to revenues (Chap. 37 of the Laws of Malta). 3 AFCOS organised an anti-fraud and corruption train the trainers course for public officials; the aim being for the public admin. to have a cadre of trainers who will deliver such training to their colleagues.

NL || There were no new developments in this area in the Netherlands In 2010.

AT || No new legal provision in the ERDF field.

PL || 1. Annex No. 1 of 29 June 2010 to the Cooperation Agreement concluded on 7 July 2009 between the Minister of Regional Development, Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development and the Agency for Restructuring and Modernisation of Agriculture. The above Annex regulates the issue of mutual granting of access to databases concerning beneficiaries of NSRF Operational Programmes and beneficiaries whose projects are co-financed from the European Fisheries Fund. Access to databases allows the scope of cross-checks conducted to be expanded, for initially the Agreement ... regulated only the exchange of data on beneficiaries of the NSRF OP and the 2007–2013 Rural Development Programme. 2. Control principles under the 2007–2013 Human Capital Operational Programme of 17 November 2010 (effective date: 1 January 2011) – measure applied for the purpose of checks on beneficiaries co-financed from the European Social Fund: key changes in the document set out the rules governing checks on eligibility of expenditure related to project staff which followed, among others, from recommendations of the European Commission and the audit authority. 3. A draft law amending the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Fiscal Criminal Code, and the Code of Misdemeanours was prepared, which contains i.a. new regulations on the obligation to indicate in the bill of indictment and in the sentence that the act was committed to the detriment of the financial interests of the EU.

PT || 1. As regards measures to combat corruption and related offences, including fraud, a set of laws has been approved by the Portuguese Parliament. In particular, Act No 36/2010 of 2 September 2010 amended the Legal Framework of Credit Institutions and Financial Companies (RGICSF, established by Decree-Law No 298/92 of 31 December 1992) and clarified the arrangements for access by judicial authorities in the context of criminal proceedings to banking acts and information covered by the confidentiality requirement. It also set up, in the Bank of Portugal, a Central Database of all bank accounts existing in the bank system, which can be accessed only by the judicial authorities in the context of criminal proceedings. Judicial authorities can obtain from the database details of accounts and their holders, the persons authorised to use them - including prosecutors - and the account opening/closing dates. 2. The DGAIEC (Customs service) has, since 1 January 2010, linked the national risk analysis and assessment system with the declaratory system for summary declarations for temporary storage (SDS – Automatic Control System for Means of Transport and Goods), which enables a prior risk analysis to be carried out automatically, at an early stage and in the same way throughout the whole country. Consignments that present the greatest potential risk are selected for checks. 3. On 11 November 2010 the IFAP, IP, in conjunction with the managing authorities of PRODER, PRODERAM and PRORURAL, approved External Procedures Rule No 12, which provides a framework for the procedures relating to the application in EAFRD of reductions and exclusions to payment claims under the conditions established in Article 31 of Regulation 1975/2006. The Rule establishes the conditions for the application of reductions and exclusions in cases where there is a discrepancy between the amount given in the payment claim submitted by the beneficiary, and the amount considered payable after eligibility has been examined by the competent body. In addition to the special rules laid down in Community law to safeguard financial interests, the relevant rules and penalties provided for by national law are applicable. In this respect, the current Rule establishes the procedures to be followed in situations where a beneficiary intentionally submitted a false declaration, providing for stiffer penalties for offences committed intentionally or as a result of gross negligence.

RO || 1. Government Emergency Order No 54 of 23 June 2010 on certain measures aimed at combating tax evasion, establishing the register of intra-Community operators which includes all taxable persons and non-taxable legal persons engaged in intra-Community operations. This has reduced the number of business operators on which the National Tax Administration Agency will focus for purposes of monitoring intra-Community operations and combating tax evasion. 2. Order No 136 of the Competition Council of 17 March 2010 amending the rules governing the organisation and functioning of the Competition Council, which has created the Directorate for Tender Procedures and Complaints, explicitly empowered to investigate agreements concluded between tenderers relating to coordinated participation with rigged bids in tender procedures or any other type of tender selection. 3. Plenary Decision No 130 of the Court of Auditors of 4 November 2010 regulating, among other things, the organisation and procedure of external public audits carried out by the Audit Authority in relation to non-refundable Community funds and the corresponding national co-financing. The Audit Authority can apply financial adjustments or administrative measures to eliminate irregularities and recover unjustified expenditure. It has the right to access data, documents and information, and enter the premises of authorities involved in managing European funds.

SI || Decree on the implementation of procedures for the use of the European cohesion policy funds in the Republic of Slovenia in the programming period 2007-2013 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia (OGRS) Nos 17/09, 40/09, 3/10 and 31/10); Instruments - public calls for tender, cofinancing agreement, Instructions on management checks (on-the-spot and administrative controls); Managing Authority instructions on eligible costs. Public Sector Integrity Act (OGRS No 45/2010, 4.6.2010): all bodies concluding contracts in the public sector must insert an anti-corruption clause in the contract; all public-sector bodies taking part in public procurement procedures must report on their financial situation. Amendment to the Public Procurement Act (OGRS No 19/10, 12.3.2010): provisions on the register of tenderers with negative references.

