Commission staff working document - Annex to the report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council Protection of the financial interests of the Communities – Fight against fraud – Annual report 2007 - Implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty by the Member States in 2007 {COM(2008)475} {SEC(2008) 2300}
Date: 2008-07-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: European Anti-fraud Office, activity report, financial control, fraud, fraud against the EU, statistics

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.7.2008 
SEC(2008) 2301 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Annex to the 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

Protection of the financial interests of the Communities – Fight against fraud – Annual 
report 2007 
Implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty by the Member States in 2007 

{COM(2008)475} 
{SEC(2008) 2300} 

EN 

1 

   EN 

 
 
  
 
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

1.3. 

1.4. 

1.5. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

LEGAL INSTRUMENTS THAT GIVE EFFECT TO ARTICLE 280 OF THE EC 
TREATY — MAIN DEVELOPMENTS..................................................................... 4 

Horizontal developments ............................................................................................. 4 

Own resources (including VAT)................................................................................ 16 

Agricultural expenditure (expenditure financed by EAGF / EAGGF - Guarantee 
Section) ...................................................................................................................... 20 

Structural operations .................................................................................................. 25 

Description of key developments............................................................................... 29 

LIMITATION PERIODS FOR PROCEEDINGS ON IRREGULARITIES AND 
SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS ESTABLISHING ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES 
OR MEASURES........................................................................................................ 45 

Limitation period for proceedings.............................................................................. 46 

Limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative 
penalty (sanction) ....................................................................................................... 70 

Limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative 
measure (recovery)..................................................................................................... 84 

Management verifications in respect of the European Regional Development Fund
.................................................................................................................................. 103 

Guidelines for management verifications ................................................................ 104 

Actual conduct of verifications under Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 
438/2001 and the authorities conducting them ........................................................ 108 

Results of Article 4 verifications.............................................................................. 148 

Measures taken after detection of irregularity ......................................................... 155 

Information to final beneficiaries............................................................................. 174 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

Protecting  the  European  Communities'  financial  interests  and  combating  fraud  is  an  area  in 
which responsibility is shared between the Community and the Member States.  

Each year the Commission draws up a report in conjunction with the Member States on the 
measures taken to meet this obligation, under article 280 of the EC Treaty. 

The  Commission  bases  its  report,  which  is  addressed  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council and is published, on the measures taken by Member States’ described in their replies 
to the "Article 280" questionnaire, covering the period from 1 January to 31 December 2007. 

The present document lists all the Member States’ answers to the 2007 questionnaire. 

Over time the report had tended to become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and 
the European Parliament were concerned that its size was increasing and that its being annual, 
horizontal  and  multisectoral  prevented  a  detailed  assessment  being  made  of  all  aspects  of 
Member  States’  efforts  to  protect  the  Communities'  financial  interests.  Since  2003,  the 
Commission  has  therefore  applied  a  new  approach.  After  the  traditional  question  asking 
Members States to report on new measures taken in 2007, the questionnaire focuses on a few 
major themes. The aim is to gather information on topics which go beyond the measures taken 
in a calendar year, so that these can be analysed in more detail. The topics change from year 
to year. 

As  always,  the  first  part  of  the  questionnaire  asks  Member  States  to  list  the  legal 
instruments  that  give  effect  to  Article  280,  i.e.  measures  to  combat  fraud  and  all  illegal 
activities affecting the financial interests of the Communities in the areas of own resources, 
agricultural expenditure and structural measures. The Member States have been asked to list 
only national measures and not those which simply transpose Community legislation, and to 
do  so  briefly  to  reduce  the  volume  of  the  staff  working  document  which  incorporates  the 
replies from the 27 Members States. At the end of the first question, Member States have the 
opportunity  to  give  a  more  detailed  description  of  a  few  measures  they  view  as  having  the 
most important in the calendar year. 

The  second  question  concerns  a  specific  topic  on  limitation  periods  for  proceedings  on 
irregularities and subsequent decisions establishing administrative penalties or measures. 
The  Member  States  are  responsible  for  dealing  with  irregularities  and  the  outcome  of  such 
proceedings  as  regards  traditional  resources  and  indirect  expenditure.  Although  Regulation 
No 2988/1995 makes provision for cross-cutting rules, it allows Member States to provide for 
a  limitation  period  exceeding  the  one  that  it  lays  down.  Taking  action  on  irregularities 
affecting  the  EU  budget  within  the  set  limitation  periods  is  crucial  for  the  Communities' 
financial interests. 

The third question concerns another specific theme, namely the management verifications 
under  the  Article  4  of  Regulation  No  438/2001  in  respect  of  the  European  Regional 
Development Fund (ERDF). The aim here is to get a better idea of the kind of irregularities 
detected during these verifications, why they have occurred, and the measures Member States 
take on their detection. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
1. 

LEGAL  INSTRUMENTS  THAT  GIVE  EFFECT  TO  ARTICLE  280  OF  THE 
EC TREATY — MAIN DEVELOPMENTS 

1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

If so, please indicate below: 

–  Type of instrument (e.g. law, regulation, decree) 

–  References of the legal instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.) 

–  References of the legal instrument or code that is amended (if any) 

–  Title  of  the  legal  instrument  or  a  brief  description  (no  longer  than  one  or  two 

sentences). 

BE 

Royal  order  of  25 February  2007  published  in  the  Belgian  gazette  on 
28 February 2007 (amendment of the Royal order of 11 June 1993) 

Order to adapt the list of organisations subjected to the law of 11 January 1993 to 
prevent  the  use  of  the  financial  system  for  purposes  of  money  laundering  and 
financing of terrorism (M.B., 9 February 1993).  

Royal order of 3 June 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 13 June 2007 
(implementation of article 14 (5) of the law of 11 January 1993)  

Order to prevent the use of the financial system for purposes of money laundering 
and  financing  of  terrorism,  considering  that  it  is  advisable  to  complete  the 
preventive  approach  for  detecting  a  serious  and  organised  tax  fraud  case  at  the 
origin  of  suspicious  money  laundering  transactions,  by  resorting  to  a  list  of 
indicators capable of helping out in analyses conducted by the organisations and 
persons  mentioned  in  articles  2,  2  (2)  and  2  (3)  of  the  law  of  11 January  1993 
where  they  suspect  the  existence  of  a  serious  and  organised  of  tax  fraud  at  the 
origin of suspicious money laundering transactions, establishes such a list. 

Among  these  indicators  are  the  executions  of  financial  transactions  that  are 
unusual  in  the  normal  activities  of  the  company  or  suspicious  in  highly-
competitive sectors or highly-sensitive sectors to circular-type VAT fraud, such as 
the IT equipment, automobile, telephony (GSM), oil products, textile, hi-fi, video 
and electronics sectors. 

Law  of  27 April  2007  published  in  the  Belgian  gazette  on  8 May  2007 
(amendment of the law of 26 March 2003) 

Law that makes provision for data exchange between a Central Body for Seizure 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

and Forfeiture, on the one hand, and especially the civil servants in charge of debt 
recovery on behalf of the Federal Government, communities and regions, on the 
other hand. 

Law of 11 May 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 8 June 2007 

law  some  recommendations  of 

Law  to  adapt  legislation  on  the  fight  against  corruption  that  transposes  into 
Belgian 
law  contains 
interpretation  clauses  of  the  Penal  Code  that  deal  with  corruption  of  persons 
holding a public office and a provision amending the preliminary title of the Code 
of  criminal  procedure  that  allows  for  legal  action  to  be  taken  for  corruption-
related  offences  (cf.  article  10  (4)  of  preliminary  title  of  the  Code  of  criminal 
procedure introduced by article 7 of the law of 11 May 2007). 

the  OECD.  This 

Customs agreements:  

Law of 30 January 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 11 April 2007 

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “customs  mutual  administrative  assistance 
bilateral  agreement”  reached  between  the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Belgium  and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Uzbekistan,  and  signed  at 
Tashkent on 1 November 2002. The agreement took effect on 1 June 2007. 

Law of 15 February 2007  

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “customs  mutual  administrative  assistance 
bilateral  agreement”  reached  between  the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Belgium  and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Madagascar,  and  signed  at 
Brussels on 26 February 2003. The agreement is yet to take effect. 

Law of 21 April 2007  

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “customs  mutual  administrative  assistance 
agreement”  reached  between  the  Kingdom  of  Belgium  and  the  Government  of 
Burkina Faso, and signed at Brussels on 24 November 2003. The agreement is yet 
to take effect. 

Law of 21 April 2007  

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “mutual  administrative  assistance  agreement” 
between  the  Kingdom  of  Belgium  and  the  Kingdom  of  Morocco  with  a  view  to 
preventing, 
the 
appendices thereto, and signed at Brussels on 4 October 2002. The agreement is 
yet to take effect. 

identifying  and  punishing  customs-related  offences,  and 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

Law of 21 April 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 20 July 2007 

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “customs  mutual  administrative  assistance 
bilateral  agreement”  reached  between  the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Belgium and the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, and signed at Brussels on 1 July 
2002. The agreement took effect on 1 August 2007. 

Law of 21 April 2007  

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “customs  mutual  administrative  assistance 
bilateral  agreement”  reached  between  the  Government  of  the  Kingdom  of 
Belgium  and  the  Government  of  the  Republic  of  Azerbaijan,  and  signed  at 
Brussels on 18 May 2004. The agreement is yet to take effect. 

Law of 21 April 2007 published in the Belgian gazette on 20 July 2007 

Law  that  granted  consent  to  the  “customs  mutual  administrative  assistance 
agreement” reached between the Government of the Kingdom of Belgium and the 
Government  of  the  Republic  of  Turkey,  and  signed  at  Ankara  on  2 November 
2003. The agreement took effect on 1 August 2007. 

Royal  order  2007-4171  [C-2007/03451]  published  in  the  Belgian  gazette  on 
18 October 2007/p.53949. 

Royal Order of 17 August 2007  

Order  on  the  internal  control  system  in  some  services  of  the  federal  executive 
organ. This Royal Order seeks to create the conditions needed to ensure a greater 
accountability  for  the  managers  of  the  federal  administration  through  a  more 
thorough  knowledge  of  management  skills,  quality  of  public  expenses  and  good 
governance principles. 

BG 

State Budget Law §44, published in Official Gazette № 113 of 28 December 
2007, in force as from 1 January 2008 

All  unduly  paid  and  overpaid  amounts  subject  to  recovery,  as  well  as  illicitly 
obtained  or  illicitly  absorbed  funds  at  the  expense  of  pre-accession  financial 
instruments,  the  EU  Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund,  the  European 
Agricultural  Funds  and  the  European  Fisheries  Fund,  the  Schengen  Facility,  the 
Transition  Facility  and  the  national  co-funding,  may  be  deducted  in  their  full 
amount through transfers and subsidies. 

Public  Financial  Inspection  Law  published  in  Official  Gazette  №  86  of  26 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

October  2007  (amendment  of  Public  Financial  Inspection  Law  published  in 
Official Gazette № 33 of 21 April 2006) 

The main purpose of the state financial inspection activity is to protect the public 
financial interests. The PFIL establishes the competences of the Public Financial 
Inspection Agency authorities (financial inspectors). 

–  State Agency for National Security Law (SANSL) published in SG № 109 

of 20 December 2007, in force as from 1 January 2008 

SANS perform functions of surveillance, detection, counteraction and prevention 
of encroachments upon national security, whether plotted, prepared or perpetrated 
related to conclusion of unfavourable contracts, money laundering and fraudulent 
absorption of EU Funds. 

CZ 

Act № 298/2007 Coll. (amendment of Act No 320/2001 Coll) 

Act on financial control in public administration. 

Act № 174/2007 Coll. (amendment of Act No. 218/2000)  

Act on budgetary rules. 

Government Resolution №. 1010/2007 of 5 September 2007  

Act  changing  the  position  of  the  AFCOS  central  contact  point  in  the  Czech 
Republic. 

Draft  amendment  to  Act  No  256/2000  Coll.  on  the  State  Agricultural 
Intervention Fund (SAIF), Section 11a(3)  

Act providing a period of one year in which subsidies should be returned.  

IE 

Taxes Consolidation Act, new section 908C and 908D, 1997 

The  Revenue  Commissioners  is  from  now  on  competent  to  apply  to  a  District 
Court judge for a search warrant when investigating a criminal tax offence and to 
apply  to  a  District  Court  judge  for  an  order  requiring  a  third  party  to  supply 
specified  information  to  the  Revenue  Commissioners,  where  a  person  is  under 
investigation with a view towards a criminal prosecution. 

See point 1.5 

Order EHA/1434/2007 of 17 May 2007 published in the Official State Gazette 

7 

   EN 

EL 

ES 

EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

on 25.5.2007 

Order  approving  the  code  of  conduct  for  auditors  of  accounts  when  reviewing 
accounts used to support applications for grants in the state sector.  

FR 

Law № 1598/2007 of 13 November 2007 published in the Official Gazette on 
14 November 2007 

Law  implementing  the  Council  of  Europe  Convention  on  the  Corruption  of  27 
January  1999  and  its  protocol  of  15  May  2003  and  the  UN  Convention  against 
Corruption of 31 October 2003.  

IT 

Section  3  of  Presidential  Decree  No  91  of  14.5.2007  published  in  Official 
Gazette No 156 of 11.07.2007 (see point 1.5) 

Circular  on  “Methods  of  reporting  fraud  and  irregularities  affecting  the 
Community  budget  to  the  European  Commission”  published  in  Official 
Gazette No 240 of 15.10.2007.  

The  circular  is  the  national  instrument  implementing  the  agreement  between  the 
Government, 
the  Provinces, 
municipalities and mountain communities. 

the  Autonomous  Provinces, 

the  Regions, 

CY 

Law № 51(ΙΙΙ)/2007 published on 31.12.2007 

Law  ratifying  the  Council  of  Europe  convention  on  laundering,  search,  seizure 
and confiscation of the proceeds from crime and on the financing of terrorism. 

Law № 188(Ι)/2007 published on 31.12.2007 

Law on the prevention and suppression of money laundering activities. 

LV 

Public Procurement Act, promulgated  on 8  February  2007 published  in  the 
Official Gazette No. 29 of 19 February 2007 (amendment).  

The amendments removed the restriction on applying the procurement procedure 
–  applicable  to  services  listed  in  Section  B,  Annex  2  of  Council  and  European 
Parliament Directive 2004/18/EC of 31 March 2004 – to services in category 24 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

whose contract price exceeds LVL 50 000. 

State  Revenue  Service  Strategy  for  the  Prevention  and  Detection  of  Crime 
relating  to  Government  Revenue  2007-2009  of  8  November  20071  in 
accordance  with  the  State  Revenue  Service  Director-General's  Instruction  No 
2049. 

The strategy specifies the following objectives as priorities: 

- combatting tax fraud; 

- combatting money laundering; 

- the fight against organised crime. 

Section 323(3) of the Criminal Offences Act  

Section  that  has  been  supplemented  with  a  new  third  paragraph  and  stiffer 
penalties have been foreseen for bribery performed by organised groups. 

Section  166(6)  of  the  Latvian  Administrative  Infringements  Code  published 
in the Official Gazette No. 4 of 9 January 2008 (amendment) 

Regulation  that  provides  for  differentiated  sanctions  for  the  infringement  of 
regulations in respect of submission by legal persons of accounting information, 
statistics and reports. 

Cabinet  Regulations  No.  268  of  17  April  2007  published  in  the  Official 
Gazette No 69 of 27 April 2007 (replacement of Cabinet Regulation No 406 of 
16 May 2006) 

Regulation that provides for procedures for the administration and monitoring of 
State  and  European  Union  aid  for  agriculture  and  rural  development,  as  well  as 
procedures for the publication of information on aid beneficiaries and the amount 
of aid received.  

Cabinet Regulation No. 314 of 8 May 2007 published in the Official Gazette 
No 89 of 5 June 2007  

Regulation  that  provides  for  procedures  for  the  provision  of  State  and  European 
Union aid for rural development by open tender. These regulations lay down how 

1 

Published on Internet : www.vid.gov.lv. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

aid is to be granted for implementing EAFRD measures.  

HU  

Act CXXVI of 2007 Art. 345, 346 and 465, 1997 in force as from 1 January 
2008 (amendment of Art. 125, 126 and 138 of Act CXXIX of 2004) 

Articles  that  fine-tuned  and  supplemented  the  tasks  and  powers  of  the  OLAF 
Coordinating Bureau and its rules for treating personal information. 

Act XXVII of 2007 Art. 5(2) (amendment of Penal Code Art. 138/A) 

Article that raises the threshold in case of petty offences to 20 000 HUF.  

Act LXI of 2006 (inserted Art. 88/A into Chapter VII of Act XCII of 2003 on 
the Rules of Taxation 

The  new  paragraph  introduced  central  control  as  of  1  January  2007  the  aim  of 
which  is  to  investigate  unlawful  actions  of  taxpayers  carrying  the  potential  to 
substantially  jeopardize  the  interests  of  the  central  budget  and  to  restore 
operations within the framework of the law.  

Act XVII of 2007  

Act  on  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure  connected  to  agricultural,  rural 
developmental and fishery aid and other measures. 

Government Decree 82/2007 (IV. 25.)  

Decree on the development of financial, accounting and control systems and rules 
of  procedure  for  programmes  and  measures  financed  by 
the  European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development,  the  European  Fisheries  Fund  and  the 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. 

Government Decree 322/2007 (XII. 5.)  

Decree  on  supervisory  bodies  controlling 
assimilation rules. 

the 

implementation  of  mutual 

Government Decree 274/2006 (XII. 23.)  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

Decree on the creation and functioning of an Agricultural Administration Office. 

Decree 23/2007 (IV.17.)  

FVM  of  the  Minister  of  Agriculture  and  Regional  Development  on  the  general 
rules for the utilisation of aid co-financed by the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development.  

