Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee, the European Central Bank and Europol - A new EU Action Plan 2004-2007 to prevent fraud on non-cash means of payment {SEC(2004) 1264} (Text with EEA relevance)
Date: 2004-10-20
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: action programme, computer crime, data protection, economic offence, electronic money, exchange of information, fraud, organised crime

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 20.10.2004 
COM(2004) 679 final 

.. 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND EUROPOL  

A new EU Action Plan 2004-2007 to prevent fraud on non-cash means of payment 

{SEC(2004) 1264} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK AND EUROPOL  

A new EU Action Plan 2004-2007 to prevent fraud on non-cash means of payment 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  the  EU  Fraud  Prevention  Action  Plan  2001-2003  (hereafter  "FPAP")1  the  Commission 
undertook  to  submit  after  2003  a  report  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  on 
progress achieved in the implementation of the Plan and to propose, if necessary, additional or 
alternative  measures.  The  Commission  report  on  the  FPAP2  provides  an  assessment  of  the 
measures  undertaken  and  their  effectiveness.  The  present  document  complements  the  report 
and proposes future actions in this area. 

2. 

BACKGROUND 

In  February  2001  the  Commission  adopted  the  FPAP  in  order  to  improve  the  prevention  of 
fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  all  non-cash  payments.  The  FPAP  aims  at  fostering  a  pan-
European  and  coherent  approach  to  fraud  prevention.  Single,  isolated  fraud  prevention 
measures may be effective, but are not sufficient to tackle a threat such as payment fraud. 

The specific reasons which led the Commission to issue an Action Plan were the following: 

•  The  levels  of  fraud  were  relatively  high.  In  2000  the  volume  of  fraud  in  the  European 
Union was estimated at €600 million for payment cards only (approximately 0.07% of the 
payment card industry’s turnover at that time). 

•  The  rate  of  annual  increase  in  fraud  and  counterfeiting  was  cause  for  concern.  In  2000 
fraud  grew  by  approximately  50%  in  the  EU.  In  particular,  one  of  the  areas  where  fraud 
increased the most was remote payments (made by phone, mail, or on the Internet). 

•  Proportionally  to  the  volume  of  transactions,  the  scale  of  cross-border  fraud  was  much 
higher  than  that  of  domestic  fraud.  However,  at  that  time  preventative  measures  were 
mainly taking place at national level. 

•  There  was  a  growing 

involvement  of  organised  crime.  Criminal  organisations 
demonstrated  their  ability  to  quickly  change  their  modus  operandi  to  circumvent 
countermeasures.  Most  important,  the  proceeds  from  fraud  strengthen  organised  criminal 
groups. This is a stronger concern today, with the threat of terrorist financing. 

1 

2 

Commission  Communication  “Preventing  fraud  and  counterfeiting  of  non-cash  means  of  payment”, 
COM(2001) 11 final of 9.2.2001. 
Working Document of the Commission Services no. … on a Report on the implementation of the EU 
Fraud Prevention Action Plan on non-cash means of payment. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
•  Fraud  undermines  consumer  confidence  in  payment  systems.  For  example,  the  risk  of 
payment  fraud  is  widely  considered  as  one  of  the  main  barriers  to  the  successful 
development of electronic commerce. 

The key principle of the FPAP was cooperation among all stakeholders. Fraud prevention is 
principally  the  responsibility  of  the  payment  systems  industry  and  the  most  important 
improvements are enhancements in the security of payments (such as the introduction of chip 
cards).  However,  all  parties  should  be  involved  and  play  an  active  role  in  fraud  prevention. 
Without  a  doubt,  preventative  measures  are  much  more  effective  when  implemented  in 
partnership with all parties concerned. According to this principle, the FPAP was  drafted in 
consultation with all stakeholders3 and the Commission worked closely with these parties in 
implementing the various measures. The large majority of the actions foreseen in the FPAP 
were successfully completed4. 

3. 