SK || 1. Act No 57/2010 amending Act No 528/2008 on assistance and support from the European Community funds as amended by Act No 266/2009 and amending certain other Acts – these mainly laid down the details for project control by the managing authority, the procedures to be followed by the managing authority in the event of a breach of public procurement rules and procedures, and an agreement on repayment instalments when settling finances. The Act entered into force on 1 April 2010. 2. Act No 224/2010 amending Act No 300/2005, the Criminal Code, as subsequently amended, and amending certain other Acts. This legislation, effective from 1 September 2010, introduced 'indirect' criminal responsibility of legal persons. If a criminal act was committed in relation to an authorisation to manage, represent or control a legal person, that legal person may be subject to a safeguard measure confiscating a financial sum or confiscating all the assets of the legal person. 3. Act No 546/2010 amending Act No 40/1964, the Code of Civil Procedure, as subsequently amended, and amending certain other Acts. This Act established that so-called ‘mandatory published contracts' are to take effect on the date following that of publication. The Act has been in force since 1 January 2011. The Act is intended to increase transparency in the use of public funds and funds from the EU budget.

FI || 1. Act No 1207/2010 of 21.12.2010 on the Grey Economy Detection Unit. The Unit's task is to help combat the grey economy by producing and disseminating information about the grey economy and how to suppress it. The Unit operates within the tax administration and cooperates with the police and customs. 2. The JUTU Train Gate interface is the customs authorities' risk analysis tool which can be used to carry out a preliminary screening of different declarations of goods being transported by train. On the basis of the risk analysis specific trains can be selected for closer video monitoring or customs checks.

SE || In 2010 the authorities making up the SEFI Council (Council for the Protection of the EU’s Financial Interests) reached agreement on a common reporting policy for suspected EU fraud which will be adopted in 2011. The aims of the policy are to provide certain guidelines on when a crime can be reported, ensure that suspected criminal acts in a given field are dealt with in the same way, and ensure that any report of a crime contains sufficient information for the case to be taken further. In 2010, the Swedish Tax Agency introduced provisions on the use of certified cash registers for persons who sell goods or services for cash (SFS 2007:592). This provided the Swedish Tax Agency with a tax inspection tool which reduces the risk of tax errors in sectors using cash payments. In 2010 the Tax Agency conducted an exercise in which cash transactions were checked with special emphasis on information contained in the certified cash registers.

UK || HMRC - Her Majesty's Customs & Revenue; DCLG - Dept for Communities & Local Government; W- Wales; S - Scotalnd; NI - Northern Ireland; and DWP - Dept for works & Pensions HMRC: During 2010, the UK initiated a compliance programme for importations of certain agricultural products (rice and processed goods), with a view to ensuring that the correct commodity code was declared and the correct customs duty paid. In the case of rice, there were indications that traders who had previously declared their product as "milled" were now using a code which covers "husked" rice which attracts a lower rate of duty. Processed goods were selected because there were indications that a high percentage of traders were declaring low duty codes. Information has been given to the trade with a view to improving compliance levels, and indications are that importers are now declaring the correct commodity codes for rice. The situation is however being monitored. W: The Welsh Assembly Government (WAG) appointed a Head of Counter Fraud in recognition of the increasing risk of fraud in relation to grants awarded by the WAG, including European funds as a significant step towards the efforts to prevent, identify and combat fraud. The Head of Counter Fraud has developed a Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy which identifies the areas in which fraud prevention, awareness raising, collaboration, investigation and prosecution will grow and move forward. The Counter Fraud and Corruption Strategy was presented to and agreed by Welsh Assembly Government Corporate Governance Committee on the 19th October 2010. The timing of this has been designed to coincide with the introduction of the Bribery Act 2010 on the 1st of April 2011.

3. THE RISK OF DOUBLE FINANCING OF PROJECTS IN THE AREA OF COHESION POLICY

The term “double financing” would describe submitting the same item of expenditure (i.e. a specific cost) to different sources separately (either EU, national or regional) in order to obtain financial support from all of them. It is a fraudulent abuse of public money and clearly prohibited.

EU provisions on “double financing”[36] of projects concern only the EU budget. However, to the scope of this questionnaire, “double financing” occurs when a final beneficiary illegally receives in parallel or subsequently a subsidy for the same project or an item already funded or co-funded, either by the EU or by any other public or even private body.

3.1. General legal framework applicable

Member State: || 2.1.1. How is defined the notion of double financing in your national legislation/rules?

BE || The coordinated laws on the State's accounts, Articles 55 to 58, and the law on general principles of 16 May 2003: all grants given by the State must be used for the purposes for which they were granted. Double financing is fraud which is a criminal offence: false declaration, false accounting, use of forged documents, swindling, see Criminal Code (196/197; 496) and the Royal Decree of 31/5/33 concerning the declarations to be made with respect to grants and allowances. At the same time, "double financing" can constitute an infringement of the Royal Decree of 31 May 1933 on the declarations to be made in relation to grants and allowances. (M.B., 1 June 1933). This principle is recalled and explained in the administrative guidelines given to departments, for example: Department of Agriculture and Fisheries: the project cannot be subsidized by another EU fund and the promoter must make a declaration on honour that no application will be made to another EU fund apart from the ERF. Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No 1580/2007 states: "Article 62 Documents to be submitted Operational programmes shall be accompanied by, in particular: (a) evidence of the setting-up of an operational fund; (b) a written undertaking from the producer organisation to comply with Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 and this Regulation; and (c) a written undertaking from the producer organisation that it has not and will not receive, directly or indirectly, any other Community or national funding in respect of actions qualifying for aid under this Regulation." These provisions were included in the National Strategy for sustainable operational programmes (Flanders). Also, for specific measures in which there is a higher risk of double financing, it is explicitly stated that double financing is not allowed. Compliance with the conditions set out in the Regulation and in the National Strategy is monitored by the competent monitoring services. ESF Agency: extract from the Guide on financial and accounting management 2007/2013 – Chapter 2: in the case of an expense charged to the measure, it is not possible to draw on several sources of public financing so that the expense is covered more than 100%, whether or not public revenue is allocated to a particular expense. ESF German-speaking Community: Guide entitled "ESF-Verwaltungshandbuch" v1.7, aimed at applicants and promoters of ESF projects in the German-speaking Community, Chapter 5.5.1.2: each expense which is presented to the authorities for financing cannot be subsidised a second time (exclusion of double financing). SPF Finance: the prohibition on double financing involving tax relief and another subsidy is not explicitly laid down in tax legislation but the Law of 22 May 2003 (MB of 3 July 2003) organising the budget and accounts of the Federal State, last amended by the Law of 29 December 2010, clearly states as follows: Article 121: All subsidies granted by the State or by a legal entity directly or indirectly subsidised by the State, including any repayable, interest-free advances, must be used for the purposes for which they are granted. Except where a legal or statutory provision makes provision to the contrary, all decisions granting a subsidy must state the nature, scope and arrangements for the use made of it and the evidence to be provided by the beneficiary. All beneficiaries of a grant must provide evidence of the use made of the sums received, except where this is waived by law. Article 122. Simply by accepting the grant, the beneficiary recognises that the State is entitled to have checks conducted on the spot concerning the use made of the funds granted. The organisation and coordination of the checks are governed by the King, at the proposal of the Minister responsible for the Budget.