MT 

NL 

PL 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Article 5 of the Cash Controls Regulations (LN149/07) published in 
the Government Gazette No. 18,084 of 5 June 2007 

Article  that  provides  that  the  Comptroller  of  Customs  shall  be 
empowered  to  exchange  and  transmit  information  in  accordance  to 
Regulation  (EC)  1889/2005  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council of 26 October 2005 on controls of cash entering and leaving the 
Community.  

Financial  Regulations 

General 
(Amendment)  Regulations 
(LN185/07)  published  in  the  Government  Gazette  No.  18,100  of  13 
July 2007 

that  provides 

Regulation 
the 
Government’s Accountant General in relation to disbursements of public 
moneys,  on  the  spot  verifications  may  be  conducted  by  duly  authorised 
public officers on payment requests.  

in  verifications  conducted  by 

that 

Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004 published in the Official Gazette 
No 223(1655) of 2007.  
Act  that  has  provided  for  the  operational  programme  Managing  Authorities  to 
apply with to the President of the Public Procurement Office to carry out checks 
on public contracts where there is alleged violation of the Act. 

Public Finance Act of 8 December 2006 published in the Official Gazette No 
49(1832) (amendment) 
The amendment to the Act provides for audits to be carried out commissioned at 
public finance sector units.  

Public Procurement Act of 29 January 2004 published in the Official Gazette 
No 223(1655) of 2007.  
The  Act  has  provided  for  the  operational  programme  Managing  Authorities  to 
apply  to  the  President  of  the  Public  Procurement  Office  to  carry  out  checks  on 
public  contracts.  Checks  are  carried  out  at  the  registered  seat  of  the  Public 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

Procurement Office on the basis of public procurement documents 

PT 

Law 67-A/2007 2008 State Budget of 31.12.2007 published in the DR No 251, 
1st  series,  of  31/12/2007  (amendment  of  the  General  Tax  Offences  Scheme 
approved by Law 15/2001 of 5/6/2001, specifically Articles 92, 93 and 95)  

Law relating to smuggling, smuggling in connection with the movement of goods 
and fraud in the shipment of goods under a suspensive arrangement respectively. 

Decree  Law  79/2007  of  29/03/2007  published  in  the  DR  No  63,  1st  series,  of 
29/3/2007  

Law  in  the  framework  of  the  State  Central  Administration  Restructuring 
Programme  (PRACE)  –  approves  the  new  Organic  Law  of  the  IGF,  defining  its 
mission  and  tasks,  particularly  in  respect  of  Article  2(2)(d))  “To  conduct  audits 
and  perform  the  duties  of  national  interlocutor  of  the  European  Commission  for 
matters  of  financial  control  and  protecting  the  financial  interests  of  the 
Community Budget”. 

RO 

Government  Emergency  Ordinance  No  25/2007  published  in  the  Official 
Gazette, Part I, No 270 of 23.04.2007 

Ordinance  laying  down  certain  measures  for  reorganising  the  Government 
working apparatus. The new aspects aim to extend the investigation powers of the 
Anti-Fraud  Department  –  DLAF  (AFCOS  Romania)  to  cover  post-accession 
European funds.  

Prime  Minister’s  Decision  No  205/2007  published  in  the  Official  Gazette, 
Part I, No 511/31.07.2007 

Decision on the organization and operation of the Anti-Fraud Department.  

Government Ordinance No 12/2007 published in the Official Gazette, Part I, 
No  84  of  2.02.2007  (amendment  and  supplement  of  Government  Ordinance 
No 79/2003)  

Ordinance on the control and recovery of Community funds as well as related co-
financing  funds  used  improperly.  Community  debts  are  assimilated  to  national 
fiscal debts (see also point 1.5).  

Government Decision No 1306/2007 published in the Official Gazette, Part I, 
No 753 of 6.11.2007  

Decision approving the Methodological Rules for the application of Government 
Decision No 79/2003. It details the detection and recovery activities, regulates the 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

approval  of  the  findings  report  specimen,  defines  the  notion  of  illegible 
expenditure, sets the deadline for the payment of budgetary obligations resulting 
from irregularities, etc.  

Government Decision No 525/2007 published in the Official Gazette, Part I, 
No 395 of 12.06.2007 

Decision  on  the  organisation  and  operation  of  the  National  Authority  for 
Regulating  and  Monitoring  Public  Procurement.  he  main  role  of  the  National 
Authority  for  Regulating  and  Monitoring  Public  Procurement  (Romanian 
acronym ANRMAP) is to formulate at conceptual level, promote and implement 
Romanian public procurement policy. 

Government  Emergency  Ordinance  No  94/2007  published  in  the  Official 
Gazette,  Part  I,  No  676  of  4.10.2007  (amendment  and  supplement  of 
Government Emergency Ordinance No 34/2006)  

Ordinance on the award of public procurement contracts, public works concession 
contracts  and  services  concession  contracts.  he  adoption  of  Government 
Emergency  Ordinance  No  94/2007  was  intended  to  make  public  procurement 
system more flexible, at the same time ensuring its operation in accordance with 
European rules.  

Law  No  228/2007  published  in  the  Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No  471  of 
12.07.2007  

Law  approving  Government  Emergency  Ordinance  No  30/2006  (Romanian 
Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No  365/26.04.2006)  on  the  function  of  verifying  the 
procedural  aspects  related  to  the  process  of  awarding  public  procurement 
contracts. 

SI 

Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters between the Member 
States of the European Union Ur. l. RS published in the Official Gazette No 
102/2007  

Article  56  of  the  Act  provides  for  the  establishment  of  a  special  international 
investigation  team  and  includes  explicit  provision  for  the  participation  of 
representatives of OLAF. The team is led by Slovenia's public prosecutor. Public 
prosecutor's  offices  and  police  organisational  units  are  required  to  lend  every 
assistance to the international investigation team. 

Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act Ur. l. RS No 
60/2007  

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

The Act allows the Slovenian national budget supervision office (AFCOS) also to 
take action in relation to money laundering. 

SK 

National  strategy  for  protecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  European 
Community in the Slovak Republic. Government Resolution No. 547/2007 

(See point 1.5) 

AFCOS  network  partner  cooperation  manual.  Government  Resolution  No. 
547/2007 

Manual  for  the  notification  of  irregularities.  Government  Resolution  No. 
547/2007 

Government Resolution 323/2007 

Resolution on the fight against corruption. A working group was set up to update 
the  National  Programme  for  fighting  corruption  and  the  tasks  of  fighting 
corruption were entrusted to the Department for Protecting the Financial Interests 
of  the  EU  and  the  Fight  against  Corruption  at  the  Slovak  Government  Office’s 
Control and Anti-Corruption Section.  

Act  No.  199/2007  in  force  as  from  1  May  2007  (amendment  of  Act  No. 
39/1993) 

Act  on  the  Supreme  Audit  Office  of  the  Slovak  Republic obtaining  independent 
approval  of  the  budget  of  the  Supreme  Audit  Office  from  the  Finance  Ministry, 
with the Supreme Audit Office budget forming a separate item in the state budget 
of the Slovak Republic. 

Act No. 659/2007  

Act on the introduction of the Euro in the Slovak Republic. 

FI 

Code  of  Enforcement  Procedure  №  705/2007 
Enforcement Act of 1895) 

(replacement  of 

the 

General  act  for  enforcement  which  contains  provisions  on  the  organisation  of 
enforcement  and  enforcement  procedure.  It  also  includes  provisions  on  the 
maximum period for debt liability. A claim is barred by the statute of limitations 
once  the  limitation  period  for  the  grounds  of  enforcement  (15  or  20  years)  has 
expired. A court may, however, extend the period for the ground of enforcement 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
1.1. 

Horizontal developments 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  horizontal  developments  (not  just 
implementing  measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article 280  of  the 
Treaty in 2007? Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

by ten years.  

Act on the Implementation of Taxes and Duties № 706/2007 (replacement of 
the Recovery of Taxes and Duties by Enforcement Proceedings № 367/1961) 

Act  which  lays  down  provisions  on  the  recovery  of  taxes  and  duties  without  a 
judgment (what is known as "direct distrainability").  

SE 

See point 1.5 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
1.2. 

Own resources (including VAT) 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

If so, please indicate below: 

Type of instrument (e.g. law, regulation, decree) 

References of the legal instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.) 

References of the legal instrument or code that is amended (if any) 

Title of the legal instrument or a brief description (no longer than one or two sentences). 

BE 

Programme  law  of  27 December  2006  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  of 
28 December 2006, 3rd edition in force as from 7 January 2007. 

Articles 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of this programme law incorporates into the VAT Code 
articles 52bis, 88bis, 88ter, 89bis in 93undecies D. These are measures relating to 
tax fraud control and to a more thorough tax collection. These provisions basically 
offer  the  possibility  of  conducting  an  administrative  seizure  of  property  on  a 
provisional basis as a means of guaranteeing the payment of VAT, demanding a 
real guarantee or surety, of ordering, in some cases, the closing down of business 
entities  or  conducting  a  provisional  seizure  for  the  taxes  claimed.  Under  certain 
terms  and  conditions,  article  93undecies  D  establishes  personal  liability  for  the 
payment of taxes by right for public officers or ministerial officials in charge of 
the public sale of movable property. 

Programme law of 27 April 3rd edition and law of 25 April 2007 published in 
the Official Gazette of 8 May 2007  

Laws laying down miscellaneous provisions  

Article 101, 104 and 105 of the programme law of 27 April 2007 and article 
104 of the law of 25 April 2007  

Articles laying down miscellaneous provisions introduced the measures needed to 
prevent  the  implementation  of  the  VAT  unit  from  giving  room  for  tax  fraud  or 
evasion and to prevent membership of a VAT unit from giving rise to unjustified 
tax advantages or benefits  with respect to VAT, by inserting new articles 19bis, 
50 (1) 4°, 50 (2), 51ter and 53 (3) in the VAT code. 

Article 56 (3) of the VAT code was amended by article 127 of the programme 
law of 27 April 2007 that took effect on 1 October 2007 

Article  to  exclude  from  the  franchise  granted  to  small-sized  companies  with  a 
turnover  not  exceeding  5580  euros,  real  estate  transactions  and  all  related 
operations.  This  exclusion  responds  to  the  intention  to  curb  the  risk  of  black 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
1.2. 

Own resources (including VAT) 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

labour and illegal workers in the sector. 

Articles  70  to  76  of  the  programme  law  of  27 April  2007  inserts  articles 
84quinquies, 84sexies, 84septies, 84octies, 84nonies, 84decies and 84undecies 
in the VAT code  

Article  to  introduce  a  measure  known  as  indefinite  suspension  of  tax  recovery. 
This measure enables any taxpayer, a private individual, who has lost the taxpayer 
status  or  the  latter’s  spouse  (it  must  be  a  VAT  owed  for  a  previously-operated 
activity  and  that  has  ceased  definitively),  to  introduce  a  justified  request  and  to 
obtain,  if  possible  following  an  inquiry  conducted  with  lending  institutions  and 
under  certain  conditions,  an  exceptional  preferential  measure  granting  them  a 
definitive VAT recovery suspension issued in return for the immediate or phased 
payment of a given amount to be charged to the taxes owed. 

BG 

Internal  rules  of  procedure  for  managing  Community  funds  –  PHARE  pre-
accession instruments – last amended – November 2007. The rules of procedure 
are not a statutory instrument. 

Establishment of a Contact Group for interoperability management on 5 April 
2007 (supplement to the Instruction for interaction among the Prosecutor’s Office 
of the Republic of Bulgaria, the Financial Intelligence Agency subordinated to the 
Finance Minister, and the Ministry of the Interior of 3 July 2006). 

CZ 

(See point 1.1) 

Act No. 235/2004 Coll. of VAT (amendment).  

IE 

ES 

IT 

Ireland maintains its reservation about the inclusion of VAT in this questionnaire 
in line with that agreed at the COCOLAF meeting in October 2005. 

Articles 25.1 and 144 to 147 Royal Decree 1065/2007 of 27 July published in 
the Official State Gazette of 5 September 2007 

Articles  approving  the  general  regulations  governing  tax  management  and 
inspection measures and procedures and implementing the common rules for tax 
application procedures. In relation to Article 280, see. 

Decree  Act  of  3.10.2006  published  in  Official  Gazette  No  230  of  3.10.2006, 
converted into law by Act No 286 of 24.11.2006. On 25.10.2007 two measures 
from  the  Revenue  Agency  were  published  in  Official  Journal  (General 
Series) No 266 of 15.11.2007, implementing these rules.  

Act that lays down rules on the registration of new and used cars, motor vehicles 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
1.2. 

Own resources (including VAT) 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

and their trailers purchased as intra-Community transactions.  

Order of the Ministry of Economic and Financial Affairs of 25.05.2007 on the 
“Identification  of  a  further  operation  for  the  application  of  the  reverse  charge 
system”, within the meaning of section of 17(6) of Presidential Decree No 633 
of  26.10.1972,  published  in  Official  Gazette  No  152  of  3.07.2007.  It  extended 
the reverse charge system to cover sales of buildings of parts thereof as defined in 
indent 8-ter(d) of section 10 of Presidential Decree No 633 of 26.10.1972. 

HU 

Art.  29  of  Act  XXVII  of  2007  in  force  as  from  1.6.2007  published  in  the 
Official Gazette 2007/50. (IV. 20.) (amendment of Act IV of 1978 on the Penal 
Code and other penal laws)  

Act  establishing  that  smuggling  constitutes  an  individual  crime  (Art.  312),  and 
according  to  Art.  32  illegal  importation  and  trafficking  of  goods  as  activity 
belongs now to Art. 236 of the Penal Code about receiving stolen goods. Acts of 
smuggling  as  a  new  individual  crime  were  spelled  out,  and  in  case  of  certain 
aggravating  circumstances,  penalties  were  made  tougher.  Protection  of  financial 
interests  is  a  primary  aspect  of  the  new  measure  that  qualifies  the  payment  of 
customs  duties  before  presenting  criminal  charges  are  brough  as  active  remorse 
that nullifies criminality. 

MT 

Part VIII of Act IV of 2007 (Budget Measures Implementing Act (Cap. 475)) 
published in Government Gazette Number 18052 of 16 March 2007  

Act  that  improves  information  exchange  between  persons  and  the  VAT 
department on VAT issues, and introduces an obligation on commercial banks to 
submit specific information to the VAT department.  

– 

– 

Act  XIX  of  2007  published  in  Government  Gazette  No  18110  of  3 
August 2007 (amendments of the VAT Act (Cap. 406))  

Act concerning transport of goods in the course of an economic activity. 

NL 

A  proposal  for  a  new  General  Customs  Act  was  brought  before  Parliament  in 
2007 and adopted by the Lower House in early 2008. It is due to enter into force 
on 1 July 2008 after adoption by the Upper House. 

The  Act  sets  out  in  clear  terms  the  powers  of  the  customs  authorities  in  the 
performance of taxation-related and non-taxation-related duties. It also lays down 
rules  for  the  exchange  of  information  with  other  enforcement  agencies  in  the 
Netherlands. 

PT 

Decree Law 82/2007 of 29.3.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 63 1st 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
1.2. 

Own resources (including VAT) 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

series of 29/3/2007  

Act that, - in the framework of the PRACE - approves the new Organic Law of 
the DGAIEC, defining its mission and tasks, and the type of internal organisation; 
this Directorate-General protects the Community’s financial interests, in terms of 
its own funds or the funding of the Common Agricultural Policy, as this agency’s 
Antifraud Services Directorate is in charge of implementing the controls provided 
for in Reg. (EC) No 4045/89. 

Order in Council 349/2007 of 30.3.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 
64 1st series of 30/3/2007 

Order  that  establishes  the  core  structure  of  the  services  and  the  tasks  of  the 
respective units of DGAIEC. 

Order 7624/7 of 2.4.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 80 2nd series of 
24/4/2007  

Order  that  defines  the  flexible  organic  units  of  the  Services  and  Customs 
Directorates and their respective tasks. 

RO 

Government Emergency Ordinance No 106/2006 published in the Romanian 
Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No  703/18.10.2007  (amendment  and  supplement  of 
Law No 571/2003)  

It aims at maintaining the level of budget revenues resulting from the value added 
tax  by  extending  the  application  period  for  the  system  of  the  value  added  tax 
payment  to  the  customs  authority  to  cover  the  import  of  goods  from  third 
countries.  The  simplified  VAT  payment  measures  will  be  applied  only  starting 
with 2012. Procedures in order to clarify certain provisions in the field of taxation 
system were also taken into account.  

Government  Ordinance  No  47/2007  on  regulating  certain  financial-fiscal 
measures published in the Official Gazette Part I, No 603 of 31.08.2007 

Within  the  Fiscal  Administration  National  Agency,  the  Commission  for  Fiscal 
Procedures has been established, which is responsible for preparing Decisions on 
the uniform application of the Fiscal Procedure Code and of the legislation falling 
within the scope of the Fiscal Administration National Agency. 

Government Decision No 532/2007 on the organisation and operation of the 
National  Customs  Authority,  published  in  the  Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No 
405/18.06.2007 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
1.2. 

Own resources (including VAT) 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

The  National  Customs  Authority  receives  new  tasks  in  the  field  of  the  fiscal 
surveillance, authorisation, certification, and approval of natural and legal persons 
carrying out activities of production, bottling, packaging, acceptance, possession, 
storage and/or delivery, sale, final use of excise products.  

SI 

Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters between the Member 
States  of  the  European  Union  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  Part  I  No 
102/2007 

Act supplementing the legal framework for direct cooperation with OLAF. 

SK 

Customs Act No. 537/2007 of 25 October 2007 (amendment of Customs Act 
No. 199/2004 and other acts)  

The  draft  document  had  to  take  into  account  the  fact  that  customs  duty  is 
traditional  own  resource  for  the  Community,  which  can  only  be  handled  in 
accordance with the regimes established by the relevant legal acts of the EC/EU. 
For  this  reason,  sums  owing  under  a  Community  claim  on  separate  sources  as 
advances by the debtor to a third party in bankruptcy or liquidation are excluded. 