TOWARD A NEW ACTION PLAN 

It  is  widely  recognised  that  the  Commission’s  involvement  in  fraud  prevention  provided  an 
added  value.  In  the  implementation  of  the  FPAP,  the  Commission  acted  as  a  catalyst.  It 
promoted  a  better  information  exchange,  raised  awareness  and  strengthened  cross-border 
cooperation. In particular, it established a framework where fraud prevention specialists could 
meet and create synergies, including the exchange of best practices and educational material. 
As a result, the co-operation to prevent fraud has intensified, notably at cross-border level. 

In the period covered by the FPAP, the combined initiatives of the payment industry, national 
authorities and other parties led to a reduction of the annual growth of fraud in the EU5. The 
FPAP also helped bring increased attention to the issue of payment fraud. 

These initiatives must be continued in order to keep momentum. As always fraud is evolving. 
Criminal actions such as data hacking or identity theft6 are growing at a worrying pace and 
new scams are emerging. 

The Commission therefore intends to continue its action against payment fraud by issuing a 
new EU Fraud Prevention Action Plan covering the period 2004-2007. Most of its actions are 
the  continuation  or  the  follow-up  of  actions  already  undertaken.  The  new  FPAP  has  been 
drafted  in  consultation  with  the  EU  Fraud  Prevention  Expert  Group  and  other  relevant 
groups7. It will complement the Directive on payment services in the Internal Market, which 
the Commission will propose in 2005, in underpinning the creation of a Single Payment Area 

3 

4 

5 
6 

7 

Such  as  payment  card  schemes,  banks,  national  Ministries  and  Central  Banks,  law  enforcement,  the 
European  Central  Bank,  Europol,  Interpol,  the  retail  sector,  network  operators  and  consumer 
associations. 
For  the  details,  see  the  Commission  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  Action  Plan  2001-2003, 
Working Document of the Commission Services no. … or  
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/payments/fraud/index_en.htm 
In 2000 fraud was growing approximately 50% a year, much faster than today (15-20% a year). 
Identity  theft  is  the  misuse  of  personal  data  to  impersonate  another  individual  without  his  or  her 
consent. It usually includes the abuse of the victim’s banking facilities.  
Such as the Card Fraud Prevention Task Force of the European Payment Council. Input was provided 
also  by  individual  Members  of  the  Payment  Systems  Market  Group  and  the  Payment  Systems 
Government Expert Group. Europol and law enforcement experts were also consulted.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
in the EU. It should notably continue and further strengthen the existing initiatives to prevent 
fraud and contribute to maintain and increase confidence in payments. 

Priority areas will continue to be the security of payment products and systems and increased 
co-operation  between  public  authorities  and  the  private  sector.  Clarification  of  existing  EU 
data protection legislation with respect to fraud prevention activities is necessary to allow an 
effective and wider exchange of information, notably at cross-border level. The integration of 
new Member States in the EU fraud prevention framework and stronger relations with public 
authorities  in  third  countries  will  continue  to  be  a  priority.  Emerging  threats  will  also  be 
addressed. 

4. 

THE EU FRAUD PREVENTION EXPERT GROUP 

Objective: 

⇒ The EU Fraud Prevention Expert Group (hereafter “FPEG”) should be strengthened and its 
functioning should be re-organised. 

In  the  FPAP  the  Commission  set  up  the  EU  Fraud  Prevention  Expert  Group  (hereafter 
“FPEG”), which includes all major stakeholders in payment fraud prevention in the EU8 and 
provides  an  added  value  as  a  platform  where  stakeholders  could  effectively  exchange 
information and best practice to prevent fraud. It contributed to intensify cooperation between 
interested parties to prevent fraud, especially at cross-border level. 

With the recent EU enlargement, gathering representatives from all interested sectors and of 
all Member States into one group while maintaining efficient working procedures becomes all 
the more challenging. A re-organisation of the membership and functioning of the group and 
an expansion of its mandate are necessary. 

Action points:  

⇒ The membership of the FPEG will be streamlined by identifying fraud prevention experts 
in each sector and/or country who will have the responsibility to act as effective contact points 
within their countries and multipliers of the work carried out in the Group. 

⇒ A steering group will be established within the FPEG in order to carry out more effectively 
the envisaged actions. The steering group will prepare the works of the FPEG and supervise 
the sub-groups activities. 