BG || Under the Structural Funds and Cohesion Fund (SCFs): 1. A beneficiary cannot receive more than one grant for the same activity. 2. The costs financed under another project, programme or any other financial facility originating from the national budget, the Community budget or another donor programme, are not eligible for financing. Under the Rural Development Programme and the OP for Development of the Fisheries Sector: Where an investment has received a grant from the national budget and/or other Community programmes, no financing will be awarded.

CZ || The prohibition of double financing result from manuals and handbooks. This prohibition is also explicitly involved in each legal act about granting of supports. The support in framework of operating programs is granting in the unity in rules of public support, in case of granting of support according Regulation (EC) No 800/2008 – granting acc. of rules from this Regulation, in case of support de minimis - the de minimis register - it may be checked whether or not the operating projects have other de minimis support. The statutory declaration of individual applicants – subjects of administrative and on-the-spot checks. In case of false information in statutory declaration - fraud, in case of infringement of a legal act or provision of aid-failure to observe conditions-infringement of budgetary discipline. Audit of the system and operations - fulfilment of funding conditions of dotation with a view to suspicion of irregularity or fraud. Infringement of budgetary discipline accordingly Act No 218/2000 Coll. and No 250/2000 Coll.- recovery of amounts which should not have been made available.

DK || The provisions of Article 54(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 are addressed in Order No 207 of 8/3/2010 on regions' cooperation with authorities and organisations in neighbouring countries. On application, the project must contain funding information, see Section 6. Project accounts are settled in accordance with Section 8(3). The Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority's 2007 - 2013 Guidelines to Projects Financed by the Structural Funds describe in greater detail the way in which double financing is handled.

DE || A project may only be funded from an EU programme. For example, the general funding principles under the federal OP stipulate: "a measure funded in accordance with the federal OP may not at the same time be funded by the ESF programme of a Land or by other EU resources. Expenditure is not regarded as eligible if the project in question is already wholly or partly financed by other resources." Similar provisions apply to the other EU funds.

EE || Sections 209-213 of the Penal Code (fraud); Section 14(1) of the 2007-2013 Structural Assistance Act (requirements for applicants)

IE || 1. Double financing rules are set out in the Department of Finance Circular 12/2008. 2. Ireland indicates in its National Strategic Reference Framework the mechanisms for ensuring coordination between ERDF, ESF, EAFRD and EFF and other financial instruments and these ensure appropriate demarcation and that there is no duplication of interventions among the different funds. 3. A Committee on Coordination of EU Funds was established to address cooperation and demarcation issues between funds.

EL || Structural - Cohesion: Act 3614/07 provisions integrate the Community definitions and requirements for all the authorities involved.

ES || Article 19 of the General Subsidies Act defines the notion in the following way: “3. The amount of the subsidies may in no case be such that, on its own or together with other grants, aid, revenue or resource, it exceeds the cost of the subsidised activity.. 4. /…/ if other forms of financing are obtained that are not included in the cases provided for in the regulations, this may result in a change in the grant decision, /…/.”

FR || As the principle is sufficiently clear to be directly applied, it has not been transposed into national law.

IT || Article 2(4) of DPR No 196 of 3 October 2008 (Regulation implementing Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the ERDF, the ESF and the Cohesion Fund ) states that: "Expenditure related to an asset for which the beneficiary has already received, for the same expenditure, a national or Community financial support measure is not allowed".

CY || Double financing is expressly defined in our national legislation. Financing of the same expenses from two different sources is considered double financing.

LV || The definition of double financing given in EU regulations was used as the basis. In addition, Cabinet Regulation No 419 of 26 June 2007 specifies that potential recipients of support from EU Funds are obliged to submit an attestation that the project is not and has not been financed or co-financed from other EU sources or through central government or local authority budgets, and that the activities planned under the project do not overlap with other activities funded within the framework of EU Funds or other financial instruments.

LT || Expenditure which was previously financed/paid from Lithuanian state and municipal budgets or resources and the funds of the public authorities of EU or non-EU countries and with regard to which there would be duplication of EU funding for co-financed assets is considered ineligible.

LU || Criminal Code articles on - making a false or incomplete statement in order to obtain or to preserve a subsidy or allowance (Article 496-1), obtaining or using them (Article 496-2), keeping them (Article 496-3); - making knowingly a false or incomplete statement with respect to an int. institution (Article 496-4). The managing authority Feder is referring to article 54 of the 1083/2006 regulation in: - financing agreements, - financing applications, - internal principles and procedures.