SE 

Value  Added  Tax  Act  (Mervärdesskattelagen)  published  in  the  Official 
Gazette  No  1031/2006  and  1293/2006  (amendment  of  Value  Added  Tax  Act 
No 200/1994)  

The  amendments  imply  a  complete  change  concerning  tax  obligation  within  the 
building sector. The intention of the rules (which imply that the buyer, instead of 
the seller, pays value added tax to the State for building services provided) is to 
prevent value added tax fraud. 

UK 

The UK has a reservation about the inclusion of VAT in this questionnaire. 

1.3. 

Agricultural  expenditure  (expenditure  financed  by  EAGF  /  EAGGF  - 
Guarantee Section) 

–  Have there been any significant new legislative developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

If so, please give a brief description below. Please indicate: 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
1.3. 

Agricultural  expenditure  (expenditure  financed  by  EAGF  /  EAGGF  - 
Guarantee Section) 

–  Have there been any significant new legislative developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

–  Type of instrument (e.g. law, regulation, decree) 

–  References of the legal instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.) 

–  References of the legal instrument or code that is amended (if any) 

–  Title  of  the  legal  instrument  or  a  brief  description  (no  longer  than  one  or  two 

sentences) 

Whether the measures are general or apply to a specific sector of the EAGF / EAGGF -
Guarantee Section, and, if so, which one. 

BG 

2007-2013 Rural Development Programme, elaborated in 2007 and approved 
by the EC on 19 December 2007 

The Program regulates the conditions for allocating financial support to Bulgaria 
by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development for the development of 
agriculture and rural areas. The regulations for the Programme’s implementation 
are  soon  to  be  promulgated  in  the  State  Gazette.  They  will  describe  in  details 
eligible  costs  and  eligible  beneficiaries,  with  a  view  to  preventing  any 
irregularities upon allocating financial support. 

CZ 

(See point 1.1) 

Administrative  acts  comprise  methodological  guidelines  and  SAIF  and  MoA’s 
AFCOS contact point instructions. 

Rural  Development Programme  of the Czech Republic for 2007-2013 (EAFRD) 
of May 23, 2007. Fisheries Operational Programme (EFF) for the Czech Republic 
of December 11, 2007. 

IT 

Section 1(1048) of Act No 299 of 27 December 2006 (2007 budget), published 
in Official Journal No 299 of 27 December 2006  

The Section establishes that controls required of the Ministry of Agriculture and 
Forestry  under  Regulation  (EEC)  No  4045/1989,  and  the  tasks  required  under 
Article  11  of  the  Regulation,  shall  be  performed  by  the  Agricultural  Payments 
Agency (AGEA) from 1 July 2007. 

AGEA Circular ACIU.2007.1082 of 24 December 2007  

The  circular  adopted  the  coordination  manual  for  dealing  with  irregularities  and 
recovery  by  paying  agencies,  which  laid  down  standard  rules  for  EAGF  and 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
1.3. 

Agricultural  expenditure  (expenditure  financed  by  EAGF  /  EAGGF  - 
Guarantee Section) 

–  Have there been any significant new legislative developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

EAFRD  procedures,  in  line  with  the  joint  ministerial  circular  on  Methods  of 
reporting fraud and irregularities affecting the Community budget to the European 
Commission issued on 12 October 2007 by the Prime Minister’s Office. 

LV 

Amendments  to  the  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  Act  of  18  October 
2007  and  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  No  179  on  7  November  2007 
(amendment of the Agricultural and Rural Development Act of 23 April 2004

As a result of these amendments the Agriculture and Rural Development Law has 
been supplemented with Procedures Governing Control of the Integrated Growing 
System  for  Agricultural  and  Organic  Produce,  as  well  as  conditions  for  the 
administration  of  State  and  European  Union  aid,  and  certain  legal  norms 
contained  in  the  previous  version  of  the  Act  have  been  applied  to  the  fisheries 
industry.  These  measures  are  of  a  general  nature  and  apply  to  agriculture,  rural 
development and the fisheries industry.  

Several Cabinet Regulations2 laid down rules for the administration of state aid 
and EU funds in the field of agriculture. They may include legal norms on checks 
and sanctions. 

HU 

Art. 6 of Act XVII of 2007 published in the Official Gazette No 2007/38 (III. 
30.)  

The  Act  relates  to  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure  regarding  agricultural,  rural 
development  and  fisheries  aid  and  other  measures  and  provides  for  general 
measures as follows: ‘In order to make measures de facto implement objectives 
set  in  legal  acts  or  programmes,  implementation  bodies  shall  create  or  provide 
for possibilities to act efficiently against intentional irregularities’. 

Government Decree 82/2007 (IV. 25.) on developing financial, accounting and 
control  systems  and  rules  of  procedure  for  programmes  and  measures  financed 
by  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development,  the  European 
Fisheries Fund and the European Agricultural Guarantee Fund. 

Government Decree 314/2006 (XII.23.) as amended by Government Decree 
359/2007 (XII.23.)  

The decree restructured the body responsible for ex-post controls of aids financed 

2 

Cabinet  Regulations  No.  51  of  9  January  2007,  No  255,  267,  269  of  17  April  2007,  No  617  of  11 
September 2007, No 653 of 2 October 2007. 

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
1.3. 

Agricultural  expenditure  (expenditure  financed  by  EAGF  /  EAGGF  - 
Guarantee Section) 

–  Have there been any significant new legislative developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

from  the  EAGGF  Guarantee  Section  according  to  Regulation  4045/89/EEC. 
These  controls  shall  be  made  by  newly  created  bodies,  namely  the  Regional 
Control Centres. 

Act CXXVI of 2007 on the amendment of certain taxation laws amended Act 
CXXVI of 2003 on the Implementation of Community Customs Law 

The Act declares that ex-post control shall be carried out at the client's premises 
if the Head of the Special Service so requires. Initiating controls becomes faster 
in case of alleged irregularities. 

Regulation 48/2007 PM of the Ministry of Finance (amendment of Regulation 
24/2004 (IV.23.) and Regulation 23/2004 (IV.22.) PM) 

The Regulation sets competences for the new Regional Control Centres. With the 
above  Regulation  and  sets  the  professional  governance  of  the  Special  Service 
regarding  Member  State  controls  of  transactions  under  the  EAGGF  financial 
system. 

PL 

Agricultural Land and Sugar Payments Act of 26 January 2007 published in 
the Official Gazette No 35(217) of 2007  

The Act introduces national financial penalties for irregularities in subsidising the 
cultivation of energetic plants. 

PT 

Applicable to the EAGF and the EAFRD: 

Implementing  Decree  No  79/2007  of  30.7.2007  in  the  framework  of  the 
PRACE published in the Official Gazette No 145, 1st series, of 30.7.2007  

The decree approves the new Organic Law of the IGAP, defining its mission and 
tasks,  and  conferring  on  it  the  powers  to  carry  out  the  ex  post  controls  on  the 
investment  operations  funded  by  the  EAFRD  in  order  to  implement  the  a 
posteriori scrutiny provided for in Regulation (EC) 4045/89 and to carry out the 
specific services within the meaning of this Regulation. 

Decree-Law  No  323/2007  of  28.9.2007  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  No 
188, 1st series, of 28.9.2007 

The  Decree-Law  establishes  the  rules  and  procedures  to  be  adopted  for 
accrediting  the  paying  agency  for  the  expenditure  funded  by  the  EAGF  and  the 
EAFRD, and for certifying the respective accounts, conferring on the Minister in 
charge of finances, on a proposal from the IGF, the powers to accredit the paying 
agency  of  the  EAGF  and  the  EAFRD  and  conferring  on  the  IGF  the  power  to 

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
1.3. 

Agricultural  expenditure  (expenditure  financed  by  EAGF  /  EAGGF  - 
Guarantee Section) 

–  Have there been any significant new legislative developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

serve  as  the  certifying  body  for  the  purposes  of  Article  7  of  Regulation  No 
1290/2005. Revokes Decree-Law 331-A/95 of 22/12/1995. 

Council  of  Ministers  Resolution  101/2007  published  in  the  Official  Gazette 
No 147, 1st series, of 1.8.2007  

Resolution adapting the operations of the CIFG to the funding system of the CAP 
(Common Agricultural Policy), including in its scope of operations the reporting 
of irregularities and suspected fraud to the EAFRD, to be added to the operations 
of  the  EAGF  already  dealt  with  by  this  Inter-ministerial  Commission.  Revokes 
RCM 10/91 of 14 March 1991 

RO 

Government Emergency Ordinance No 120/2007 published in the Romanian 
Official Gazette, Part I, No 745 of 2.11.2007 (amendment and supplement of 
Government Emergency Ordinance No 67/2006)  

Ordinance  on  managing  non-returnable  funds  intended  for  the  financing  of  the 
Common Agricultural Policy, allocated from the European Community as well as 
of  co-financing  and  pre-financing  funds  allocated  from  the  state  budget.  It 
stipulates  the  necessary  financial  measures  regarding  the  allocation  method  for 
pre-financing  and  co-financing  from  the  state  budget  in  order  to  support  the 
beneficiaries  of  European  funds  related  to  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy.  At 
the  same  time,  the  Payment  Agency  for  Rural  Development  and  Fishing 
(Romanian  acronym  APDRP)  may  grant  the  payment  in  advance  from  the 
EAFRD assistance or from the state budget to the public beneficiaries of the non-
returnable  financial  support  for  investments,  pursuant  to  provisions  stipulated  in 
the National Program for Rural Development (Romanian acronym: PNDR). 

Law No139/2007 on the approval of Government Emergency Ordinance No 
125/2006  published 
in  the  Romanian  Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No 
352/23.05.2007 (amendment of Article 2 of Law No 36/1991)  

Law  approving  the  direct  payment  and  direct  national  supplementary  payment 
schemes granted in the agricultural field starting with 2007 and amending Article 
2  of  Law  No  36/1991  on  agricultural  establishments  and  other  forms  of 
association  in  the  agricultural  field,  Persons  who,  by  registering  and  certifying 
false data or circumstances in the discounting documents related to the financial 
support stipulated by this Emergency Ordinance, improperly cash certain amounts 
from  the  state  budget  will  not  benefit  from  a  financial  support  for  a  period  of  3 
years.  

Order of the Minister of Agriculture and Regional Development No 704/2007 
published in the Romanian Official Gazette, Part I, No 607/3.09.2007 (repeal 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
1.3. 

Agricultural  expenditure  (expenditure  financed  by  EAGF  /  EAGGF  - 
Guarantee Section) 

–  Have there been any significant new legislative developments (not just implementing 
measures) contributing to the implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty in 2007? 
Member States are asked to list only national measures and not those which simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

of the Order of the Minister of Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development 
No 607/2006) 

Order laying down the method for the implementation of specific conditions and 
the  application  of  direct  payment  and  national 
eligibility  criteria 
supplementary direct payment schemes in the plant sector.  

for 

FI 

Åland: Section 2 of Regional Act on the Financing of Agricultural Industries 
(ÅFS 63/2007) 

This Act applies to the province's national aid system and to that co-financed from 
EU funds within the framework of the Community's Common Agricultural Policy.

1.4. 

Structural operations 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

If so, please give a brief description below. Please indicate:  

Type of instrument (e.g. law, regulation, decree) 

References of the legal instrument (number/date of publication in Official Gazette, etc.) 

References of the legal instrument or code that is amended (if any) 

Title of the legal instrument or a brief description (no longer than one or two sentences) 

Whether the measures are general or whether they apply to a specific fund and, if so, 
which one. 

BE 

Royal  order  2007-4172  [C-2007/03450]  of  17 August  2007  published  in  the 
Official Gazette of 18 October 2007/p.53962 

This  Royal  order  aims  at  guaranteeing  that  the  conditions  for  an  efficient 
evaluation  of  internal  control  systems  have  been  met.  It  contributes  to  the 
implementation  of  a  “control  chain”  (single  audit),  held  dear  by  the  European 
Court of Auditors 

Royal  order  2007-4173  [C-2007/03449]  of  17 August  2007  published  in  the 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
 
1.4. 

Structural operations 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

Official Gazette of 18 October 2007/p.53990 

This Royal Order sets up an Audit Committee that guarantees that internal audit 
activities  are  performed  in  compliance  with  internationally  recognised  standards 
and complete independence. 

BG 

Guidelines  of  the  Minister  of  Finance  No.  01/27.08.2007  on  the  terms  and 
conditions  for  payment  of  grants  using  the  resources  of  the  Structural  and 
Cohesion  Funds  of  the  European  Union  and  the  corresponding  national  co-
financing. 

Guidelines of the Minister of Finance No. 02/31.08.2007 on the certification of 
expenses  under  Operational  Programmes  co-financed  by  the  Structural  and 
Cohesion Funds of the European Union. 

Guidelines  of  the  Minister  of  Finance  No.  03/17.09.2007  on  procedures  to 
report and account for any irregularities under the Structural and Cohesion Funds 
of the European Union. 

Guidelines of the Minister of Finance No. 04/05.10.2007 on the arrangement of 
the  accounting  process  within  the  Managing  Authorities  /  Intermediate  Bodies 
that  manage  resources  under  the  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  of  the  EU,  and 
the corresponding national co-financing. 

CZ 

See point 1.5. 

Methodology  of  Financial  Flows  and  Control  of  Programmes  Cofinanced 
from  Structural  Funds,  Cohension  Fund  and  the  European  Fisheries  Fund 
for  the  Programming  Period  2007-2013,  effective  from  1  January  2007, 
approved  by  a  Government  Resolution  (Methodology  of  Financial  Flows) 
applying to the SF and the CF.  

Government  Resolution  No.  1010/2007  of  5  September  2007,  applying 
horizontally  to  irregularities.  Horizontal  scope  (applies  to  the  SF  and  the  CF), 
removing  obsoletism  and  providing  for  a  uniform  approach  by  bodies  in  the 
implementing structure in case of discovering and investigating irregularities. 

See point 1.5. 

Decision  No  822  of  the  Regional  Government  of  12.12.2007  –  Manual  of 
Procedures for the paying agencies involved in the ROP for Calabria 2000 –
2006, Circular 5128 of 21.09.2007 

The  decision  contains  explanations  by  the  managing  and  paying  authorities 
regarding implementation of procedures for the withdrawal of amounts connected 

EL 

IT 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
1.4. 

Structural operations 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

with irregularities. 

Decision No 102 of the Autonomous Province of Trento of 26.01.2007  

Decision  concerning  methods  of  recognising  and  establishing  the  actual  cost 
of delegated tasks in connection with courses funded by the ESF in the period 
2000-2004 where it has been discovered that one company controlled or had 
links with other companies.  

LV 

European  Union  Structural  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund  Management  Act,  of 
15  February  2007  published  in  the  Official  Gazette  No  33  of  23  February 
2007 and in force as from 1.3.2007. 

On  the  basis  of  the  European  Union  Structural  Fund  and  Cohesion  Fund 
Management Act,  a series of  Cabinet Regulations pertaining  to  European Union 
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Fund were issued in 2007. 

HU 

Government  Decree  402/2007  (XII.  27.)  (amendment  of  Government  Decree 
281/2006. (XII. 23.)  

Decree  on  creating  financial  implementation  and  supervisory  systems  related  to 
receiving  aid  from  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European 
Social  Fund  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  in  the  2007–2013  programming  period. 
According  to  Art.  40(7)  the  National  Development  Agency  publishes  on  its 
homepage irregularity proceeding decisions of the National Development Agency 
and the cooperating bodies that declare irregularities. They are published 30 days 
following the date of the decision, indicate the name of the beneficiary, the title of 
the programme, the way the irregularity was committed, the consequences of the 
irregularity  and  the  amount  affected  by  the  irregularity.  These  data  must  not 
include personal data.  

Act CLXXI of 2007 on the transparency of subsidies from public sources  

See point 1.5 

Council  of  Ministers  Resolution  169/2007  published  in  the  Official  Gazette 
No 202, 1st series, of 19.10.2007)  

Resolution creating the mission structures responsible for exercising the duties of 
the management authorities of the mainland’s regional Ops.  

Regional Legislative Decree 20/2007/M of 27.11.2007 published in the Official 
Gazette No 228, 1st series)  

NL 

PT 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
1.4. 

Structural operations 

Have  there  been  any  significant  new  legislative  developments  (not  just  implementing 
measures)  contributing  to  the  implementation  of  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  in  2007? 
Member  States  are  asked  to  list  only  national  measures  and  not  those  which  simply 
transpose Community legislation. 

Decree defining for the Autonomous Region of Madeira the governance model for 
the respective operating programmes and interaction with other EU funding which 
this Region receives 

Regulatory Decree 84-A/2007 (DR No 37, 1st series, 10/10/2007)  

Decree  establishing  the  legal  arrangements  for  management,  access  and  funding 
under the operating programmes funded by the ESF. 

RO 

Government  Decision  No  759/2007  establishing  the  legal  framework  for  the 
eligibility  of  expenditures  for  beneficiaries  within  the  operations  financed 
through operational programs, published in the Romanian Official Gazette, 
Part I, No 517 /1.08.2007 

SK 

Several guidelines/manuals have been adopted or updated in 2007 concerning the 
financial management of funds and concerning the irregularities.  

SE 

Regulation (2007:14) Administration of the EU Structural Funds  

in 

fund 

regional 

the  programme  period  2007-2013.  Verket 

On the basis of the new programme period, a national regulation has been adopted 
with  respect  to  the  administration  of  the  EU  structural  funds  (2007:14).  This 
regulation  indicates  that  Sweden  has  modified  the  implementation  structure  for 
the 
för 
näringslivsutveckling (Nutek) (The Authority for the Development of Commerce 
and Industry) has been appointed as administrative and attesting authority for the 
regional  fund  programmes.  Ekonomistyrningsverket  (ESV)  (The  Financial 
Control  Authority)  is  the  new  auditing  authority  for  the  structural  fund 
programme  mentioned  above.  With  respect  to  social  funds,  Svenska  ESF-rådet 
(The  Swedish  ESF  Council)  has  been  appointed  as  administrative  and  attesting 
authority. ESV has been appointed as the new auditing authority for social funds. 