⇒ At least two meetings of the FPEG will take place each year. 

⇒ The FPEG will be responsible for the preparation of a communication plan addressed to 
EU citizens and professionals on the progress and  effectiveness  of  the  measures  of  the  new 
Action Plan. 

8 

The  Group  includes  representatives  of  national  and  EU  payment  schemes,  banks,  national  Ministries 
and  Central  Banks,  law  enforcement  agencies  (including Europol  and Interpol),  the  European  Central 
Bank, retailers, consumer groups and network operators. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
⇒ Two FPEG sub-groups on security issues and on user issues will be established. The sub-
groups  will  meet  according  to  the  timetable  and  topics  indicated  by  the  FPEG.  New  sub-
groups may be established by the FPEG. 

5. 

TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS 

Objectives: 

⇒ The payment industry should provide the highest economically viable level of security for 
electronic payments. 

⇒  The  manufacturers  of  payment  products,  the  payment  service  providers  and  national 
authorities  should  implement  a  co-ordinated  and  structured  approach  to  the  security 
evaluation  of  payment  products  and  components.  The  transparency  of  security  evaluation 
procedures should be improved and standardisation should be promoted. 

The migration to chip cards in the EU within a reasonable timeframe would increase security, 
help reduce fraud and boost user confidence. It is a priority which requires concerted efforts 
by all stakeholders. The Commission and national authorities should be prepared to assist the 
migration to chip cards in the EU, if necessary. 

The payment industry is implementing new, more secure solutions for e-payments and mobile 
payments9. These efforts should be monitored and assisted. 

In order to build confidence in payments it is essential for stakeholders to know the level of 
security  of  a  payment  product  or  component,  both  in  absolute  terms  and  with  respect  to 
similar products. At present security evaluation procedures are not based on common testing 
standards and there is little transparency toward the users. Banks and merchants could make 
better decisions if they knew to what extent one product is more secure than another. Users' 
confidence would increase if they received more detailed information about the testing carried 
out.  Common  security  evaluation  criteria  and  procedures  could  drastically  reduce  the  costs 
and  time  of  security  evaluation,  It  is  however  essential  that  a  harmonisation  of  security 
evaluation criteria does not reduce the existing level of security. 

Action points: 

⇒  Within  the  EU  Fraud  Prevention  Expert  Group,  a  Sub-Group  on  Security  Issues  will  be 
established.  The  Sub-Group  will  include  different  stakeholders  according  to  the  topics 
covered. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  launch  a  study  covering  cardholder  verification  methods  on  card 
payments and user verification methods on e-payments and mobile payments. 

9 

For example those based on the 3D Secure protocol. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
6. 

EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION 

Objective: 

⇒ All stakeholders, while respecting the rights and freedoms of individuals and competition 
rules, should be able to exchange information for an early detection and notification of fraud 
attempts. 

The  activities  undertaken  in  this  area  under  the  first  FPAP  should  be  continued.  The  main 
issue identified was the impossibility to exchange data on high-risk and fraudulent merchants 
within the EU. A clarification and harmonisation of the data protection rules in the EU with 
respect  to  fraud  prevention  activities  is  necessary  to  allow  a  wide  cross-border  exchange  of 
information.  Such  clarification  should  balance  the  interests  of  fraud  prevention  with  the 
respect  of  the  fundamental  rights  of  individuals.  The  EU  Article  29  Working  Party10 
established  an  informal  sub-group  of  representatives  of  national  data  protection  authorities 
and  of  the  payment  industry  to  discuss  specific  issues.  In  the  response  to  the  consultation 
document on a New Legal Framework for Payments in the Internal Market11, strong support 
was expressed in favour of a full harmonisation of the EU data protection legislation on this 
subject. The works of the Article 29 Working Party Sub-group are still under way. Apart from 
the  exchange  of  data  on  high-risk  and  fraudulent  merchants,  further  activities  where  a 
clarification of the legislation is necessary should be identified. New initiatives (eg databases) 
could be considered in order to collect and exchange information more widely among fraud 
prevention specialists. 