HU || As part of the audit built into the process, checks must be carried out during verification. Double financing must not occur at the expenditure clearing stage. Pursuant to Government Decree No 281/2006 of 23 December 2006, document checks must also check compliance with the rules on preventing double financing. One of the eligibility criteria mentioned in the guide on 'National financing for eligible expenditure' is that double financing not be possible when clearing the expenditure.

MT || Double financing is defined as the financing of an expenditure from more than one source (includes also private sponsorship). It should be noted that given the highly centralised system of payment in Malta Structural Funds system, it is unlikely that Beneficiaries would attempt to get double funding from public sources.

NL || ESF: the ESF subsidy regulation contains no provisions on double financing. However, when submitting their final declaration to the management authority, applicants do have to state that they are not receiving funding from other European subsidy programmes. ERDF: there are no specific provisions, but applicants must state on their application that they are not receiving funding from any other source.

AT || There is no explicit provision governing the legal notion of double financing in our legislation. Criminal-law provisions apply in the case of misuse of grants, most notably §§ 146, 147 and 148 (Fraud) of the Criminal Code. In addition, subsidy agreements with private companies contain clauses aimed at precluding the possibility of double financing.

PL || Double financing means inadmissible double complete or partial reimbursement (or settlement) of a given item of expenditure from Community resources or national grants, e.g. under different projects co-financed from the structural funds or the Cohesion Fund; reimbursement (or settlement) of the VAT cost from the structural funds or the Cohesion Fund and then recovery of the tax from the State budget; reimbursement (or settlement) from the structural funds or the Cohesion Fund of the costs of depreciation of fixed assets purchased with the use of a national grant; reimbursement of the lessor's expenditure for the purchase of a good made by a beneficiary and of the lease payments made by a beneficiary.

PT || Double financing means financial support for the same investment by more than one Community fund and respective national counterpart. Thus, and although at the level of national legislation/rules there is no specific definition of the concept of double financing, it is understood to be the submission of a single expenditure more than once for one operation, or to more than one source of financing.

RO || In national legislation 'double financing' is defined indirectly, by reference to Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006, in accordance with the provisions on expenditure eligibility included in Government Decision No 759/2007 on eligibility rules for expenditure carried out during operations financed under the operational programmes.

SI || It is defined in accordance with the definition of the term in Council Regulation No 1083/2006.

SK || The term ‘double-financing’ is not explicitly defined in Slovak legislation. Grant Contracts provide that the beneficiary may not request a grant or contribution or other form of assistance for the implementation of eligible project activities that would allow double financing or co-financing from the other budgetary chapters of the Slovak budget, state funds or from other public funds or EU funds or the Recycling Fund.

FI || Section 3(4) of Decree No 1079/2007 on the eligibility of expenditure under the Structural Fund states that "If the beneficiary has received or is entitled to receive compensation from another source for the expenditure arising from the project, the expenditure shall not be eligible." In the Province of Åland, which under Act No 1144/1991on the Autonomy of Åland is responsible for its own Structural Fund programme, the provincial legislation does not define the concept of double financing.

SE || Neither the Fraud Convention nor Swedish law contain any legal definition of the concept of double financing. As regards the practices described as double financing under point 2 above, the Swedish criminal law provisions on fraud in Chapter 9 Section 1 of the Swedish Penal Code and on misuse of a grant (EU fraud) under Chapter 9 Section 3a of the Swedish Penal Code apply. The provisions on fraudulent conduct in Chapter 9 Section 2 and gross fraud in Chapter 9 Section 3 of the Swedish Penal Code may apply to actions which involve double financing according to the description in point 2.

UK || EC definition is used.

Member State: || 2.1.2. At which level is the prohibition of double financing of projects foreseen?

BE || Legislation (WPS, SPF Finance), Governmental decrees (WPS), Contractual rules(WPS, ESF Agency, Business Agency - European Economy Department (Agentschap Ondernemen Afdeling Europa Economie - EFRO), the Agriculture and Fisheries Department and the Brussels Capital Region ESF (managed by ACTIRIS); German-speaking Community ESF), Case law (WPS), Guidelines (WPS, ESF Agency, EFRO and the Agriculture and Fisheries Department), Documents of Managing Authorities (ERDF; German-speaking Community ESF), Documents by other authorities (WPS, ESF Agency, EFRO, Flanders ESF Agency (ESF-VL), Agriculture and Fisheries Department and Brussels Capital Region)

BG || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

CZ || Legislation, Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

DK || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Guidelines

DE || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Case law, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

EE || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

IE || Contractual rules, Documents of Managing Authorities

EL || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

ES || Legislation, Governmental decrees

FR || Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Case law

IT || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Documents of Managing Authorities

CY || Governmental decrees

LV || Legislation, Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

LT || Government resolutions, Contractual rules, Documents of the Managing Authority

LU || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Caselaw, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

HU || Governmental decrees, Guidelines

MT || Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

NL || Legislation, Documents of Managing Authorities

AT || Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

PL || Guidelines

PT || Legislation, Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

RO || Legislation, Contractual rules, Documents of Managing Authorities

SI || Legislation, Contractual rules

SK || Contractual rules, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

FI || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Documents of Managing Authorities

SE || Legislation See point 2.1.1. The Fraud Convention was transposed in Sweden inter alia through the introduction of the provision on misuse of grants into Chapter 9, Section 3a of the Swedish Penal Code (Govt. Bill 1998/99:32). No further measures are planned.

UK || Legislation, Governmental decrees, Contractual rules, Caselaw, Guidelines, Documents of Managing Authorities

Member State: || 2.1.3. Specify which are the legal consequences (criminal sanctions, administrative sanction, others) of double financing of projects.