In order to safeguard the competence remains needed to terminate the programme 
period  2000-2006  and  to  develop  the  programme  period  2007-2013,  activities 
have  been  transferred  to  Nutek,  Svenska  ESF-rådet  and  ESV  from  the  earlier 
administration, paying-out and audit authorities. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

In particular, Member States are asked to indicate:  

-  Type  of  measure  (law,  regulation,  etc.)  and  references  (number,  date  of  adoption 
and/or publication, name of programme, etc.) 

- Its scope (horizontal, specific field) 

- Why it was needed 

- Improvements made to the existing system. 

BE 

Customs operations: 

The Kingdom of Belgium submitted to the Secretary General of the Council of the 
European Union on 16 March 2007: 

The  declaration  provided  for  by  article  32  (4)  of  the  Agreement  issued  on  the 
basis  of  article  K.3  of  the  European  Union  Treaty  on  mutual  assistance  and 
cooperation  among  customs  authorities.  According  to  this  declaration,  the 
Agreement,  excluding  article  26  thereof,  shall  be  applicable  with  respect  to 
Belgium, in its relations with the member States that issued the same declaration. 
This  involves  allowing  the  implementation  of  the  provisions  of  the  Agreement 
between  Belgium  and  other  member  governments,  pending  the  complete 
effectiveness  of  the  Agreement.  This  declaration  actually  took  effect  on  14 June 
2007. 

The  declaration  provided  for  by  article  26  (4)  of  the  same  Agreement  whereby 
Belgium  recognises  the  competence  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  European 
communities  to  rule  on  an  interlocutory  basis  on  the  interpretation  of  the 
Agreement.  

An  order  was  issued  by  the  Government  of  the  Brussels-Capital  Region  on 
18 October  2007,  laying  down  the  terms  and  conditions  for  internal  controls, 
especially  internal  controls  per  trade/profession,  accounting  control  and  good 
financial  management  control.  It  was  published  in  the  Moniteur  belge  (Belgian 
gazette). 

The scope of action is specific (internal management). 

An in situ reminder of administrative controls capable of cutting down community 
or  even  national  financing  was  issued  to  each  FSE  beneficiary  in  the  form  of  a 
periodical disclosure (June 2007). This information is equally available on the site 
of the Agency. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

BG 

Strategy  against  Fraud  Affecting  the  European  Communities’  Financial 
Interests,  adopted  by  the  Council  of  Ministers  with  Protocol  No.  41, 
p.7/13.10.2005 as amended in July 2006 and May 2007.  

The  Strategy  spells  out  the  commitment  of  the  Bulgarian  Government  to  fight 
against fraud affecting the European Communities’ financial interests.  

Three  main  priorities  have  been  introduced,  each  of  them  broken  down  into 
specific measures that are laid down in detailed annual action plans. The update of 
the  Strategy  in  2007  is  aimed  at  its  precision  after  the  fulfillment  of  two  of  the 
objectives  set  and  the implementation of measures set in the Action Plan on the 
Implementation of the Strategy. 

The  first  amendment  concerning  the  inclusion  of  key  players  in  the  national 
coordination  mechanism  for  prevention  and  fight  against fraud  and irregularities 
affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  European  Communities  has  been 
implemented. Those key players have been included as members of the AFCOS 
Council by virtue of Council of Ministers Decree №176/2006. 

The  second  amendment  follows  the  implementation  of  Measure  1  of  Priority  1 
concerning  the  establishment  of  the  Central  Unit  for  co-ordination  in  the  fight 
against 
the  European 
Communities.  After  the  establishment  of  the  Central  Unit  the  text  has  been 
changed  in  order  to  focus  on  the  strengthening  of  the  Central  Unit’s 
administrative capacity. 

infringements,  affecting 

the  financial 

interests  of 

The third amendment concerns the deadlines in the last paragraph of the Strategy 
with regard to the fulfilled tasks included in the 2007 Plan on the implementation 
of the Strategy. 

CZ 

Adopted  Methodology  of  Financial  Flows  and  Control  of  Programmes  Co-
financed from Structural Funds, Cohesion Funds and the European Fisheries 
Fund for the Programming Period 2007-2013, effective from 1 January 2007, 
which  has  been  approved  by  a  Government  Resolution  (“Methodology  of 
Financial Flows”); applies to the SF and the CF. 

Government  Resolution  No  1010/2007  of  5  September  2007,  applies 
horizontally  to  irregularities.  Horizontal  scope  (applies  to  the  SF  and  the  CF), 
removes  obsoletisms  and  provides  for  a  uniform  approach  by  bodies  in  the 
implementing structure in case of discovering and investigating irregularities. 

Administrative measures of the Ministry of Agriculture:  

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

DE 

EE 

IE 

Rural  Development  Programme  of  the  Czech  Republic  for  2007-2013 
(EAFRD) of 23 May 2007. 

Fisheries  Operational  Programme  (EFF)  for  the  Czech  Republic  of  11 
December 2007.  

Error evaluation guidance for independent bodies. 

The infringement module of the Structural Funds Operational System (SFOS) 
began  operating  on  1  July  2007.  All  structural  fund  and  Equal-related 
infringements are presented to the Ministry of Finance in electronic form. Since 1 
July  2007  all  infringement  cases  for  which  a  definitive  solution  has  been  found 
have  been  publicly  available  on 
the  Ministry  of  Finance  website 
http://www.fin.ee/?id=10570.  The  site  gives  details  of  the  aid  recipient’s  name, 
the names of the bodies granting the aid, a short description of the infringement, 
and an indication of the final outcome. The information is updated quarterly (legal 
basis:  §20  “Publication”  of  “Conditions  and  procedure  for  recovering  and 
refunding  aid,  forwarding  information  on  infringements  concerning  the  granting 
and use of aid” (https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12769549). 

A  new  computerised  system  was  introduced  by  the  Revenue  Commissioners  in 
June  2007  which  contained  a  comprehensive  risk  management  system.  This 
enables  the  Revenue  Commissioners  to  set  and  refine  selection  criterion  and 
monitor  results  on  an  ongoing  basis.  This  increased  capability  will  assist  in 
identifying  consignments  that  pose  a  customs  risk  either  financial  or  otherwise. 
An  improved  computer  system  for  the  Early  Retirement  Scheme  (ERS3)  was 
introduced by the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in August 2007. 
The  new  computer  system  includes  various  controls  such  as  validation  of 
beneficiary ID numbers, in order to ensure that duplicate payments do not issue. 

EL 

1)  LAW  3614/2007  on  the  management,  control  and  application  of 
development interventions for the programming period 2007-2013 published 
in the Government Gazette No 267A of 03.12.2007 

Law 3614/07 transposes the requirements of the regulations on management and 
control systems for the programming period 2007-2013 into national law and also 
enacts regulations to ensure that these systems function more effectively and yield 
better  results  in  terms  of  especially  important  factors  in  improving  Greece’s 
ability to manage and implement cohesion policy. 

Using  existing  structures  and  staffing  resources  of  the  management  and  control 
system for the 3rd CSF will ensure that full advantage is taken of the experience 
acquired  during  the  3rd  CSF,  which  will  be  conducive  in  achieving  anticipated 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

development  targets  and  that  the  programmes  for  the  period  2007-2013  can  be 
activated  immediately  and  will  guarantee  the  conditions  needed  for  a  smooth 
transition  to  this  period  and  lower  installation  and  commissioning  costs  for  the 
new systems. 

Furthermore,  in  order  to  address  the  weaknesses  identified  in  the  existing 
management and control system, provision has been made for measures designed 
primarily to: 

- improve the functioning of the special departments and limit administrative costs 
(internal  rules  of  procedure  /  introduction  of  new  electronic  communication 
system / adoption of annual programming) ; 

- speed up management and control system procedures and improve transparency 
(open procedures / deadlines for complementing preliminary approval procedures 
/ faster registration of projects in the public investment programme / faster audit 
reports etc) ; 

- prevent failures and, at the same time, strengthen basic monitoring of projects; 

- set up sectoral or cross-sectoral coordination mechanisms to safeguard synergies 
and  complementarity  between  cofinanced  actions  and  consistency  between  them 
and national policies; 

- make rational use of public resources and maximum development results (adopt 
national public resource programming and management rules / support the regions 
in  development  planning  with  regional  development  organisations  /  introduce 
incentives for bodies to achieve their targets);  

-  improve  the  administrative  capacity  of  the  project  implementing  bodies 
(beneficiaries),  by  introducing  a  system  for  confirming  their  administrative 
adequacy; 

- support local authority bodies in implementing projects, so that projects can be 
delivered  to  local  communities  on  time  in  the  right  quantity  and  of  the  right 
standard. 

-  speed  up  the  implementation  of  projects  by  simplifying  the  supporting 
documentation required in order to bid in competitions, instituting a coordinator 
to monitor the implementation of large projects etc.  

2)  Law  3583/2007  published  in  the  Government  Gazette  No  142A  of 
28.06.2007 (amendment of the law 2960/01 of the National Customs Code  

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

This law includes provisions to: 

Α) revise fines for infringing transit scheme rules; 

Β)  introduce  an  administrative  fine  for  adulterated/pirate  goods  found  during 
customs controls under import, export and transit schemes; 

C)  introduce  mandatory  destruction of cigarettes seized  and confiscated  in order 
to protect public health and safeguard the EU’s own resources.  

IT 

Presidential Decree  No 91 of 14.5.2007 (amendment of section 76 of Act No 
92/142 on the Committee on the Fight against Community Fraud)  

Decree  assigning  the  Committee  a  consultative  and  guidance  role  for  the 
coordination of all activities in the fight against fraud and irregularities involving 
tax, agricultural policy and the structural funds. 

The  Committee  produces  practical  proposals  to  encourage  the  uniformity  and 
timeliness  of  action  taken  by  the  departments  concerned,  proposes  new  rules  or 
amendments to existing rules on the application of the law or in response to fresh 
developments and deals with questions regarding compliance with Article 280 of 
the Amsterdam Treaty and subjects relating to the flow of information on undue 
payments and recoveries. 

By  Order  of  3  August  2007,  the  Minister  for  European  Policy  set  out  the 
membership  of  the  Committee.  Chaired  by  the  HoD,  it  includes  senior 
representatives from all the other departments concerned. 

An  operation  has  been  launched  involving  crosschecking  and  harmonising 
electronic information with the European Commission with a view to developing 
a more efficient method of managing and analysing information on irregularities 
and fraud reported. 

The  Committee  has  also  decided  to  set  up  a  working  party  to  develop  a  shared 
computer  environment  (project  AIC)  to  generate  dissuasive  fraud  prevention 
strategies and encourage measures to improve recovery. 

Finally, research is underway into the production of an operation manual for the 
recovery of funds unduly obtained. 

LV 

European Union Structural Fund and Cohesion Fund Management Act of 15 
February 2007 published in the Official Gazette No 33 of 23 February 2007 
and in force as from 1 March 2007.  

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

The aim of the Act is to determine how European Union funds are to be managed, 
in  order  to  utilize  European  Union  funds  in  Latvia  in  a  way  that  is  effective, 
transparent  and  in  line  with  financial  management  principles.  Among  the  key 
improvements  compared  with  the  legal  act  pertaining  to  the  previous  planning 
period are:  

– 

– 

procedures for  resolving disputes over disbursed European Union funds 
have been rendered more specific or clarified; 

the  types  of  decisions  to  be  taken  by  institutions  involved  in  the 
management of European Union funds have been clarified. 

Cabinet Regulation No 419 of 26 June 2007 published in the Official Gazette 
No 104 on 29.6.2007.  

Procedures  to  be  followed  by  institutions  involved  in  the  management  of 
European  Union  Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  in  order  ensure  the 
preparation of planning documents and the implementation of the aforementioned 
funds.  These  provisions  determine  the  competences  and  responsibilities  of  the 
institutions  involved  in  the  management  of  European  Union  (EU)  funds  for  the 
2007-2013  programming  period,  as  well  as  procedures  for  participation  in  the 
management  of  those  funds,  thus  controlling  expenditure  affected  within  the 
framework of the EU funds. One of the prerequisites for considering expenditure 
from EU funds to be appropriate is the implementation of procurement procedures 
in  accordance  with  regulations  on  public  procurement.  For  this  reason,  in 
accordance with the regulations, the Procurement Monitoring Bureau (hereinafter 
'the Bureau') is involved in EU funds management and ensures that procurement 
undertaken  by  fund  beneficiaries  is  subject  to  ex  ante  controls.  Based  on 
procurement  plans  prepared  by  the  funding  beneficiaries,  the  Bureau  verifies  at 
random  whether  procurement  procedures  are  in  line  with  public-procurement-
related regulations, thus giving funding beneficiaries the opportunity to avert the 
infringements  detected  –  which  could  result  in  irregular  expenditure  –  before 
procurement contract is concluded. 

Section 28 of the Taxes and Fees Act of 8.11.2007 (amended) 

Taxpayers'  rights  to  use  financial  resources  will  no  longer  be  limited  and 
overcharged  amounts  of  VAT  can  be  paid  out  if  the  taxpayer  gives  a  surety  or 

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

collateral.  Until  the  amendments  were  adopted,  the  tax  administration,  in 
accordance  with  the  relevant  article  of  the  abovementioned  law,  could  refuse  to 
pay  the  taxpayer  back  any  overcharged  VAT,  if  the  taxpayer  in  question  was 
subject  to  criminal  proceedings  concerning  a  criminal  offence  that  could  have 
some  bearing  on  the  amount  of  tax  at  issue.  In  this  way  the  retention  of 
recoverable funds was ensured. 

Criminal  Offences  Act.  Published  in  the  Official  Gazette  No  208  of  29 
December 2007 (amended)  

The amendment stipulates stiffer penalties for criminal offences perpetrated by an 
organised  group,  including  for  criminal  offences  that  could  affect  the  financial 
interests  of  the  European  Union.  This  measure  was  necessary  for  improving  the 
fight against organised crime. 

Introduction of the 'Common Assessment Framework' 

This framework will be applied to agriculture (the European Agriculture Fund for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  the  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund 
(EAGF) and the European Fisheries Fund (EFF)). 

The  implementation  of  the  project  is  in  line  with  guidelines  on  improving  the 
administrative capacity of public administrations outlined in the Lisbon Strategy 
and  the  European  Commission's  Communication  "Better  Regulation  for  Growth 
and Jobs in the European Union". 

In 2007 some amendments were made in the field of the fight against the black 
economy  (e.g.  employment  without  registation,  VAT  fraud  and  other  forms  of 
fraud infringing other financial interests) that are important for the tax authority. 
Based  on  these  amendments  several  decrees  were  adopted  by  the  Chairman  of 
the  APEH  (Tax  and  Financial  Control  Office)  to  encourage  faster  and  more 
efficient  actions.  One  such  measure  is  Decree  1062/B/2007  of  the  APEH 
Chairman, on the basis of which it became possible for the so-called „RAPID” 
groups to  conduct coordinated, country-wide unified control procedures in case 
of taxpayers chosen for central control procedure. „RAPID” reaction groups were 
created  in  2005  to  support  control  activities.At  the  same  time  a  governmental 
decision about a 40% increase of the force was also adopted. 

An  amendment  of  the  cooperation  agreement  between  the  APEH  and  the 

HU 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

Hungarian Customs and Finance Guard provides for cooperation on the control 
actions,  the  creation  of  a  framework  for  transferring  information  and  training 
activities, and mutual help in implementing certain tasks within the competence 
of the parties. The amendment has been in force since 15.5.2007.  

Decree 1028/B/2007 APEH provides for the rules of central control procedures 
introduced by Art. 88/A. The abovementioned Central Control Field was created 
by  this  decree  in  the  Directorate  of  Prominent  Taxpayers.  The  existing  system 
could  also  be  developed  in  2007  by  the  possibility  to  contact  directly 
international partners and the tightening of links to the OLAF. 

An  important  development  in  November  2007  was  starting  a  homepage  against 
corruption  called  ANTI-LOP  where  anyone  can  report  alleged  irregularities  or 
misuse of EU aids. These reports are always investigated. 

MT 

Farm Advisory Services Regulations (LN66/07) published in the Government 
Gazette No. 18,055 of 23 March 2007 

The scope of these regulations is to assist farmers and forest holders by providing 
professional advice on statutory management requirements, good agricultural and 
environmental  conditions,  occupational  safety  standards  and  all  associated 
Community  legislation  for  the  improvement  of  the  overall  performance  of  their 
holding.  The  legal  notice  provides  for  personal  data  protection  (Art.  3(1)), 
withdrawal  of  a  certificate  in  case  of  specific  irregularities  (Art.  14(1)), 
administrative sanction (amend, exclusion from funding) to entities which commit 
specific irregularities (Art. 15). 

Dispute  Resolution  Board  Regulations  (LN168/07)  published 
Government Gazette No. 18,094 of 28 June 2007 

in  the 

According to Article 3 (2), the objective of the Dispute Resolution Board will be 
that of resolving disputes between farmers, and between a farmer and the Paying 
Agency  and,  or  its  delegated  services,  in  a  simple,  expedient  and  transparent 
manner, avoiding unnecessary expenses.  

Article 6 - The Dispute Resolution Board shall resolve agricultural and veterinary 
disputes by adopting two modes of procedure, namely the conciliation procedure 
and the arbitration procedure. 

Producer Organisations (Certain Products) Regulations LN237/07 published 
in the Government Gazette No. 18,116 of 21.8.2007. 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

These  Regulations  contain  provisions  regarding  Producer  Organisations.  A 
section of these regulations relates to recovery and penalties in cases where public 
aid  deriving  from  the  European  Union  has  been  unduly  paid  to  Producer 
Organisations  or  has  been  applied  for  fraudulently  or  irregularly  by  Producer 
Organisations. 