The  EU  Fraud  Prevention  Webpage12  could  be  further  developed  into  a  pan-European 
reference point on the prevention of payment fraud in the EU available to citizens, businesses 
and governments. 

Action points: 

⇒  The  Commission  will,  in  co-operation  with  national  data  protection  authorities  in  the 
Article  29  Working  Party,  clarify  the  limits  and  conditions  for  exchange  of  information 
related  to  fraud  prevention.  Alternatively,  if  adequate  clarification  cannot  be  achieved,  the 
Commission will propose legislation to amend existing EU data protection rules. 

⇒ The Commission will expand the existing EU Fraud Prevention Webpage with information 
on initiatives by other organisations active in fraud prevention. 

10 

11 

12 

EN 

data 

protection 

This  Group,  established  under  Article  29  of  Directive  95/46/EC,  includes  representatives  of  the  EU 
national 
the  Commission 
authorities. 
(see http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/privacy/workingroup_en.htm) 
Commission  Communication  on  a  New  Legal  Framework  for  Payments  in  the  Internal  Market 
(COM(2003) 718 final). 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/payments/fraud/index_en.htm 

secretariat 

held 

by 

Its 

is 

6 

   EN 

 
                                                 
7. 

TRAINING 
COOPERATION 

PROGRAMMES, 

EDUCATIONAL  MATERIAL  AND 

Objectives: 

⇒  The  training  of  law  enforcement  authorities and  the awareness of magistrates and  public 
prosecutors on fraud prevention should be further strengthened. 

⇒ The cooperation among EU administrative authorities to prevent payment fraud should be 
increased. 

⇒ The ability to investigate fraud cases of national law enforcement should be improved. 

The  EU  Card  Fraud  Forum  held  in  2003  offered  a  useful  platform  to  share  experience  and 
ideas  on  payment  fraud  between  the  judiciary,  law  enforcement  and  the  private  sector.  The 
awareness raising action with the judiciary and the initiatives to strengthen law enforcement 
training  should  continue,  in  view  of  a  more  effective  investigation  and  prosecution  of  these 
crimes. 

In law enforcement training a clear priority should be given to coordinated European training. 
It  is  also  important  that  comprehensive  training  packages  for  law  enforcement  are  prepared 
and  updated,  respecting  the  primary  role  and  responsibility  of  national  authorities  and 
targeting on transnational aspects where European training presents a real value added. 

In  some  Member  States,  specialised  central  units  have  been  set  up  to  better  fight  payment 
fraud13.  The  establishment  of  national  specialised  or  dedicated  units  could  strengthen  the 
investigative capacity and facilitate co-operation with other law enforcement units and market 
participants. 

The  measures  taken  for  the  protection  against  currency  counterfeiting  may  provide  a  useful 
indication  on  the  action  to  be  taken  with  regard  to  fraud  prevention  on  non-cash  means  of 
payment.  For  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  a  framework  establishing  the 
organisation  and  co-ordination  of  all  public  and  private  authorities  was  introduced.  A 
Regulation  lays  down  specific  measures  for  the  protection  of  the  euro14  and  the  Council 
assigned to the Commission the co-ordination of training and technical assistance, through a 
Decision  establishing  a  specific  financial  programme15.  The  European  Central  Bank  has 
established and maintains the CMS (Counterfeit Monitoring System) database on counterfeits 
and analyses new types of counterfeit banknotes. Europol is responsible for the transmission 
and analysis of information and established a database including criminal data for use by law 
enforcement.  The  Commission/OLAF  monitors  the  implementation  of  legislation  and 
prepares  legislative  initiatives,  manages  the  “Pericles”  training  and  technical  assistance 