BE || Administrative sanctions: repayment of amounts unlawfully paid (Article 123 of the 2003 law). Where appropriate the issuing of an OLAF sheet depending on the amount (+ €10 000). In the case of proven fraud, a complaint is lodged and a conviction obtained under criminal law. The resulting criminal sanctions include a fine and/or imprisonment of five to ten years at most, the confiscation by a criminal court of any benefits illegally received and the possible dissolving of the company if the perpetrator is a legal entity.

BG || In cases of double financing of a project or some project activities, the Head of the Administering Authority rejects the request for a grant by means of a reasoned decision. Where the grant has already been awarded, the amounts provided must be recovered, the contract is terminated and the case is reported as an irregularity or a suspected fraud. When beneficiaries have made a false declaration, they are liable for an offence under the provisions of the Criminal Code.

CZ || Infringement of contractual rules (budgetary discipline)-Administrative proceedings under the Act No 337/1992, Criminal sanction under the Act No 40/2009, Penal code in case of perpetration of a criminal act (fraud, suspicion of fraud). If non-compliance with the conditions for implementing an OP project-withdrawal of full amount of financial support. Where some of the projects have been funded twice-full amount of expenditure ineligible-administrative sanction. Fraud-double financing-then criminal sanction. Administrative sanction under the Act No 218/2000 and No 250/2000, Act No 337/1996 and Act No 500/2004-where contractual rules are infringed, funding recovered.

DK || Repayment, fine or other penalty, see Section 17 of Act No 1599 of 20/12/2006 on administration of subsidies from the European Regional Development Fund and the European Social Fund. The subsidy can be reduced, not paid or fully or partly repaid as per the conditions of the grant letter.

DE || Revocation of the grant approval decision, full reimbursement of the Community funding already paid to the beneficiary and, where appropriate, referral to the competent national police and judicial authorities to prosecute suspected infringements of the national Penal Code, for example.

EE || Section 209-213 of the Penal Code (fraud) - financial penalty or up to five years' imprisonment. 2007-2013 Structural Assistance Act - recovery of aid.

IE || Once detected a refund for the appropriate amount is sought. If required, legal action is taken. The type of action taken depends on the particulars of each case. For example, if fraud is suspected then legal action involving criminal charges can be taken.

EL || Structural – Cohesion: Administrative sanctions: rejection of financing (at the stage of evaluation of the application), discontinuation of financing (de-listing), financial correction & recovery from the beneficiary. Penal sanctions: prosecution of the beneficiary for false certification (Solemn Declaration) attesting that there is no double financing of expenditure, in the financing application.

ES || Two main consequences: a) Recovery or withdrawal of the aid: the amount exceeding the cost of the subsidised activity will be recovered, together with payment of the corresponding default interest (Article 37(3) of the General Subsidies Act) b) Financial penalties (fine of a fixed amount or proportional up to double the amount wrongfully obtained) and non-financial penalties for the commission of serious offences (loss of entitlement to aid for five years).

FR || In cases of double financing, the European funding is withdrawn. Criminal sanctions may be imposed in the event of fraud.

IT || Withdrawal and recovery of any contribution already awarded. Double financing is also punishable by administrative and criminal penalties: Article 316 bis Criminal Code (misappropriation of public funds); Article 316 ter C.C. (misappropriation of State funds); Article 640 bis (aggravated fraud with intent to obtain public funds); Articles 2 and 3 of Law No 898 of 23 December 1986 (fraud involving agricultural funds).

CY || If the double funding is unintentional, administrative sanctions are imposed. If intent is demonstrated, then there are criminal sanctions.

LV || If an infringement connected with non-observance of the prohibition of double financing were to be detected in the implementation of a project supported by EU Funds, the undue expenditure would be recovered through civil or administrative proceedings, depending on the type of recipient of the EU funding and on the specific situation. Criminal proceedings regarding double financing could only take place in a case where this was connected with fraud, falsification of documents, or another criminal offence resulting in double financing.

LT || Where a case of double financing is suspected, an infringement investigation is carried out in the manner prescribed by legislation and, if an infringement is detected, one of the following decisions is taken: 1. To terminate the project financing and administration contract and request repayment of the funds paid; 2. To reduce project financing and/or request repayment of part of the funds paid; 3. To deduct part of the funds paid from the payment applications submitted by the project operator. Criminal sanctions are imposed pursuant to the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania.

LU || Offences of articles 496-1, 496-2 and 496-4: imprisonment from one month to five years and a fine from 251 to 30.000 euros. Offence of article 496-3: imprisonment from eight days to two years and a fine from 500 to 5.000 euros. At the level of management authorities: Ineligibility of projects & reimbursements & resiliation of contracts if applicable.

HU || In the event of double financing, expenditure cannot be cleared and the financing body demands repayment of the grant. Under Article 314 of the Criminal Code, on criminal offences against the financial interests of the European Communities, causing losses to the EU budget by making inaccurate statements, using inaccurate, false or falsified documents, failing to comply with the stipulated publicity obligations or deceitfully complying only partially with those obligations is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years.

MT || The Criminal Code (Chapter 9 of the Laws of Malta) contemplates criminal sanctions in articles 308 and 309 under Fraud. These sanctions consist of liability to imprisonment for a term ranging from one month to two years or to a fine.

NL || ESF: no specific reference is made to the legal consequences and there has never been a case of double financing in the ESF. Consequently there is no body of case law either. ERDF: the subsidy is then reduced.

AT || Anyone committing fraud by using false documents, false non-cash means of payment, false information or an incorrect measuring tool for the purpose of deception shall be sent to prison for up to 3 years. The same penalty applies to anyone committing fraud causing damage in excess of €3 000. Anyone committing a fraudulent act causing damage in excess of €50 000 shall be sent to prison for up to 10 years. Repeated fraud carries a prison sentence of between 6 months and 5 years, while aggravated fraud is punishable by a prison sentence of up to 10 years.