Article 4 of Part II of these Regulations lists the criteria that should be met by a 
producer group for the latter to be recognised as a Producer Organisation by the 
Director of Agriculture. 

In  accordance  to  Article  7  (b),  the  Director  of  Agriculture  shall  carry  out 
inspections  at  regular  intervals  to  ascertain  that  producer  organisations  comply 
with  the  terms  and  conditions  for  recognition,  impose  in  the  event  of  non-
compliance the applicable penalties as indicated under Part 4 of same regulations 
and decide, where necessary, to withdraw recognition.  

Part IV relates to Recovery and Penalties, also vis-à-vis funds received from the 
European  Union.  Article  10  states  that:  public  aid  deriving  from  the  European 
Union which is unduly paid, or aid applied for fraudulently or irregularly, shall be 
recovered or withheld, and penalties shall be imposed on the beneficiary or on the 
applicant  concerned,  or  both,  according  to  the  provisions  of  Article  63  of 
Regulation  445/2002  of  26  February  2002  laying  down  detailed  rules  for  the 
application  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1257/1999  on  support  for  rural 
development  from  the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund 
(EAGGF). 

Article  11  provides  that  any  producer  organisation  or  inter-branch  organisation 
which  fails  to  comply  with,  or  contravenes,  any  of  the  provisions  of  the 
regulations  in  question  shall  be  liable  to  an  administrative  fine,  which  shall  be 
imposed  by  the  Director  of  Agriculture,  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  (100) 
Maltese liri and not more than one thousand (1000) Maltese liri for each offence, 
and  to  an  additional  administrative  fine  of  fifty  (50)  Maltese  liri  for  each  day 
during which the said failure to comply or such contravention persists. 

Electronic Audit Investigative Methods 

During 2007, action was taken to introduce electronic audit investigative methods 
with the aim of identifying cases of VAT evasion. 

NL 

A number of measures designed to improve the system were taken in 2007. The 
D2  and  D1  structural  funds  programmes  in  the  Netherlands  have  drawn  up  a 
National Action Plan incorporating such measures. All the checklists for Articles 
4  and  9,  for  instance,  have  been  reviewed  and  amended.  These  have  to  do  with 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

project  inspections  and  on-the-spot  inspections  conducted  by  the  paying 
authorities when drawing up requests for payment to be declared in Brussels. The 
accountants are also asked to provide a Statement of Assurance on the activities 
covered by the programmes. 

improved 

is  also  an 

legal  basis  for  responsibilities,  as 

There 
the 
abovementioned Decree (see 1.4). During the 2000-2006 programme period, there 
was  no  legal  instrument  stipulating  the  parties  responsible  for  implementing  the 
Structural Funds in the Netherlands, just a voluntary agreement. These parties are, 
however,  legally  stipulated  by  the  abovementioned  Decree  for  the  2007-2013 
programme  period,  which  means  that  there  is  an  improved  basis  for  their 
responsibilities as regards the implementation of Article 290 in the context of the 
ERDF structural funds.  

in 

PL 

PT 

-  Decree  of  3 October  2007  Bulletin  of  Acts  and  Decrees  2007,  387  laying 
down rules on the administrative organisation and co-funding by the Dutch state 
of  projects  covered  by  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  for  the  2007-
2013  programme  period  (Decision  on  the  ERDF  for  the  2007-2013  programme 
period). 

-  Rules  on  ERDF  Objective  2,  2007-2013  programme  period,  Government 
Gazette of 15 November 2007, No 222, page 8; 

-  Rules  on  ERDF  Objective  3,  2007-2013  programme  period,  Government 
Gazette of 20 December 2007, No 247, page 27. 

See point 1.1. 

Decree-Law 312/2007 of 17.9.2007 published in the Official Gazette No 179, 
1st series, of 17/9/2007  

Decree-Law  defining  the  governance  model  of  the  NSRF  and  the  respective 
operating  programmes,  and  establishes  the  organic  structure  for  monitoring, 
auditing  and  control,  certification,  management,  strategic  counselling,  follow-up 
and assessment. This Law confers on the IGF (Articles 20 and 21) powers as audit 
authority for all OPs. 

Joint  initiative  of  the  Criminal  Police,  the  DGCI  and  the  IGF  against 
Corruption – on the basis of a set of structural reforms essential for the recovery 
of the national economy and consequently boosting well-being and prosperity in 
Portugal, the criminal police, the DGCI and the IGF implemented a joint initiative 
which in recent years has made a concerted effort to draw up a dossier regarding 
integrity and transparency in the fight against corruption. Published in 2007, the 
dossier denounced corruption, the ways in which it manifests itself, and the goals, 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

strategies and results of combating it, it is a means for disseminating the message 
about how corruption, tax fraud, the peddling of influence and money laundering 
have  a  devastating  effect  on  the  competitiveness  of  economic  agents,  inhibiting 
the full functioning of the market under healthy conditions of competitions. This 
document also appeals to citizens to engage responsibly in the fight against fraud 
and corruption. 

Computer  applications:  On  1  January  2007  the  computer  application  STADA 
Exportação  came  into  operation.  This  application  automatically  handles  export 
customs  declarations,  leading  to  the  phasing  out  of  the  paper-based  declarations 
previously  used.  Following  the  automation  of  the  procedures  for  making  export 
declarations,  in  conjunction  with  this  computerisation  process  DGAIEC  and 
DGITA  have  jointly  developed  an  automatic  selection  system  called  Automatic 
Selection  System  (SSA).  Since  that  date,  the  detection  of  risky  situations  and 
consequent selection for control have therefore been based on uniform standards 
and  criteria  automatically  applied  to  the  elements  of  the  customs  export 
declaration at all times, thereby helping ensure faster, more efficient and selective 
customs controls, in order to maintain a fair balance between the need for customs 
controls and the facilitation of legitimate trade. The same system has been applied 
to  the  Summary  Declaration  System  (SDS)  in  order  to  simplify  the  procedures, 
custom controls and risk analysis. 

RO 

Government  Decision  No  793  of  14  July  2005  approving  the  National  Anti-
Fraud Strategy for protecting the financial interests of the European Union 
in  Romania,  published  in  the  Romanian  Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No 
743/16.08.2005. 

Adopted  by  the  Government  in  July  2005,  the  Strategy  (Romanian  acronym: 
SNLAF)  is  a  complex  document  concerning  the  harmonization  of  national 
legislation  regulations  with  the  European regulations  related  to  the  protection  of 
the  European  Communities’  financial  interests  (PIF)  and  the  preparation  of  the 
legal,  institutional  and  operational  framework  for  accession,  in  the  following 
areas:  fiscal  control,  investigation  and  prosecution  of  fraud  cases,  financial 
recovery,  anti-fraud  coordination.  Following  the  SNLAF  implementation,  the 
Criminal  Code  and  other  special  laws,  and  the  Criminal  Procedure  Code,  were 
amended to provide for the criminal liability for legal persons. The transposition 
of  the  PIF  Convention  provisions  in  the  Romanian  legislation  was  concluded. 
Following  cooperation  with  the  institutions  responsible  for  implementing  the 
measures  contained  in  the  SNLAF  Action  Plan,  with  the  Public  Policies  Unity 
within the Government General Secretariat and the consultations with OLAF and 
the  European  Commission  Delegation  in  Romania,  in  2006  DLAF  updated  the 
Strategy  and  its  Action  Plan.  Following  the  update,  the  SNLAF  implementation 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

period was extended until July 2007. 

Government  Ordinance  No  12/2007  on  the  control  and  recovery  of 
Community  funds  as  well  as  related  co-financing  funds  used  improperly, 
published  in  the  Romanian  Official  Gazette,  Part  I,  No  84/2.02.2007 
(amendment and supplement of Government Ordinance No 79/2003) 

The main provisions adopted are intended for: defining the notions of irregularity 
and fraud, extending the scope of provisions stipulated in Government Ordinance 
No  79/2003  to  also  cover  post-accession  funds,  creating  an  efficient  mechanism 
for  identifying  irregularities  and  recovering  improperly  used  Community  funds, 
assimilating  Community  debts  with  national  fiscal  debts,  granting  the  National 
Fiscal  Administration  Agency  (Romanian  acronym:  ANAF)  with  exclusive 
powers in order to carry out the forced execution procedure in case of damages to 
Community  funds,  externalizing  the  activities  of  identifying  budgetary  debts  to 
the General Inspection within the Ministry of Economy and Finance in the event 
of a conflict of interests at the level of the authorities in charge of the management 
of  Community  funds  and  associated  co-financing,  establishing  the  procedure  for 
settling  contestations,  separating  the  control  activity  related  to  obtaining, 
performing and using funds form the financial support granted to Romania by the 
European Union, from the identification activity in order to recover the amounts 
disbursed from non-returnable Community financial support. 

SK 

Resolution  No.  547/2007  approving  the  National  strategy  for  protecting  the 
financial interests of the European Community in the Slovak Republic. 

The national strategy is a strategic document whose aim is to ensure the fulfilment 
by  the  Slovak  Republic  of  its  undertakings  under  Article  280  of  the  Treaty  on 
European Union. 

Resolution  No.  889/2007  approving  a  National  Strategy  Action  Plan  to 
implement the National Strategy.  

It sets out specific tasks, assigns responsibility for these tasks and sets deadlines 
for their completion. The tasks established in the Action Plan are categorised by 
individual areas, i.e.: 

– 

Coordination and cooperation 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

Legislation and methodological guidelines 

Raising awareness 

Education 

System of control and audit 

Notifying and analysing irregularities 

Disclosure and investigation of irregularities 

Remedy and recourse 

National Strategy implementation and development 

The  Action  plan  is  the  responsibility  of  the  Slovak  Government  EU  financial 
interest  protection  and  anti-corruption  section,  the  Managing  Authority  for  the 
protection  of  EC  Financial  Interests  in  the  Slovak  Republic,  whose  regulations 
were  approved  by  Government  Resolution  No.  748/2007,  and  partners  of  the 
AFCOS  network,  the  AFCOS  network  being  understood  as  a  system  of 
collaborating bodies whose main purpose is cooperation in implementing tasks to 
protect EC financial interests and the effective communication with the European 
Anti-Fraud Office and other Member States. 

Managing  authority  for  protecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  European 
Community in the Slovak Republic.  

The  Managing  Authority  was  established  on  the  basis  of  the  approved  National 
Strategy for protecting the financial interests of the European Union in the Slovak 
Republic. 

Resolution No. 748/2007 approving the status of the managing authority. 

The  Managing  Authority  has  20  members  representing  19  AFCOS  partner 
organisations. Six working groups were set up under the Managing Authority to 
tackle particular tasks. 

FI 

The amendment of the rules of procedure of the Customs on 30 August 2007 
reformed the organisation and tasks of the National Board of Customs. The 
supervision of risk management and the control function were merged to become 
a  single  department  alongside  the  Foreign  Trade,  Taxation  and  Intelligence  and 
Investigation Departments, which control the main processes. This strengthens the 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

significance  of  the  function  at  the  institutional  level  and  reinforces  the 
implementation of the matrix control model. Control units were established at the 
District  Customs  Offices.  The  tasks  of  the  units  are  principally  in  line  with  the 
tasks of the Control Department of the National Board of Customs. 

SE 

Common framework for internal control – Internal Control regulation (2007:603), 
Authority  regulation  (2007:515),  Internal  Audit  regulation  (2006:1228)  and 
regulation for Annual Reports and Budget Procedures (2000:605). 

On January 1, 2008, a general framework was introduced for internal control 
by  national  authorities.  The  framework  consists  of  several  instruments.  Apart 
from a new regulation concerned with internal control regulation (2007:603), the 
framework  comprises  the  new  authority  regulation  (2007:  515)  concerning 
management  responsibility,  the  internal  audit  regulation  (2006:1228)  concerning 
the objective of auditing and a regulation regarding annual reports and basic data 
for  budget  procedures  (2000:605)  with  respect  to  the  signing  of  annual  reports. 
All  the  modifications  have  been  decided  by  the  Government.  The  Framework 
applies to EU funds that are administered nationally.  

The authorities concerned have to carry out a risk analysis, implement regulatory 
measures,  follow  up  and  appraise  internal  regulation  and  control  systematically 
and continuously and document risk analysis, regulatory measures, follow up and 
appraisal.  

The authorities with administrative or attestation responsibility for EU resources 
are to establish internal auditing.  

By signing annual reports, the authority management certifies that the document 
presents  a  correct  representation  of  the  result  of  activities  and  expenses,  income 
and the financial standing of the authority.  

By  signing  the  annual  report,  the  authority  management  certifies  to  the 
Government  that  the  accounts  are  reliable  and  that  the  internal  control  is 
satisfactory. 

Through  the  decision  to  introduce  a  joint  framework  for  internal  control  on  a 
national basis, the Government can, for the first time concerning the financial year 
2008,  provide  a  national  declaration  with  respect  to  the  administration  of  EU 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

funds. The framework provides an important basis for a national declaration and 
the ambition is to create a more effective administrative and control system with 
respect to EU resources. 

In  this  connection,  the  Government  has  commissioned  Ekonomistyrningsverket 
ESV (The Swedish National Financial Management Authority) to act as a national 
audit  organ  for  the  EU  resources  that  are  handled  in  Sweden  with  effect  from  1 
January  2007,  Regulation  (2007:  761)  with  instructions  for  ESV  to  examine  the 
EU programmes and funds where responsibility for sound financial administration 
and  the  implementation  of  effective  controls  is  shared  between  the  Swedish 
authorities  and  the  Commission.  The  intention  of  this  measure  has  been  to 
concentrate Swedish competence and resources for EU auditing on one authority 
in order to reinforce quality and efficiency in auditing work and to make possible 
the flexible application of resources and competence between the old and the new 
programme periods. 

UK 

England,  Communities  and  Local  Government  (CLG)  -  Administrative 
guidance notes to Government Offices (GO) in the Regions, for ERDF. 

ERDF  Management  Note  No.1  applying  to  the  2000-06  ERDF  programmes 
(issued in January 2007). This note gives advice on: 

– 

Grant claims supporting documentation - highlighting the practice 
in many GOs for the Region whereby grant claim system must be 
made  secure  by  the  requirement  of  grant  recipients  to  provide 
sufficient  supporting  documentation  to  permit  effective  desk 
checks.  

–  Management of irregularities – recent audit work revealed a lot of 
good practice around the handling of irregularities. However, there 
were also concerns, in some cases, about the lack of comprehensive 
data  and  relatively  slow  rate  of  clearance.  CLG  plan  to  revise  the 
guidance note on this subject. 

– 

– 

Planning Article 4 work – GOs being strongly advised to plan their 
action  to  meet  the  Article  4  Monitoring  Assurance  Framework 
requirements to take account of the programme closure process. 

PAV (progress and verification) Document retention – GOs are to 
ensure that evidence of audit trail identified in Article 4 PAVs are 
available  for  subsequent  audit  inspections.  Reasoning  …  recent 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
1.5. 

Description of key developments 

Member  States  are  invited  to  describe  the  two  or  three  most  important  measures 
(whether legislative or administrative) taken in the course of 2007 on which they wish to 
provide  more  detailed  information.  These  should  be  measures  adopted  at  Member 
States’ own initiative and not measures which simply transpose Community legislation. 

round  of  audits  noted  the  lack  of  sufficient  evidence  of  the 
expenditure checking undertaken as part of PAV. 

Guidance  Note  (GN)  3.17  (issued  in  August  2007)  on  Managing  ERDF 
Irregularities  and  Financial  Corrections  (2000-06  programmes).  Following 
on  from  Management  Note  No.1,  section  b),  CLG  issued  a  revised  and 
comprehensive  guidance  note  on  the  recording,  reporting  and  management  of 
irregularities including the impact on declarations to the Commission. The aim is 
to close (within reason) all irregularity cases before programme closure. 

GN1.9 (supplementary) (issued October 2007) on the procedures that need to be 
followed  by  GOs  in  order  to  produce  a  full  drawdown  request  document  set 
(declaration of expenditure) following the implementation of the TESA (the new 
ERDF IT system) application.  

For  Scotland,  action  plans  have  been  agreed  with  DG  Regio  that  will  result  in 
30% of approved projects being subject to an Article 4 visit. The visiting officers 
will verify a minimum of 20% of cumulative eligible expenditure and the scope of 
the visit has been widened. 

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
 
2. 

LIMITATION PERIODS FOR PROCEEDINGS ON IRREGULARITIES AND 
SUBSEQUENT 
ADMINISTRATIVE 
PENALTIES OR MEASURES 

ESTABLISHING 

DECISIONS 

The Member States are responsible for proceedings on irregularities and for implementing the 
decisions taken on the outcome of such proceedings as regards traditional resources such as 
customs levies or sums disbursed by the Community in the field of indirect expenditure, i.e. 
funds  managed  by  the  Member  States  on  behalf  of  the  Communities,  mainly  funds  of  the 
European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (hereinafter  "EAGF", 
the  former  European 
agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guarantee section3), structural funds, cohesion fund, 
European  fisheries  fund,  and  European  agricultural  fund  for  rural  development.  Statistics 
obtained  on  irregularities  communicated  by  the  Member  States  appear  to  show  that  the 
possibility  of  imposing  measures  and  sanctions  in  the  wake  of  irregularities  affecting  the 
financial interests of the EC depends on action being taken within the set limitation periods. 
The implications for the protection of the Community's financial interests are considerable. 

Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC, EURATOM) No 2988/95 establishes a limitation period 
for  proceedings  of  four  years,  and  for  implementing  the  decision  establishing  the 
administrative  penalty  of  three  years,  applicable  throughout  the  European  Union.4  This 
limitation  period  applies  to  irregularities  concerning  traditional  resources  and  funds  under 
shared management.5  

On  the  limitation  period  for  proceedings,  Member  States  have  the  possibility  of  applying  a 
period which is longer than that provided for in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95. The 
Court  has  stated  that  the  limitation  period  of  four  years  in  Article  3(1)  covers  procedures 
possibly leading to  both, administrative measures  (Article 4 of Regulation No 2988/95) and 
penalties  (Article  5  of  Regulation  No  2988/95),  and  that  it  is  directly  applicable  in  the 
Member States in the absence of national rules providing for a longer limitation period.6 

As regards the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative 
penalty, national law may provide for a period exceeding the three years laid down in Article 
3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95, but also govern instances of interruption and suspension.  

Article  3  of  Regulation  No  2988/95  contains  no  rules  on  the  limitation  period  for 
implementing  the  decision  establishing  an  administrative  measure  (in  particular  recovery), 
and thus it must be assumed that for these decisions national rules on limitation periods and 
their interruption and suspension apply. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

As for the questions in this section, if they refer to the EAGF they are intended to comprise as well the 
European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund, guarantee section. 
Article 3 has been interpreted in various judgments of the European Court of Justice (notably Case C-
226/03 P, José Martí Peix SA v Commission, Case C-278/02, Herbert Handlbauer GmbH and Case C-
279/05,  Vonk Dairy  Products  BV  v  Productschap  Zuivel,),  and  is  still  subject  to  pending cases  (joint 
cases C278/07, C279/07, C280/07, Vosding et al.) 
As regards direct expenditure administrated by the Commission, the limitation period of Article 73a of 
the  Financial  Regulation,  further  specified  in  Article  85b  of  the  Implementing  Rules,  applies.  The 
limitation period for direct expenditure is not subject to the present questionnaire. 
Case C-278/02, Herbert Handlbauer GmbH, ECR [2004] Page I-6171. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member States have been asked to reply as comprehensively and concisely as possible so as 
to  enable  the  Commission  to  make  useful  comparisons  and  provide  feedback.  The  analysis 
has  been  restricted  to  administrative  procedures;  therefore,  neither  criminal  nor  civil  law 
limitation  periods,  nor  Community  law  references  have  been  included.  Limitation  periods 
have been taken into account only if they were longer than those set by the Community law 
and starting dates for limitation periods have been only considered if they were different from 
the date in which the decision becomes final. If the tables do not report anything for a given 
Member  State,  it  is  to  assume  that  Regulation  2988/95  or  Sectoral  Rules  apply  or  that  the 
national  law  does  not  foresee  any  limitation  period.  Since  not  all  Member  States  provided 
references to the Official Journals and references to amended laws, these references have been 
omitted. 

2.1. 

Limitation period for proceedings  

2.1.1.  Normal  limitation  period  for  proceedings  aimed  at  applying  administrative 
measures (recovery) or penalties (sanctions) 

Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 provides for a limitation period for proceedings of four 
years as from the time when the irregularity was committed. European sectoral rules, such as 
Article  221  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  2913/92  of  12  October  19927  establishing  the 
Community Customs Code, make provision for a shorter period, which may not be less than 
three years. 

Proceedings relating to irregularities are investigations, checks and inspections, or any other 
legal  proceedings  undertaken  in  accordance  with  national  or  Community  laws,  regulations 
and administrative provisions, to detect irregularities.  

The  limitation  period  laid  down  in  Article  3(1)  of  Regulation  No  2988/95  is  directly 
applicable in the Member States, unless national rules provide for longer periods. The national 
laws,  regulations  and  administrative  provisions  may  differentiate  the  limitation  periods 
depending  on  the  purpose  of  the  proceedings  or  the  policy  sectors.  They  may  also  foresee 
instances for their suspension or interruption beyond what is stated in Regulation No 2988/95. 
In  this  context,  interruption  means  circumstances  which  lead  to  the  limitation  period  being 
restarted. Suspension, on the other hand, covers conditions under which the limitation period 
is brought to a standstill and continues to run from where it stopped. It would also be useful to 
clarify  whether  acts  that  can  give  rise  to  interruptions  or  suspensions  must  meet  specific 
criteria, such as for example a sufficiently serious allegation of existence of an irregularity or 
an act of a competent administrative or judicial authority. 

7 

OJ L 97, 18.4.1996, p. 38For instituting administrative and penal proceedings – within three months of 
discovery of the offender but not later than two years after the violation was committed.  

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for 
procedures 

that may lead to administrative 
measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

BE 

10 

Article  202  General  Law  on 
Customs 
and  Excise  of 
18 July 1977 

- 

- 

5 

Article  8(8)  Act  of  28  March 
1975  on  trade  in  agricultural, 
fisheries 
horticultural 
products 

and 

- 

Article  285  Administrative 
Procedure Code 

- 

BG 

CZ 

5 

5 

- 

Article 212, paragraph 2 
Customs Law 

Article  110 
Obligations and Contracts 

ff.  Law  of 

- 

- 

10  Article  171  Tax  and  Social 
Security Procedure Code 

5 

Article  285  Administrative 
Procedure Code 

5 

Article  285  Administrative 
Procedure Code 

Regulations  on  implementing 
Rural 
2007-2013 
the 
Development Program  

5 

- 

- 

6 

Act  No  552/1991  Coll.,  on 
state control  

10 

Act  No  137/2006  Coll.  on 
public procurement 

Act  No  337/1992  Coll.,  on 
the  administration  of  taxes 
and fees 

6 

Act  No  218/2000  Coll.,  on 
budgetary rules  

Act  No  320/2001  Coll.,  on 
financial  control  in  public 
administration 

Act  No  500/2004  Coll., 
administrative 
rules 

of 

Act  No  552/1991  Coll.,  on 
state control 

Act  No  337/1992  Coll.,  on 
the  administration  of  taxes 
and fees 

Act  No  218/2000  Coll.,  on 
budgetary rules 

Act  No  320/2001  Coll.,  on 
financial  control  in  public 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for 
procedures 

that may lead to administrative 
measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

- 

- 

- 

- 

7 

- 

- 

DK 

DE 

EE 

- 

5 

- 

Tax Code §228 

IE 

10 

Section 1078 Taxes 
Consolidation Act, 1997 

EL 

ES 

FR 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

- 

- 

- 

- 

10 

§ 66 EU CAP Implementation 
Act 

10 

§ 66 EU CAP Implementation 
Act 

procedure 

administration 

Act  No  500/2004  Coll., 
rules 
administrative 
of 
procedure 

- 

5 

§26  Structural  Assistance 
Act 2004-06 

- 

- 

5 

§26  Structural  Assistance 
Act 2004-06 

§ 71 Fisheries Market 
Organisation Act 

§ 71 Fisheries Market 
Organisation Act 

§26 Structural Assistance 
Act 2007-13 

§26 Structural Assistance 
Act 2007-13 

Statute  of  Limitations  Act 
the 
1957  as  amended  by 
Statute 
Limitations 
of 
(Amendment)  Act  1991  and 
the  Statute  of  Limitations 
(Amendment) Act 2000 

Article  102  law  2362/1995 
about  the  Public  Accounting 
State's 
control 
expenditure 
other 
regulations 

the 
and 

of 

Article 152(4) law 2960/2001 
National Customs Code, for 
administrative fines for 
smuggling 

6 

5 

- 

- 

6 

Statutes of Limitations Acts 
1957 to 2000 

6 

Statutes of Limitations Acts 
1957 to 2000  

6 

Statutes  of  Limitations  Acts 
1957 to 2000  

If recovery is initiated by 
legal action based on contract 
or quasi contract 

If  recovery  is  initiated  by 
legal 
action  based  on 
contract or quasi contract 

If  recovery  is  initiated  by 
legal 
on 
contract or quasi contract 

action 

based 

5 

- 

- 

Article  102  law  2362/1995 
about  the  Public  Accounting 
State's 
control 
expenditure 
other 
regulations 

the 
and 

of 

Article  102  law  2362/1995 
about the Public Accounting 
State's 
control 
of 
expenditure 
other 
regulations  

the 
and 

5 

- 

- 

Article  102  law  2362/1995 
about 
Public 
the 
Accounting  control  of  the 
State's 
and 
other regulations  

expenditure 

5 

- 

- 

48 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for 
procedures 

that may lead to administrative 
measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

IT 

- 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

12 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Article  39(2) 
customs code 94(Ι) of 2004. 

law  on 

the 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

Section 1(2) Act No 20/1994 
on the jurisdiction and control 
of the Court of Auditors 

5 

Section 28 of Act No 
689/1981 on the modification 
of Italian criminal system 

5 

Section  1(2)  of  Act  No 
20/1994  on  the  jurisdiction 
and  control  of  the  Court  of 
Auditors 

5 

Section  28  of  Act  No 
the 
689/1981 
Italian 
modification 
criminal system 

on 
of 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 
on certain aspects of the 
procedure connected to 
agricultural, rural 
developmental and fishery aid 
and other measures 

Article 64 Act XVII of 2007 
on certain aspects of the 
procedure connected to 
agricultural, rural 
developmental and fishery aid 
and other measures 

Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 
on the general rules of 

Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 
on the general rules of 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

Article  45(2)  Government 
Decree No. 360/2004 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

Article  45(2)  Government 
Decree No. 360/2004 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for 
procedures 

that may lead to administrative 
measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

6 

5 

- 

5 

8 

Article 4(5) of the Import 
Duties Act (Cap. 337) 

- 

- 

6 

- 

Article 4(5) of the Import 
Duties Act (Cap. 337) 

Article 22e(1)  of  the  General 
Taxation  Act  of  2 July 1959 
(Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 
301),  as  last  amended  by  Act 
of 24 February 2005 (Bulletin 
of Acts and Decrees 115) 

administrative proceedings 
and services 

administrative proceedings 
and services 

- 

5 

- 

5 

Section 4(57)  of  the  General 
Administrative Law Act  

10 

Section 74(2) Customs Act 
implementing provisions 

10 

Section  5(2)  Export  Refund 
Act 
types  of 
financial fraud  

for  certain 

10 

Section  5(2)  Export  Refund 
Act 
types  of 
financial fraud  

for  certain 

- 

Section 4(57) 
General 
Law Act  

of 

the 
Administrative 

Section 4(57) of the General 
Administrative Law Act 

- 

5 

- 

5 

5 

5 

Section 31(2) of the Austrian 
Financial Criminal Act 
(FinStrG) 

Agency 
of 

Article  13(2)  Agricultural 
and 
Markets 
Organisation 
Certain 
Markets Act 2004 and Article 
70  Tax  Ordinance  Act  of 
19978 

Article 33 (1) General Tax 
Offences Scheme, applicable 
under Article 1(1)(b) of said 
act 

5 

- 

Article 56 Customs Act of 19 
March 2004  

Article  99  Customs  Reforms 
with  the  wording  established 
by  Legislative  Decree  No 
472/1997  on  general  rules  in 
the  field  of  administrative 
sanctions  for  violating  fiscal 

Article 13(2) Agricultural 
Markets Agency and 
Organisation of Certain 
Markets Act of 2004 and 
Article 70 Tax Act of 1997 

Agency 
of 

Article  13(2)  Agricultural 
Markets 
and 
Organisation 
Certain 
Markets  Act  of  2004  and 
Article  70  of  the  Tax  Act  of 
1997 

5 

- 

10  Article 118 Act of 23 April 

- 

1964, Civil Code  

15 

Item 20 (points 1 and 2) 
Order in Council 799-
B/2000 (DR No 218, 1st 
series, of 20/9/2000)  

- 

Article 118(1) Criminal 

In the case of amounts due relating to proven irregularities, the Tax Ordinance Act of 1997, applies, with the exception of the part of the provisions concerning the writing 
off of amounts due, the deferment of payments and instalment payments. 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

8 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for 
procedures 

that may lead to administrative 
measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

RO 

SI 

SK 

10 

5 

10 

5 

20 

10 

rules 

Article 48 of the General Tax 
Law 

Article  91(3)  and 
(4)  of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
92/2003 
Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

the 

on 

10  Article  91(1),  (3)  and  (4)  of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
92/2003 
Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

the 

on 

Article  91(1),  (3)  and  (4)  of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
92/2003 
Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

the 

on 

Article 91(1) of Government 
Ordinance No 92/2003 on the 
Fiscal Procedure Code 

5 

Articles  125(1)  and  126(4) 
Tax Procedure Act (ZdavP-2). 

- 

Articles  125(1)  and  126(4) 
Tax Procedure Act (ZdavP-2) 

10  Article 91(3) and (4) of 

5 

Government Ordinance No 
92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

5 

and 

Article  112(1)  of  Government 
Ordinance No 79/2003 on the 
recovery  of 
control 
in 
funds 
Community 
conjunction  with  Article  11 
(5)  of  Government  Decision 
No 1306/2007 

5 

Article 3(g) Agriculture Act – 
(Zkme). 

- 

Article  263(5)  and  Article 
General 
280(1) 
Administrative 
Procedures 
Act (ZUP)  

6 

Article 76 of Act No. 
199/2004 (Customs Act) 

- 

- 

Article  60  of  Act  No. 
199/2004,  the  Customs  Act, 
and amending some other acts 
as amended  

Article  60  of  Act  No. 
199/2004,  the  Customs  Act, 
and amending some other acts 
as amended  

Code.  

10  Article 91(3) and  (4)  of  the 
Government  Ordinance  No 
92/2003  on 
the  Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

Article  91(1),  (3)  and  (4)  of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
92/2003 
Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

the 

on 

112(1) 

Article 
of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
79/2003  on  the  control  and 
recovery  of  Community 
funds  in  conjunction  with 
Article 
of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
1306/2007 

11(5) 

Article  91(3)  and  (4)  of  the 
Government  Ordinance  No 
92/2003  on 
the  Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

112(1) 

Article 
of 
Government  Ordinance  No 
79/2003  on  the  control  and 
recovery  of  Community 
funds  in  conjunction  with 
Article 11(5) of Government 
Ordinance No 1306/2007 

10 

5 

- 

Article  31(14)  the  Public 
Administration  Budgeting 
Rules Act No. 523/2004 

5 

Article 31(14) the Public 
Administration Budgeting 
Rules Act No. 523/2004 

5 

- 

5 

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.1. Does your national law provide for a limitation period exceeding the four years laid down in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95, or the applicable sectoral rules, and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do 
not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

FI 

SE 

UK 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for 
procedures 

that may lead to administrative 
measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

Paragraphs  3–4  in  the  Act 
(1982:188)  relating 
the 
prescription  of  tax  demands, 
etc. 

to 

Paragraphs  3–4  in  the  Act 
(1982:188)  relating 
the 
prescription  of  tax  demands, 
etc. 

to 

- 

- 

Section 46(3) of the Act on 
the Financing of Rural 
Industries (329/1999). 

10 

10 

Section 46(3) of the Act on 
the Financing of Rural 
Industries (329/1999). 

Paragraph 27 in the 
Regulation (2007:14) 
concerned with the 
administration of EU 
structural funds 

10 

- 

5 

Scotland 

5 

Scotland 

5 

Scotland 

5 

Scotland 

5 

Scotland  

Section  6  Prescription  and 
Limitation 
(Scotland)  Act 
1973, as read with Schedule 1 

Section  6  Prescription  and 
Limitation 
(Scotland)  Act 
1973, as read with Schedule 1 

Section  6  Prescription  and 
Limitation 
(Scotland)  Act 
1973, as read with Schedule 1 

Section  6  Prescription  and 
Limitation  (Scotland)  Act 
1973, as read with Schedule 
1 

Section  6  Prescription  and 
Limitation  (Scotland)  Act 
1973, as read with Schedule 
1 

2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

BE 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

INTERR 

SUSP 

BG 

INTERR 

SUSP 

Some legal actions (such as appeal 
for annulment of a decision) 
suspend the limitation period of 
public aid. They do not open a new 
time limit (Article 24 Act of 
17 April 1878; Cass. 24 October 
1989, Pas. 1990, I, 231). 

Some legal actions (such as appeal 
for annulment of a decision) 
suspend the limitation period of 
public aid. They do not open a new 
time limit (Article 24 Act of 
17 April 1878; Cass. 24 October 
1989, Pas. 1990, I, 231). 

Article 172 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code 

Issuance of an instrument 
establishing the public receivable or 
upon undertaking of coercive 
enforcement actions. 

If the instrument is revoked, the 
limitation is not considered as 
interrupted. 

Some legal actions (such as appeal 
for annulment of a decision) 
suspend the limitation period of 
public aid. They do not open a new 
time limit (Article 24 Act of 17 
April 1878; Cass. 24 October 1989, 
Pas. 1990, I 231). 

Article 172 Tax and Social 
Security Procedure Code  

Article 43, paragraph 6 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law 

Issuance of an instrument 
establishing the public receivable or 
upon undertaking of coercive 
enforcement actions. 

If the instrument is revoked, the 
limitation is not considered as 
interrupted. 

Each act of duly authorised 
authorities taken against a penalised 
individual in respect of the 
execution of his or her penalty. 

82, 

Article 
2 
Administrative  Violations  and 
Sanctions Law  

paragraph 

act  of  duly 

Each 
authorised 
authorities taken against a penalised 
individual 
the 
respect  of 
execution of his or her penalty. 

in 

Following  the  closure  of  the  act 
whereby 
limitation  was 
interrupted,  a  new  limitation  period 
shall commence. 

the 

Article  34,  paragraph  1  and 
paragraph  2  Tax  and  Social 
Security Procedure Code 

Article 43, paragraph 6 
Administrative Violations and 
Sanctions Law 

Article  172  Tax  and  Social 
Security Procedure Code 

Article  43,  paragraph  6  of  the 
Administrative  Violations  and 
Sanctions Law 

Article  172  Tax  and  Social 
Security Procedure Code 

43, 

Article 
6 
Administrative  Violations  and 
Sanctions Law 

paragraph 

Illness 
of 
a 
person  whose 
indispensable; 
is 
participation 
institution  of  an  administrative, 
judicial  proceeding, 
criminal  or 

Where following a thorough search, 
is 
the  offender's  whereabouts 
unknown, 
is 
proceeding 
the 
suspended,  as  well  as the  limitation 

Initiation  of  a  proceeding 
for 
establishment 
public 
the 
receivable;  enforcement  of 
instrument  whereby  the  claim  has 
to 
been  established 

is  brought 

the 

of 

EN 

53 

Where following a thorough search, 
is 
the  offender's  whereabouts 
unknown, 
is 
proceeding 
the 
suspended,  as  well  as the  limitation 

Initiation  of  a  proceeding 
for 
establishment 
public 
the 
receivable;  enforcement  of 
instrument  whereby  the  claim  has 
to 
been  established 

is  brought 

the 

of 

Where following a thorough search, 
is 
the  offender's  whereabouts 
unknown, 
is 
proceeding 
the 
suspended,  as  well  as the  limitation 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

to 

is  of 

relevance 

which 
the 
outcome of the proceeding; death of 
a  legitimate  representative  of  the 
person 
request 
concerned; 
submitted by the entity: on a single 
occasion, for a specified period. 