13 

14 

15 

For example the Central Office for the fight against crime linked to the use of information technology 
(OCLCTIC)  in  France  or  the  Dedicated  Cheque  and  Plastic  Card  Unit  (DCPCU)  in  the  United 
Kingdom. 
Council  Regulation  (EC)  N°  1338/2001  of  28  June  2001  laying  down  measures  necessary  for  the 
protection of the euro against counterfeiting, OJ L 181 of 4.7.2001 p. 6 
Council Decision of 17 December 2001 establishing an exchange, assistance and training programme 
for  the  protection  of  the  euro  against  counterfeiting  (the  ‘Pericles’  programme),  (2001/923/EC), 
OJ L 339 of 21.12.2001 p. 50. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
                                                 
programme and analyses new types of counterfeit euro coins. Member States have established 
National  Central  Offices  for  the  protection  against  counterfeiting  and  designated  bodies 
responsible  for  the  technical  analysis  of  counterfeits.  They  have  also  introduced  legislation 
obliging  credit  institutions  to  withdraw  from  circulation  and  hand  over  counterfeits  to 
competent  authorities.  Member  States  carry  out training  and  technical assistance  actions  for 
the protection of the euro under the coordination of the Commission. 

Accordingly,  the  competent  national  administrative  authorities  in  the  EU  should  be  more 
involved  also  in  the  prevention  of  fraud  on  non-cash  payments  and  their  cooperation  and 
coordination should be established. A framework for the training of administrative authorities 
with EU funds could also be considered. 

As  from  2004  the  ten  new  Member  States  should  fully  participate  in  the  EU  initiatives. 
Notably, they will have to implement the EU penal legislation and integrate the framework of 
preventative measures which has been established. 

Action points:  

⇒  The  Commission  will  organise,  in  cooperation  with  the  payment  industry,  Europol  and 
other stakeholders, pan-European training sessions for specialised law enforcement officers to 
grant  them  the  status  of  certified  experts,  as  well  as  update  training  sessions  for  already 
certified officers. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  organise  a  second  high-level  conference  for  senior  police  officers, 
magistrates  and  prosecutors,  to  raise  awareness  on  payment  fraud  and  its  impact  on  the 
financial systems. Consideration will be given to organise such event periodically. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  assess  the  possible  benefits  of  establishing  at  national  level 
specialised or dedicated units in fighting payment fraud. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  promote  the  involvement  of  national  competent  authorities  in  the 
prevention of payment fraud. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  organise  a  seminar  on  fraud  prevention  for  representatives  of  the 
private sector and public authorities of the new Member States. 

8. 

OTHER FRAUD PREVENTION MEASURES 

Objectives: 

⇒  EU  citizens  should  be  provided  with  more  and  clearer  information  on  the  security  of 
payments. 

⇒ Merchants should benefit from the use of improved educational material and be provided 
with adequate tools to prevent data hacking. 

⇒ The notification of lost and stolen cards in the EU should be improved. 

⇒ Specific initiatives should be undertaken to prevent identity theft in the EU. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
The  exchange  of  information  on  existing  educational  material  within  the  retail  sector  and 
consumers’ associations is still limited, especially at cross-border level. Best practice remains 
to be achieved in guidelines to consumers on the possible risks related to the use of non-cash 
payments and how best to avoid them. A Commission study on the security of e-payments16 
demonstrated  that  consumers  are  not  well  informed  on  the  security  of  the  instruments  they 
use.  In  addition  to  improvements  in  the  security  of  e-payments,  providing  the  "right" 
information to consumers on security is an essential requirement for users' confidence. 

The Commission study on the security of e-payments also shows that the retail sector does not 
always  implement  the  best  technology  available,  mostly  due  to  the  cost  of  new  equipment. 
Better efforts are however necessary to protect merchant web-sites from unauthorised access. 
Some  recent  major  hacking  incidents  attest  the need  for  further  preventative  actions  against 
cybercrime.  Security  breaches  at  databases  of  e-commerce  merchants,  where  access  was 
gained  to  customers’  payment  card  numbers,  provide  increased  opportunities  for  payment 
fraud. A further consequence is the intangible damage to the merchant’s reputation and to the 
consumer perception on the security of the Internet and the use of payment instruments in this 
environment. This strongly undermines consumer confidence in e-commerce. The problem is 
further  compounded  by  the  fact  that  many  intrusions  are  not  reported  to  the  police17.  The 
recently established European Network and Information Security Agency (ENISA)18 aims at 
achieving  closer  European  co-ordination  in  this  area.  It  could  assist  payment  providers  and 
retailers in improving their protection against cybercrime. 