PL || In cases of double financing of a project the contract is terminated and expenditure deemed ineligible is subject to sanctions: - Administrative (recovery with interest, liability vis-à-vis the commissioner for public finance discipline in the entities of the public finance sector, entry in the register of entities banned from receiving EU funds for a period of 3 years); - Criminal, in the event of a suspicion of fraud, institutions are obliged to report it to the enforcement authorities.

PT || Double financing is identified when the application is examined, although it is unlikely since the originals of the documents eligible for payment are stamped with the Fund that co-financed them. If double financing is detected, the consequences are: return of the amount co-financed twice. Referral of the case to the body responsible for cross-checking and forwarding to the Public Prosecutor's Office if there are indications of fraud.

RO || Administrative measures: exclusion from the evaluation and selection process for the granting of non-refundable financing and rejection of the financing application, termination of contract and imposition of the beneficiary's obligation to repay the amounts received, in accordance with the financing contract and Government Decision No 79/2003 (double financing is an irregularity). Criminal penalties: criminal liability, in accordance with Article 18/1 of Act No 78/2000.

SI || Legislation - decree, implementing regulations / contract law - cofinancing agreement, court rulings / guidelines / documents of the Managing Authority. In determining the consequences, we apply the principle of proportionality. In practice this means that at some point it can be demanded a repayment of unduly paid amounts plus interest on arrears, and also made an order for withdrawal from the agreement and the return of all amounts already disbursed plus interest on arrears.

SK || In criminal proceedings it is possible to impose penalties laid down in the Criminal Code, i.e. imprisonment, fine, confiscation of assets, etc. Among other consequences may be the withdrawal from the Grant Contract. If double financing directly from the contract is ineligible expenditure (breach of financial discipline) giving rise to an obligation to return funds, and if the entity does not return the funds, a levy is imposed in an amount corresponding to the breach of financial discipline, with penalties, beginning on the first day of arrears in payment of the levy.

FI || Recipients of state aid must immediately repay all or part of any state aid received as a result of error or overpayment or to which they are manifestly not entitled. If a state aid recipient fails to repay the aid, the state aid authority must issue a decision suspending payment of the state aid and ordering repayment of amounts already paid.

SE || Under the terms of Chapter 9 Section 1 of the Penal Code, the punishment for fraud is imprisonment for at most two years. The punishment for misuse of a subsidy is a fine or imprisonment for at most two years. Minor cases shall not incur liability. The penalty for fraudulent conduct is a fine or imprisonment for at most six months, while the punishment for gross fraud is imprisonment for at least six months but not more than six years.

UK || NI: For Rural Development programmes - Art 31 of the Commission Regulation (EC) 1975/2006 provides sanctions for the inclusion of ineligible expenditure. Criminal sanctions can also be considered under the Fraud Act 2006. W: If Double Financing is suspected, Administrative and Criminal sanctions could be imposed as appropriate. S: If fraud is suspected then the national suspected Fraud Response Plan will be initiated, and where appropriate, the Crown Prosecution Service will be notified.

Member State: || 2.1.4. Have your Member State authorities detected any case of double financing during the Article 4 (desk reviews) or Article 10 controls of Regulation (EC) N° 438/2001[2] applicable for 2000-2006 programming period? If Yes, briefly describe the most representative case. [2] OJ L 63, 3.3.2001, p. 21–43.

BE || No (EFRO, ESF-VL, Agriculture and Fisheries Department and ESF, Brussels Capital Region and Federal Finance Department) Yes (ESF Agency, WPS, German-speaking Community ESF) ESF Agency: withdrawal of over €105 000 for non-declaration of the Belgian State share which should have been allocated to the project. This was noticed during an on-the-spot check and by examining the operator's accounts. Wallonia Public Service: it became clear from control procedures that some operators were including personnel costs in their ERDF statements of claims which had already been financed by employment promotion aid. German-speaking Community ESF: Yes. Case of double financing noted in relation to part of the staff assigned to an ESF project (expenditure presented to the social affairs departments and to the European Social Fund). Noticed during a traditional check of the annual reports by the managing authority. The department concerned was notified. The disputed amount was withdrawn and an on-the-spot verification conducted in accordance with Article 13(2)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 1828/2006.

BG || No

CZ || Yes. Two projects-each in different OP but under the same Managing authority. In each of these projects, claim to payment exercised but almost identical methodology devised for educational courses, overlapping of work load within these projects. The case came to light when a CD containing a monitoring report relating to the other project was submitted to the project manager. Although the original amount affected by the irregularity was CZK 526 544.51 for the two projects, the Tax Office assessed the charge for infringement of budgetary discipline at CZK 7.555,00.

DK || No

DE || No

EE || No

IE || No

EL || Not for cohesion policy.

ES || Yes. In the Basque Country, the Economic Control Office discovered that the Departments of Employment of the Basque Government and the Diputación Foral de Vizcaya awarded subsidies for stimulating the social economy to the same beneficiaries, via different calls for applications for aid. In Murcia, cases of double financing of investments were detected involving the ERDF and EAGGF-Guidance.

FR || No

IT || Yes. As part of the checks carried out under Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 the Managing Authority of the Region of Sicily detected the payment of two lots of aid to one project pursuant to Law No 488/92 and measure 4.19a) of the ROP (upgrading and supplementing tourist amenities). The subsequent measures taken resulted in withdrawal of the funding, enforced recovery of the amounts unduly paid and criminal conviction of the legal representatives of the firm.

CY || No

LV || No

LT || Yes. When submitting payment applications, a project operator re-declared expenditure which had already been declared, recognised as eligible and reimbursed.

LU || No

HU || Yes. The beneficiary included the planned equipment purchase in the grant contract concluded under the regional operational programme. The on-the-spot check of documents revealed that identical equipment had been procured from other state grants so that one of the project elements included in the submitted tender was executed from other sources before the signing of the grant contract. The beneficiary did not disclose this information before the conclusion of the contract, thus making an inaccurate statement. The Managing Authority identified the irregularity.

MT || No

NL || No

AT || Yes. A promoter had two projects approved with overlapping performance schedules. The implementing body did not pay due attention to the rules on the validation of documentary evidence, with the result that a large amount of expenditure was counted twice. It was particularly difficult to account double entries of work performed by staff as their time sheets did not contain enough information.

PL || Yes. Checks on a project implemented under INTERREG CIP revealed that in 2006–2007 one beneficiary received funds from PFRON (State Fund for Rehabilitation of Disabled Persons) to cover the costs of employing a disabled person as a project office manager. It was established that the beneficiary received excessive co-financing from the ERDF, because in his payment applications filed with the IB (Intermediate Body) he presented the gross remuneration with related costs as the total eligible cost of the project, failing to take into account the PFRON subsidy.

PT || No

RO || No

SI || No

SK || Yes. Individual members of staff reported and overpaid for activities in the same time period under two projects financed from the ESF.

FI || Yes. When the programming period was changed (so that implementation of the programmes coincided) the same expenditure was claimed again in the second project.

SE || Yes. Cases of double financing have been identified during desk controls under Articles 4 and 10 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001. These controls were carried out by the Swedish Labour Market Board which was the paying authority responsible during the last programming period. The most representative cases of double financing reported to the Swedish ESF Council related to undeclared income, often wage support which has not been deducted when requesting payment.

UK || No

3.2. Available intelligence and risk analysis

Member State: || 2.2.1. If risk analysis policies are in place for fund management, which are the risk indicators that you apply for avoiding double financing of projects?

BE || It is clear from an examination of the procedures applied by the various authorities that there is an administrative practice based on a risk analysis even though this is not explicitly formulated or carried out according to a specific procedure, for example multiple use of accounts –accounting fraud – declaration by beneficiary – control check-lists explicitly providing for the verification of double subsidies.

BG || Risk analysis policies for fund management do exist. In terms of avoiding double financing, they are implemented before, during, and after project completion. The following are examples of risk indicators in this area: a beneficiary implements more than one project co-financed by the SCFs; a beneficiary is involved in the implementation of projects under other national programmes; a beneficiary is involved as a partner in other projects co-financed by the SCFs or other sources.

CZ || The risk analysis is used at the project level. Given the type of the project supported under the OP and with regards to the fact that all these projects are vetted thoroughly (administrative controls 100%) prior to the approval of payment applications and then under the on-the-spot controls, the risk of not detecting of double financing is minimal. Thanks to risk analysis within all OPs, no risk of double financing has ever been identified. The risk-management system (including risk analysis) is determined by the managing authority pursuant to the Act No 320/2001. Risk analysis is carried out regularly prior to each audit and is performed on the basis of risk identification and assessment. The procedures (including risk classification) are analysed in Chapter VII of the Audit Authority Manual.

DK || No. There are no particular risk analysis guidelines.

DE || The programmes at Land and federal level each have - in addition to the management and control systems agreed with the Commission - their own systems which take account of regional and local conditions. See also 2.3.1 and 2.3.2.

EE || 1) Similar activities/objectives of different measures/projects; 2) Same aid recipient or similar group of owners; 3) Similar activity or registration address of aid recipients.

IE || The Department of Finance has a fraud prevention policy and a Fraud Risk Manager to oversee the implementation of this policy. In addition, written confirmation is required that there is no double financing taking place and followed up with Article 13 checks and Article 16 audits. The Committee on Coordination of EU Funds was also established to address cooperation and demarcation issues between ERDF/ESF, EFF and EAFRD, and ensure that the Funds are not overlapping.

EL || Financial Control Committee (EDEL): Application of fraud indicators, as referred to in both the auditing standards and the EU's guidance note. During the audit preparation stage, the fraud indicators are used for assessing the risks of certain control points. During the audit, the fraud indicators are used in order to verify documents or evidence related to the audit.

ES || 1. Identification of potential areas of overlapping of European funds where there could be a cumulation of subsidies and aid (ERDF, Cohesion Fund and ESF). 2. Identification of expenditure that is eligible for Community funding and also eligible for other forms of funding. 3. Checks made by budgetary accounting systems and monitoring of subsidies and aid.

FR || The PRESAGE computerised monitoring tool can be used to cross-check regular beneficiaries.

IT || 1. Use of databanks and indication of the Single Project Code. 2. Number of operations co-financed for a single beneficiary. 3. Risks associated with the type of macro process, management risks associated with the type of beneficiary, analysis of audit trail of operations, analysis of the frequency of the beneficiary's access to public funds, check on the information system for operations of similar content and recurrence of similar activities.

CY || We are currently working on identifying risk factors which will indicate possible double financing.

LV || Cabinet Regulations on the implementation of activities prohibit the following: the allocation of support from EU Funds in the period 2007-2013 for activities which received co-financing in 2004-2006 from EU Funds, the State budget, or other financial instruments; the financing of one activity under several projects. A methodology for the definition of risk has been developed in order to select projects for inspection; this includes a risk criterion for establishing whether projects implemented by the recipient receive support from one or several sources.