The  objective  of  creating  a  Single  Payment  Area  in  the  EU  calls  for  additional  efforts  to 
improve trust and confidence in payments and better prevent fraud. This objective of a single 
domestic  market  further  increases  the  desirability  of  a  single  number  in  the  EU  for  the 
notification of lost/stolen payment cards19. Today it is technically feasible to have single EU 
numbers20. 

The  Commission  organised  in  February  2004  a  workshop  on  identity  theft  under  the  EU 
Forum for the Prevention of Organised Crime. The workshop showed how identity theft is a 
cross-sector  problem  affecting  governments,  businesses  and  citizens,  which  is  growing 
rapidly in some sectors or countries21 and is often linked to organised crime. Comprehensive 
preventative  measures  against  identity  theft  are  needed,  as  the  verification  of  identities  is 
extremely important for the integrity of society. 

Action points: 

⇒  Within  the  EU  Fraud  Prevention  Expert  Group,  a  Sub-Group  on  User  Issues  will  be 
established.  The  Sub-Group  will  allow  discussion  at  pan-European  level  within  the  retail 
sector  and  consumer  associations  and  include  different  stakeholders  according  to  the  topics 
covered. 

16 
17 

18 
19 
20 

21 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/payments/fraud/index_en.htm#prevention-study 
Recent  statistics  indicated  that  80%  of  cybercrime  incidents  in  the  financial  sector  go  unreported 
(IDC and Gartner, November 2002). 
http://www.enisa.eu.int/index_en.htm 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/internal_market/payments/fraud/cardstopeurope/index_en.htm. See also 
At  present  ETNS  (European  Telephony  Numbering  Space)  and  UIFN  (Universal  International 
Freephone Numbers) numbers are available. Other numbers may become available in the near future. 
Identity theft is growing very fast outside the EU (US, Canada, Australia) and is very relevant in the 
UK. For now, it is not equally prominent in the other EU Member States. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
⇒ The Commission will continue to discuss the implementation of a single phone number in 
the EU for the notification of lost and stolen cards. 

⇒  The  payment  card  schemes  should  prepare  common  educational  tools  for  merchants 
covering all types of cards. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  assess  the  merits  of  establishing  an  EU  single  contact  point  for 
citizens and businesses on identity theft, which could include a register of bodies engaged the 
prevention of identity theft. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  promote  the  creation  of  a  database  of  original  and  counterfeit 
identity documents accessible to both public authorities and the private sector. 

9. 

RELATIONS WITH THIRD COUNTRIES 

Objective: 

⇒  Third  countries  should  introduce  and  enforce  effectively  preventive  measures  to  combat 
fraud and counterfeiting of non-cash means of payment. 

The  dialogue  with  third  countries  should  be  strengthened  in  order  to  avoid  that  criminals 
operating  from  third  countries  might  affect  the  interests  of  EU  citizens  and  businesses.  The 
Commission  will  take  this  forward  both  through  multilateral  groups,  such  as  the  G8,  and 
through bilateral contacts. 

Existing  Accession  Countries22,  and  countries  belonging  to  the  Wider  Europe23  are  areas  of 
concern for fraud prevention. The progressive involvement of these countries in the EU fraud 
prevention policy calls for stronger relations with public authorities in these countries. 

Action points: 

⇒  The  Commission  will  organise,  together  with  the  payment  industry,  awareness  raising 
initiatives  on  payment  fraud  for  the  authorities  of  the  candidate  countries  for  EU  accession 
and other European countries. 

⇒  The  Commission  will  continue  to  cooperate  with  other  countries,  bilaterally  and  in 
multilateral fora such as the G8, in order to help combat and prevent fraud. 

10. 

FOLLOW-UP ACTIVITIES 

After the end of 2007 the Commission will prepare a report to the European Parliament and 
the  Council  on  progress  achieved  in  the  implementation  of  the  Plan  and  will  propose,  if 
necessary, further measures. 

22 
23 

Bulgaria, Romania, Turkey, Croatia. 
For example Russia and Ukraine. 

EN 

10 

   EN