LT || The prevention and control of double financing is ensured systemically, i.e. appropriate monitoring and control actions are taken in each phase of the implementation of the operational programme or project, and, taken together, they ensure the adequate management of the risk of double financing: - In the programming phase – the initial preconditions have been created for risk-assessment and prevention of double financing when setting investment areas and priorities, i.e. operational programmes contain ‘demarcation’ tables in which authorities clearly define the criteria for separating similar activities between different measures and sources of financing. The Ministry of Finance has also supplied authorities with a list of programmes for which there could be a risk of overlap of project activities and expenditure relating to their implementation. - In the project assessment phase – when examining a project’s eligibility for financing – the risk of double financing is identified during assessment of an application for project financing (hereinafter referred to as the application), when an assessment is carried out of the project operator’s replies to the following questions appearing on the application, the form of which was approved by Order No 1K-066 of the Minister for Finance of the Republic of Lithuania of 20 February 2008: 1. Has an application already been submitted for support from the European Community, Lithuanian state and municipal budgets or resources or the funds of the public authorities of EU or non-EU countries (hereinafter referred to as financial support) for the project under assessment or part thereof? 2. Does the project under assessment or part thereof complement any other project which has already been or will be granted financial support? 3. Was an application submitted for financial support for the previous phase of the project under assessment or part thereof (including feasibility studies and preparatory phases)? Where at least one of these questions is answered affirmatively, additional provisions and restrictions related to the risk/control of double financing are included in the project financing and administration contract. We would like to note that applications are assessed pursuant to general project selection criteria, one of the assessment aspects of which is compliance with the ‘demarcation’ requirements, i.e. at the time of the assessment of the application it must be ascertained that all the requirements relating to the separation of support under other EU-financed programmes, other operational programmes and other priorities of operational programmes have been satisfied. When assessing projects which have been and/or are being implemented by the applicant and its partners, it must be ascertained that no financing is duplicated for the same activities and expenditure. When assessing applications, the implementing authorities must also evaluate a possible overlap between the planned project activities and the expenditure relating to their implementation, as presented in the application, and the planned activities and expenditure under other applications submitted and/or activities which are being implemented/were implemented and expenditure incurred under support contracts concluded by the applicant. - In the project implementation phase – when verifying payment applications – compliance with the requirement to separate financing sources and with other restrictions provided for in the project financing and administration contract is evaluated (the element to be checked is set in the checklist for payment applications). The verification also covers a careful evaluation, in terms of double financing, of the items being procured under works contracts, supply contracts and service contracts. To ensure that payment is not made against the same invoice several times, the possibility has been provided for to check, in the SFMIS (a national computer-based project management and administration system), whether the documents proving the expenditure are not registered in another payment application under the same project or in payment applications under other projects. The SFMIS allows authorities to view data entered by other authorities. Control activities with regard to double financing are also carried out during on-the-spot checks on projects. The implementing authorities have also adopted additional measures to prevent the risk of duplication, which are laid down in the internal procedures for project risk management or other documents, e.g. at the start of the project and throughout its implementation, they fill in a project risk assessment sheet in which the risk indicators relating to the possible occurrence of double financing are evaluated, i.e. the number of project financing sources (where project activities are financed under several different programmes), links with other projects (where the project is linked with other projects) and any other possibility of double financing.

LU || FEDER: Inquiry procedures on the beneficiaries and certification on their responsibility. FSE: until 2010 ex-post control of all expenditures declared to Commission, from 2011 onwards ex-ante controls put in place

HU || The certifying authority and the organisations concerned are required to draw up risk management procedures. In the context of its risk analyses and risk management process, the National Development Agency (NFU) addresses the role of irregularity and fraud indicators. The main aspect of risk analysis of projects during on-the-spot checks is the number of projects of the beneficiary. The Project Risk Analysis Unit of the NFU is also being set up to deal also with detecting fraud and irregularity risks.

MT || No risk analysis policies are applied directly. But, original documents are always requested by the Managing Authority (this is also the case for national payments) and a declaration is also requested from the Beneficiary at application stage. The organisation managing the Cohesion Policy is also the same one responsible for all territorial co-operation projects as well as bilateral funding instruments so the risk of double financing in these areas is very remote.

NL || ESF: the management authority's risk analysis examines whether projects would be eligible for funding under other European subsidy programmes or not. If they would be, the relevant department must be consulted. ERDF: not applicable. This aspect is not actively checked.

AT || Risk analysis has led to special attention being devoted to promoters running several projects. In addition to statistical random checks, further projects can be checked by means of complementary random checks. Routine checks, which may be performed in loco, also establish whether other sponsored projects are also being run.

PL || According to the risk analysis, the risk of double financing occurs when the beneficiary conducts: a) More than 1 project under the Operational Programme, b) Projects under various OPs, c) Projects under two financial perspectives, d) Parallel projects under NSRF OP and RDP/FISH OP. Risk indicators are applied in order to identify a group of beneficiaries for cross-checking. Risks b) and d) are additionally taken into account when establishing the demarcation line.

PT || 1. Approval of projects in the same geographical areas but in different and clearly identified fields. 2. Approval of projects with different phases owing to their scale, complexity and implementation schedule, co-financed by different public cofinancing sources over time (e.g.: Programmes of CSF III and Cohesion Fund II/NSRF). 3. Approval of projects in intervention areas that complement those of other operational interventions.

RO || There are risk analysis policies in place for fund management, but they do not include risk indicators aimed at preventing double financing of projects.

SI || No risk indicators have been specifically defined for double financing. However, risk indicator exist, for example for priorities, whereby the authority can specify a certain priority as more risk-prone because double financing has been found there in the past. Risk indicator is also linked to the type of costs (labour costs), whereby a project is more at risk if it has a higher percentage of labour costs in relation to the overall cost of the project.

SK || Risk policy is not applied in the administration of funds. Double financing from other national schemes or EU schemes and in other programming periods should be avoided by procedures in place to inspect projects (for example, checks on payment claims). Sworn statements by the beneficiary that he is not drawing other grants for the same project. ITMS warns the managing