Where  a  reason  to  believe  that  a 
criminal  offence  relevant  to  the 
outcome  of 
is 
established  in  the  course  of  the 
proceeding, the proceeding shall be 
suspended. 

the  proceeding 

CZ 

INTERR 

SUSP 

period for issuing of penal decree.  

Section  20(2)  Act  No  200/1990 
Coll., Customs offences 

The 
limitation  period  does  not 
include  the  time  in  which  criminal 
prosecution was held concerning the 
same offence. 

the 

standstill;  when  a  rescheduling  or 
deferral  of  the  payment  has  been 
authorised;  when 
instrument 
whereby  the  obligation  has  been 
established  is  appealed  against;  by 
imposition  of  precautionary 
the 
measures;  when  a  penal  proceeding 
has  been 
the 
instituted 
establishment  or  collection  of  the 
public  obligation  is  contingent  on 
the outcome of the said proceeding. 

and 

period for issuing of penal decree. 

period for issuing of penal decree. 

the 

standstill;  when  a  rescheduling  or 
deferral  of  the  payment  has  been 
authorised;  when 
instrument 
whereby  the  obligation  has  been 
established  is  appealed  against;  by 
imposition  of  precautionary 
the 
measures;  when  a  penal  proceeding 
has  been 
the 
instituted 
establishment  or  collection  of  the 
public  obligation  is  contingent  on 
the outcome of the said proceeding. 

and 

§70  section  2  Act  No.  337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 

§70  section  2  Act  No.  337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 

yes,  as  a  result  of  (due  to)  a  legal 
barrier limitation period stops to run 
and after elimination/cancellation of 
the  legal  barrier  new 
limitation 
period starts to run. 

yes,  as  a  result  of  (due  to)  a  legal 
barrier limitation period stops to run 
and after elimination/cancellation of 
the  legal  barrier  new 
limitation 
period starts to run. 

§70  section  3  Act  No.  337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 

§70  section  3  Act  No.  337/1992 
Coll., of tax and fees administration 

yes,  limitation  period  does  not  run 
due  to  a  legal  barrier  and  after 
elimination/cancellation of this legal 
barrier 
same 
run  of 
limitation period continues. 

the 

the 

yes,  limitation  period  does  not  run 
due  to  a  legal  barrier  and  after 
elimination/cancellation of this legal 
barrier 
same 
run  of 
limitation period continues. 

the 

the 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

DK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

DE 

INTERR 

§231 Tax Code: 

Establishment of claim in writing, 
deferment of payment, stay of 
payment, suspension of 
enforcement, lodging of security, 
declaration of insolvency 
proceedings, inclusion in insolvency 
scheme or judicially imposed debt-
servicing plan, procedure for 
discharge of remaining debts, 
procedure for determination of 
residence or abode. 

SUSP 

§230 Tax Code 

Claim cannot be pursued in event of 
force majeure within last six months 
of limitation period. 

EE 

INTERR 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

SUSP 

Article 99 Taxation Act 

Yes. 

IE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EL 

INTERR  

SUSP 

Article 87 law 2362/1995 about the Public Accounting control of the State's expenditure and other regulations: 

for a period of time equal to the period of suspension of payment or the facility to pay in instalments granted to the debtor or joint debtor during the last two 
(2) years of the period of limitation under the law or under a court judgment or notice issued by the relevant authority;  

for a period of time equal to the period of time during which the government has been prevented from collecting the debt by enforcement due to suspension 
of enforcement granted under a provision of the law; 

while the debtor is a minor and for the first two years of adulthood if the estate has no assets, regardless of whether or not the minor has a guardian; 

the period of limitation of any government claim is extended for two (2) years if the debtor resided abroad for more than one month (not necessarily 
consecutive) during the last two years of the period of limitation; 

if anyone contests the legal title in general of the government’s claim or the legality of the assessment of it in the narrow sense of the term or the validity for 
any reason of a collection enforcement deed (administrative enforcement) through the courts, the period of limitation of the government claim for assessment 
(in the broad sense) or for collecting its assessed claim is suspended pending a final decision by the court on the dispute and cannot under any circumstances 
end within one year of notification of the final court judgment by the litigants, to be served by bailiff on the head of the relevant government department and 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

the Minister of Finance. 

Article 88 law 2362/1995 about the Public Accounting control of the State's expenditure and other regulations: 

distress of the debtor’s or joint debtor’s or guarantor’s assets, regardless of whether it is exercised on property in their or a third party’s hands; the issue of an 
auction schedule, regardless of whether it has been notified to the person against whom it has been issued; declaration of proof of bankruptcy either by the 
debtor or by the natural or legal person who is a joint debtor with him or who is liable for his debts; declaration of bankruptcy results in suspension provided 
that it is notified either to the registrar of the bankruptcy court or to the meeting of creditors; declaration of auction of assets either of the debtor or of the 
natural or legal person who is a joint debtor with him or who is liable for his debts; declaration to the executor of an estate or to the receiver of a legal person 
in liquidation; registration of a mortgage or lien on property belonging to the debtor or to a natural or legal person who is a joint debtor with him or who is 
liable for his debts. 

ES 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EN 

Article 68 General Tax Law 
58/2003 

Article 180 General Tax Law 
58/2003  

Articles 39.3 and 55 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 

Lodging of appeals of any kind, referral of the case to the criminal jurisdiction or filing of a complaint with the Public Prosecution Service, measures taken in 
relation to these appeals of which the beneficiary or the associated organisation is formally notified, any duly authenticated measure taken by the beneficiary 
or the associated organisation leading to payment of the grant or of the reimbursement. 

Lodging of complaints or appeals of 
any kind. 

Situations beyond the control of the 
administration: judicial actions or 
referral of the case to the criminal 
jurisdiction. 

When the tax administration 
considers that the infringement may 
constitute a crime against the public 
finances and refers the case to the 
competent jurisdiction or to the 
Public Prosecution Service. In this 
case the administrative procedure is 
suspended until the judicial 
procedure is concluded (by a final 
judgment, case not proceeding to 
judgment or dismissal of the case, 
or if the file is returned by the 
Public Prosecution Service). 

Articles 39.3 and 55 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 

When the conduct may constitute a crime, the administration refers the case to the competent jurisdiction or files a complaint with the Public Prosecution 
Service and sends it the file. In this case the administration suspends the administrative procedure until the judicial procedure is resolved or until the Public 

57 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

Prosecution Service returns the file. 

FR 

INTERR 

SUSP 

IT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

CY 

INTERR 

SUSP 

LV 

INTERR 

SUSP 

- 

- 

Section 23(1) Law on Taxes and Fees 

Initiation of criminal proceedings. 

Sections  45  and  80  Law  On 
Administrative Proceedings 

Sections  45  and  80  Law  On 
Administrative Proceedings  

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

Submission contesting an 
administrative decision. 

Submission contesting an 
administrative decision.  

LT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

LU 

INTERR 

SUSP 

HU 

INTERR 

SUSP 

Article  64  Act  XVII  of  2007  on  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure 
regarding agricultural, rural development and fisheries aid and other 
measures 

Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services 

If  a  decision  on  the  right  to  apply  for  aid  is  examined  by  a  court,  the 
limitation  period  for  the  right  to  recover  the  aid  is  suspended  from  the 
commencement of action until the ruling enters into force. 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

- 

MT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

NL 

INTERR 

SUSP 

AT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

PL 

Section 31(4) Austrian Financial 
Criminal Act (FinStrG) 

Time limits for statutory obstacles 
to prosecution; criminal 
proceedings; Constitutional Court or 
Administrative Court proceedings 
relating to the offence or tax 
proceedings 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

INTERR 

Article 401, Code of Penal 
Procedure 

Article 401, Code of Penal 
Procedure 

Yes – need for proof, other 
important reason; up to 35 days. 
Postponement – more than 35 days.  

Yes – need for proof, other 
important reason; up to 35 days. 
Postponement – more than 35 days.  

SUSP 

PT 

INTERR 

Article 22 Code of Penal 
Procedure 

Article 22 Code of Penal 
Procedure 

Article 68 § 5 Tax Act. 

Yes – when there is a long-term 
obstacle (impossibility of collection, 
illness). 

Yes – when there is a long-term 
obstacle (impossibility of collection, 
illness). 

If  settling  the  case  depends  on  a 
prior  decision  of  another  authority 
or court on a preliminary issue. 

Article 46 General Tax Law 

Article  28  General  Scheme  of 
Regulatory Offences 

for 

Summons 
tax  enforcement, 
claim,  appeal  to  a  higher  court, 
contestation,  application  for  official 
review. 

examinations 

Carrying  out  of  any  checks, 
and 
especially 
searches 
for 
assistance 
the  police  or 
administrative authorities 

applications 

or 
from 

- 

of 

law 

the  Supreme 
Case 
Administrative  Court, 
chiefly 
established  by  the  appeal  decisions 
the 
of 
Administrative Council and the Full 
Bench  pronounced  on  4.3.2004  and 
10.11.2005 in Case 047187  

first  subsection  of 

the 

Any  statements  the  defendant  has 
made during exercise of his right to 
a hearing 

Interruption of the criminal 
proceedings in the case of an 
economic infringement or a crime 

Any act by the competent authority 
designed to initiate an investigation 
or initiate the respective 
proceedings and to notify the party 
in question. 

Arts. 118, 120 and 121 Criminal 
Code  

When the payment order for the 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

SUSP 

Article 46 General Tax Law 

Article  27-A  General  Scheme  of 
Regulatory Offences  

balance has been reviewed because 
a criminal offence is involved, the 
period in which it may occur is the 
limitation period for the respective 
criminal proceedings. 

- 

- 

for 
commence 

the 
legal  authorisation 
No 
or 
to 
procedure 
continue;  no 
to  be 
pronounced because the court is not 
a tax court; return to a non-tax court 
of 
the  question  referred  for  a 
preliminary ruling. 

sentence 

Start  of  the  external  inspection; 
judicial 
resolution  of 
which  depends  on  payment  of  the 
tax. 

litigation 

Article 49 General Tax Law 

Payment 
instalments. 

in 

legally 

authorised 

(regarding 

Article  169  (6)  Legislative  Decree 
433/1999 
the 
exceptional  nature  of  suspending 
the  collection  and  subsequent 
suspension of the limitation in the 
case of traditional own resources). 

contestation, 

appeal  or 
Claim, 
objection,  when 
the  competent 
authority  decides  that  collection  of 
the debt should be suspended. 

RO 

INTERR 

EN 

Articles 13 and 16 Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription. 

Recognising the right whose action is limited, made by the person in whose benefit the limitation runs; submitting a sue or arbitration petition, even if it was submitted to a law court or arbitration body that does not have competence; act 
for the initiation of the enforcement procedure. 

62 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

Articles 13 and 16 Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription. 

As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; 

During the period in which the creditor or the debtor is part of the Romanian Army Forces, and they are at war; 

Until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursuant to a contract for transportation 
or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, but not later than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculated as of the date the claim is registered. 

SUSP 

SI 

INTERR 

SUSP 

Articles  13  and  16  Decree  no.167/1958  concerning  the  extinguished 
prescription 

As  long  as  the  person  against  whom  the limitation  runs  is prevented by  an 
instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; 

During the period in which the creditor or the debtor is part of the Romanian 
Army Forces, and they are at war; 

Until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, 
regarding  remedies  or  reimbursements,  pursuant 
to  a  contract  for 
transportation or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, 
but not later than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculated as of the date the 
claim is registered. 

Article 92(2) of Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

During the period between the moment when the fiscal investigation starts 
and the one when the tax enforcement decision is issued as a consequence of 
the fiscal investigation. 

- 

Article  2  Minor  offences  act  (ZP-
1) 

If during a minor offence procedure, 
criminal proceedings in respect of a 
criminal act akin to a minor offence 
are  initiated  against  the  offender, 
is 
the  minor  offence  procedure 
suspended until the final decision is 
criminal 
delivered 

the 

in 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

SK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

FI 

INTERR 

proceedings. 

Article  60  Act  No.  199/2004,  the 
Customs Act  

- 

Action is taken to collect or recover 
the underpayment, a new limitation 
period begins at the end of the year 
in which the debtor was notified of 
this action.  

- 

- 

Section 11(2) Act on the Statute of 
Limitations  

When  the  recovery  of  a  claim  is 
brought  up  in  a  court  of  law  or 

Article  29(2)  Act  No.  71/1967  on 
administrative proceedings 

The provisions of the law allow the 
administrative body to suspend the 
procedure for a maximum of 30 
days from the day the parties are 
informed of this decision.  

Also applied in the case of an action 
that may lead to the institution of 
criminal proceedings. 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

enforcement 
the 
limitation  period  is  interrupted  for 
the duration of the procedure 

procedure, 

SUSP 

Section 7(3)  Act on the  Statute of 
Limitations  

the  claim 

limitation  period  may  be 
The 
suspended  when 
for 
compensation  is  connected  to  a 
limitation 
criminal  offence.  The 
period shall not apply to a debt due 
to  a  criminal  offence  for  as  long  as 
the 
be 
prosecuted  or  is  pending  in  a  court 
of law. 

criminal  matter 

can 

SE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

Paragraph 7 Act (1982:188)  

The prescription period for the 

EN 

Paragraph 5 Prescription Act 
(1981:130). 

The debtor undertaking to make 
payment, pay interest or 
acknowledge the demand in another 
way to the creditor; the debtor 
receiving a written demands or a 
reminder of the claim or the creditor 
taking legal action or citing the 
claim on the debtor in a Court or 
corresponding institution. 

65 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.1.2.  Does  your  national  law  contain  instances  of  interruption  and  suspension  other  than  any  act  by  the  competent  authority,  notified  to  the  person  in  question,  relating  to  investigation  or  legal  proceedings 
concerning the irregularity or other suspension of circumstances specifically provided for in European sectoral rules? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that the only 
instances of interruption applicable are those provided in Regulation 2988/95 or European sectoral rules). 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension, and, if so, how. Please explain in particular whether your national law suspends or interrupts limitation 
periods in the case of an act that could give rise to criminal court proceedings. 

Member State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

that may lead to 
administrative measures  

that may lead to 
administrative penalties  

payment of demands may be 
extended by a general 
administrative Court after 
application by the authority 
concerned. 

UK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

2.1.2 “Absolute” limitation period for proceedings 

Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95 provides for the limitation to become effective at the latest on the day on which a period 
equal to twice the limitation period expires without the competent authority having imposed a penalty, except where the administrative procedure has 
been suspended by decision of the competent authority because criminal proceedings have been initiated against the person concerned in connection 
with the same facts. This period of twice four years is referred to as the “absolute” limitation period. 

National laws, regulations and administrative provisions providing for a longer period than in Article 3(1) of Regulation No 2988/95 may also alter this 
“absolute” limitation period or regulate it differently. 

2.1.2. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the twice four years “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

EN 

66 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the twice four years “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 

that may lead to 
administrative measures (as 
per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as 
per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

that may lead to 
administrative measures (as 
per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as 
per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

that may lead to 
administrative measures (as 
per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as 
per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

BE 

BG 

- 

10 

- 

- 

Article  171,  paragraph  2 
Tax  and  Social  Security 
Procedure Code  

- 

10 

- 

- 

Article  171,  paragraph  2 
Tax  and  Social  Security 
Procedure  Code  for  public 
receivables 

- 

10 

- 

- 

Article  171,  paragraph  2 
Tax  and  Social  Security 
Procedure  Code  for  public 
receivables 

CZ 

EN 

10 

Section 
11a  Act  No 
256/2000  Coll.  on  the  State 
Agricultural 
Intervention 
Fund (SAIF) 

10 

Section 
11a  Act  No 
256/2000  Coll.  on  the  State 
Agricultural 
Intervention 
Fund (SAIF) 

20 

Act  No  552/1991  Coll.,  on 
state control  

20 

Act  No  552/1991  Coll.,  on 
state control  

Act  No  337/1992  Coll.,  on 
the  administration  of  taxes 
and fees  

Act  No  337/1992  Coll.,  on 
the  administration  of  taxes 
and fees  

Act  No  218/2000  Coll.,  on 
budgetary rules 

Act  No  218/2000  Coll.,  on 
budgetary rules 

Act  No  320/2001  Coll.,  on 
financial  control  in  public 
administration 

Act  No  320/2001  Coll.,  on 
financial  control  in  public 
administration 

67 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the twice four years “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Act  No  500/2004  Coll., 
rules 
administrative 
of 
procedure 

Act  No  500/2004  Coll., 
rules 
administrative 
of 
procedure 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

10 

Article 150(3) Act CXL of 
2004  on  the  general  rules 

10 

Article 150(3) Act CXL of 
2004  on  the  general  rules 

- 

- 

10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

CAP 

10 

- 

- 

CAP 

- 

66 

§ 
Implementation Act 

EU 

66 

§ 
Implementation Act 

EU 

§  71  Fisheries  Market 
Organisation Act 

§  71  Fisheries  Market 
Organisation Act 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

EN 

68 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the twice four years “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

of 
proceedings and services 

administrative 

of 
proceedings and services 

administrative 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

10 

20 

10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

31(5)  Austrian 
Section 
Financial  Criminal  Act 
(FinStrG)  in  the  case  of 
administrative 
financial 
fraud proceedings 

- 

- 

10 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Articles  125  to  126  Tax 
Procedure Act (ZdavP-2) 

Article 
60  Act  No. 
199/2004, the Customs Act  

Section  7(2)  Act  on  the 
Statute of Limitations 

10 

Section  7(2)  Act  on  the 
Statute of Limitations 

The  Act  on  the  Statute  of 
Limitations  does  not  apply 
when recovery is performed 
according 
the  Act 
to 
706/2007  on  the  Collection 
of  Taxes 
and  Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

The  Act  on  the  Statute  of 
Limitations  does  not  apply 
when recovery is performed 
according 
the  Act 
to 
706/2007  on  the  Collection 
of  Taxes 
and  Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

Applicable 
"absolute" 
limitation  period:  ten  years 
(applies to recovery) 

Applicable 
"absolute" 
limitation  period:  ten  years 
(applies to recovery) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

10 

Section  46(3)  Act  on  the 
Rural 
Financing 
Industries (329/1999) 

of 

10 

Sections  46(3)  and  50.  Act 
on  the  Financing  of  Rural 
Industries (329/1999) 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.1.2. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the twice four years “absolute” limitation period laid down in Article 3(1), 4th subparagraph, of Regulation No 2988/95, and, if so, for how long? (If the 
tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

SE 

UK 

- 

- 

- 

- 

10 

- 

Paragraph  43  Regulation 
(1999:1148)  with  respect  to 
EC  Regulations  concerning 
Agricultural  Products  and 
Chapter  1(18)  Regulation 
(2004:760)  

10 

- 

Paragraph  43  Regulation 
(1999:1148)  with  respect  to 
EC  Regulations  concerning 
Agricultural  Products  and 
Chapter  1(18)  Regulation 
(2004:760)  

10 

- 

Paragraph  27  Regulation 
(2007:14)  concerned  with 
the  administration  of  EU 
structural funds 

- 

- 

2.2. 

Limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty (sanction) 

The  limitation  period  of  three  years  set  out in  Article  3(2)  of  Regulation  No  2988/95  for  implementing  the  decision  establishing  the  administrative 
penalty concerns the enforcement of penalties (Article 5 of Regulation No 2988/95), possibly decided upon after the end of proceedings relating to 
irregularities. To make it easier to understand the different national systems taking advantage of the freedom given to Member States under Article 3(3) 
of Regulation No 2988/95, it is also important to have an overview of when this enforcement limitation period starts to run and of how national law, 
applicable explicitly by reference, governs instances of interruption and suspension.  

2.2.1. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the three years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member 
State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member State  For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

- 

- 

6 

EN 

- 

5 

Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 

Article  34  Paragraph  2  Administrative  Violations  and  Sanctions  La 
w 

- 

5 

Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code  

Section  70(1)  Act  No  337/1992  Coll.,  on  the  administration  of 
taxes and fees 

10 

Section  11a  Act  No  256/2000  Coll.  on  the  State  Agricultural 
Intervention Fund (SAIF) 

6 

§70 Sections 1 and 2 Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of 
taxes and fees. 

70 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.1. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the three years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member 
State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member State  For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

- 

5 

- 

§34(1) Administrative Penalties Act in case of fines of over €1000 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

12 

Section 11(6) Statute of Limitations Act 1957 

12 

Section 11(6) Statute of Limitations Act 1957 

12 

Section 11(6) Statute of Limitations Act 1957 

- 

4 

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

- 

Articles 66 et seq. and 189 and 190 General Tax Law 58/2003 

Section  20(3)  Legislative  Decree  No  472/97  on  general  rules  in 
the field of administrative sanctions for violating fiscal rules 

Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

- 

4 

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

- 

Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 

Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 

Article  132.3  Law  30/1992  on  the  Legal  Framework  of  Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 

Section 28 Act No 689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal 
system. 

Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

- 

4 

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

- 

Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 

Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 

Article  132.3  Law  30/1992  on  the  Legal  Framework  of  Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 

Section 28 Act No 689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal 
system 

Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.1. Does your national law provide for a period exceeding the three years laid down in Article 3(2) of Regulation No 2988/95 and, if so, for how long? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member 
State, it is to assume that Regulation 2988/95 or Sectoral Rules apply or that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member State  For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

5 

5 

- 

5 

5 

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services 

- 

- 

5 

Section 4(57) of the General Administrative Law Act  

Section  32(1)  Austrian  Financial  Criminal  Act  (FinStrG).  Export 
refunds: Customs law applies 

Article 112(3) Government Ordinance No 79/2003 on the control and 
recovery of Community funds; if related to fiscal obligations 

- 

- 

- 

5 

- 

- 

Article 112(3) Government Ordinance No 79/2003 on the control and 
recovery of Community funds; if related to fiscal obligations 

10 

Section  29  Act  on  Discretionary  Government  Transfers  for  the 
Development of Business (1336/2006) 

- 

- 

Article 34 General System of Tax Infringement 

Article 131(1) and (2) Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the 
Fiscal Procedure Code.; if related to fiscal obligations and fines 

Minor Offences Act (ZP-1) 

Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

Paragraphs  3-8  Act  (1982:188)  relating  to  the  prescription of  tax 
demands, etc. 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2. Does your national law specify a time from which the limitation period starts to operate other that the day on which the decision becomes final and, if so, when? (If the tables do not report anything for a 
given Member State, it is to assume that the limitation period starts to operate the day on which the decision becomes final). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

BE 

BG 

Article 171 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code 

Public receivables shall be extinguished upon expiry of a 5-year limitation 
period, as from 1 January of the year following the year during which the 
public  obligation  became  payable  unless  a  law  makes  provision  for  a 
shorter period. 

CZ 

Section 70(1) Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of taxes and 
fees  

Right  to  recover  an  unpaid  balance  will  lapse  six  years  after  the  year  in 
which this unpaid balance has fallen due. 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

Articles 150(4) and 152(7) Law 2960/2001 National Customs Code  

Once the administrative decision imposing a fine has been served and no 
appeal has been filed before the administrative courts (within 60 or 90 days 
of  service),  the  decision  is  immediately  enforceable.  If  an  appeal  is  filed 
(after 60 or 90 days from service), 30% of the fine is payable immediately. 

Article 66 Law 2717/99 Administrative Procedure Code 

ES 

Articles 66 et seq. General Tax Law 58/2003 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2. Does your national law specify a time from which the limitation period starts to operate other that the day on which the decision becomes final and, if so, when? (If the tables do not report anything for a 
given Member State, it is to assume that the limitation period starts to operate the day on which the decision becomes final). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

From  the  day  following  the  date  on  which  the  voluntary  payment  period 
expires, except in cases of joint and several or secondary liability. 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

Article 131(1) and (2) Government Ordinance No92/2003 on the Fiscal 
Procedure Code  

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.2. Does your national law specify a time from which the limitation period starts to operate other that the day on which the decision becomes final and, if so, when? (If the tables do not report anything for a 
given Member State, it is to assume that the limitation period starts to operate the day on which the decision becomes final). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

SI 

SK 

In  the  case  of  fiscal  obligations  and  fines,  as  of  1  January  of  the  year 
following the year when the writ of execution is issued. 

Article  88(1)  Act  No.  372/1990,  on  infringements  with  reference  to 
Article 71(2) Act No. 199/2004, the Customs Act 

From the expiry of the deadline stated in the decision to impose the fine  

FI 

Section  20  Act  706/2007  on  the  Collection  of  Taxes  and  Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

Within the scope of application of the Act 706/2007 on the Collection of 
Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL). (see above) from the beginning of the year 
following the year of imposing or debiting the penalty. 

SE 

Paragraph  3  Act  (1982:188)  relating  to  the  prescription  of  tax 
demands, etc. 

Paragraph  43  Regulation  (1999:1148)  with  respect  to  EC  Regulations 
concerning  Agricultural  Products  and  Chapter  1(18)  of  the  regulation 
(2004:760) concerned with EC direct support for farmers, etc. 

The day on which the demand is considered due for payment, with certain 
exceptions 

The day on which the faulty amount was paid out. 

UK 

- 

Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings  

The three-year period covering the enforcement of a decision starts on expiry 
of  the  period  for  fulfilling  the  obligation  imposed  (i.e.  the  expiry  of  the 
period is related to the executability of the decision issued in administrative 
procedures) 

Section  29  Act  on  Discretionary  Government  Transfers  for  the 
Development of Business (1336/2006) 

From the payment of the final instalment / termination of the period of use 
for the acquisition. 

UK limitation periods generally do not start to run until the claimant’s cause 
of action is established, e.g. by sending a demand for repayment. So long as 
the demand is within the time limits specified in the relevant scheme, the UK 
will have its national limitation period in which to start court proceedings. 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Member 
State 

BE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

BG 

INTERR 

Article 82 Administrative Violations and Sanctions Law 

Each act of duly authorised authorities taken against a penalised individual in respect of the execution of his or her penalty. 

Article 172, par. 2 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code 

The limitation shall be terminated with the issue of the act for establishment of the public taking or with the undertaking of actions of enforcement. If the act for establishing shall be repealed, the limitation shall be considered terminated.  

SUSP 

Article 172, par. 1 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code 

The limitation shall be stopped when proceedings for establishment of the public taking have begun, when the execution of the act, by which the taking has been established, has been stopped, when has been given a permission for 
rescheduling or postponing of the payment,  when the  act, by  which the obligation has been determined,  has been appealed, by  imposing  of securing  measures,  when penal  proceedings have been instituted, on the decision on  which 
depends the establishment or the collection of the public taking.  

CZ 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EN 

Section 70(2) Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of taxes and 
fees 

Limitation  periods  are  interrupted  in  case  of  an  act  to  collect,  seize  or 
enforce an unpaid balance. 

Article 64 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  

§70 section 2 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  

In  case  of  drawback  of  written  form,  in  case  of  prelimiary  question,  when 
applicant don´t pay a charge. 

As a result of (due to) a legal barrier limitation period stops to run and after 
cancellation of the legal barrier new limitation period starts to run.  

Article 66 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  

§70 section 3 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  

Due  to  legal  barrier  limitation  period  does  not  run  and  in  case  of 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

In case of retraction, non-execution of conditions of interruption etc.  

elimination/cancellation  of  legal  barrier  limitation  period  continues  to  run 
again from the point where it stopped.  

§34(4) Administrative Penalties Act  

Enforcement  has  not  begun  or  could  not  be  continued;  enforcement  has 
been suspended or a payment facility has been granted 

DK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

DE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

IE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EL 

INTERR 

EN 

77 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

SUSP 

ES 

INTERR 

SUSP 

FR 

INTERR 

SUSP 

IT 

INTERR 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Article 150(4) law 2960/2001 National Customs Code 

If someone files an appeal against the administrative decision imposing a 
fine, 70% of the fine is suspended. Also, if someone files an application for 
suspension  which  is  admitted  by  the  administrative  court,  the  entire 
amount assessed may be suspended. 

Articles 200-205 Law 2717/99 Asministrative Procedure Code  

Article 190 General Tax Law 58/2003 

Article 132.3 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 

A measure effectively taken by the tax administration in order to collect a 
penalty,  and  of  which  the  taxpayer  is  formally  notified.  Lodging  of 
complaints or appeals of any kind and measures taken in relation to them 
of  which  the  taxpayer  is  formally  notified.  Application  for  insolvency 
proceedings  for  debtor.  Enforcement  of  civil  or  criminal  actions  taken  in 
order  to  collect  the  tax  debt.  Receipt  of  notification  from  judicial  body 
ordering suspension of administrative proceeding. Any duly authenticated 
action taken by the taxpayer in order to pay or cancel the tax debt. 

Opening of enforcement proceeding, with notification of the party concerned. The time period starts to run again if it is suspended for more than a month for 
reasons not attributable to the offender. 

Section 20(3) Legislative Decree No 472/97 on general rules in the field 
of administrative sanctions for violating fiscal rules 

Section 28 Act No 689/1981 on the modification of Italian criminal system 

The period of limitation is interrupted by  any appeal against a ruling and 

Service of document initiating proceedings which may be enforceable; application filed in the course of proceedings; formal notice to pay served on the debtor 

EN 

78 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

does not run until the proceedings have been completed. 

SUSP 

CY 

INTERR 

SUSP 

LV 

INTERR 

Section 26(8) Law on Taxes and Fees 

Deadline  for  payment  of  the  relevant  taxes  is  extended,  deferred  or 
staggered  –  until  the  end  of  the  deadline  period.  Where  payment  is 
staggered,  the  limitation  period  shall  start  again  after  the  last  payment 
deadline;  

Decision taken as the result of controls (checks, audits) performed by the 
tax  administration,  a  tax  calculation  or  a  decision  on  the  recovery  of 
overdue tax payments is contested – for the period of time during which a 
submission is examined prior to court proceedings;  

Appeal is lodged against the activities of bailiffs – for the period of time 
during which the complaint is being reviewed;  

Debtor  is  deceased  or  the  legal  person  has  ceased  to  exist  and  the  legal 
relationship established by the court allows for the transfer of rights – until 
the person assigned the debtor's rights has been determined; 

Debtor has lost his capacity to act – until the appointment of a trustee; 

Court decision has been taken on suspending the execution of the relevant 
tax administration decision – until the relevant court decision has been set 
aside or for the period of time indicated in the court decision; 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Insolvency  proceedings  have  been  initiated  against  a  taxpayer  –  until  the 
insolvency proceedings have concluded; 

Decision on the  winding-up of  a  taxpayer  has been  taken  and  recorded  – 
until winding-up proceedings have been concluded;  

Decision  has  been  submitted  for  execution  to  a  bailiff  and  a  tax 
administration official, who in accordance with law are granted the rights 
of  a  bailiff  –  until  the  decision  is  enforced  or  until  an  act  is  issued 
declaring recovery to be impossible.  

SUSP 

LT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

LU 

INTERR 

SUSP 

HU 

INTERR 

Article 108 Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration. 

Where a tax credit agreement has been concluded; where other laws or legal enactments (for instance a bailiff's order) provide for the suspension of enforced recovery of payment arrears. 

Article  64  Act  XVII  of  2007  on  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure 
regarding agricultural,  rural  development and  fisheries aid  and other 
measures, 

Article  150  Act  CXL  of  2004  on  the  general  rules  of  administrative 
proceedings and services 

EN 

80 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

SUSP 

MT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

NL 

INTERR 

SUSP 

AT 

INTERR 

Any enforcement action. 

Article  64  Act  XVII  of  2007  on  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure 
regarding agricultural,  rural  development and  fisheries aid  and other 
measures, 

Article  150  Act  CXL  of  2004  on  the  general  rules  of  administrative 
proceedings and services 

If  a  decision  on  the  right  to  apply  for  aid  is  examined  by  a  court,  the 
limitation  period  for  the  right  to  recover  the  aid  is  suspended  from  the 
commencement of action until the ruling enters into force. 

During  the  period  of  suspension  of  enforcement,  enforcement  actions, 
payment  facilities  allowed  in  the  enforcement  proceeding,  and  mortgage 
registration. 

Section 4.4.3.2 of the General Administrative Law Act  

The expiry of a legal claim is interrupted by bringing criminal proceedings 
(before the civil courts) or through recognition of the creditor's rights. 

Section 32(3) Austrian Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG) 

Export refunds: Customs law applies 

EN 

81 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Enforcement of prison sentence 

SUSP 

Section 32(3) Austrian Financial Criminal Act (FinStrG) 

Probationary  periods  under  conditional 
sentence/payment; detention by government order; period abroad. 

release;  postponement  of 

PL 

INTERR 

SUSP 

PT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

RO 

INTERR 

Article  47(3)  of  the  Agricultural  Land  and  Sugar  Payments  Act  of  27 
January 2007 

Yes: implementing the first enforcement proceedings 

Article 56 Enforcement Proceedings in Administration Act of 1966 

Withholding implementation, death, loss of capacity to enter into legal transactions. 

Article  30-A  General  Scheme  of  Regulatory  Offences  (for  cases  of 
interruption to the limitation of the penalty). 

Commencement of tax enforcement of the penalty (enforced payment). 

Article 30 General Scheme of Regulatory Offences (for cases in which 
the limitation of the penalty is suspended) 

Legal impossibility of the tax enforcement of the penalty commencing or 
continuing (bankruptcy proceedings, judicial action on pledged assets and 
receipt of opposition to the tax enforcement); granting of payment facilities 

Articles 132 and 133 Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

In addition to Article 13 and Article 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription.  

(Recognising the right whose action is limited, made by the person in whose benefit the limitation runs; submitting a sue or arbitration petition, even if it was submitted to a law court or arbitration body that does not have competence; act 
for the initiation of the enforcement procedure) 

When the debtor, before or during the initiation of the forced execution procedure, makes a voluntary payment of the obligation provided for in the writ of execution or when the debtor recognizes the debt in any other manner; when, 
during the forced execution procedure, a forced execution act is concluded. 

SUSP 

Articles 132 and 133 of Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 

In addition to Article 13 and Article 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription  

(As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; during the period in which the creditor or the debtor is part of the Romanian Army Forces, and they are at 
war; until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursuant to a contract for transportation or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, but not later 
than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculated as of the date the claim is registered) 

During the validity period of the facility granted according to the law; as long as the debtor removes his incomes and goods from forced execution. 

SI 

INTERR 

SUSP 

SK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EN 

Article 126 (2) Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2)  

In cases where the sanction is not legally enforceable; if the body responsible for enforcing the sanction takes any action with a view to enforcing the 
sanction; any official action taken by the tax authority for the purposes of enforcement of which the debtor is informed. 

Article 153 General Administrative Procedures Act (ZUP)  
If the other party dies; if the other party loses its legal capacity, but has no 
authorised representative for the proceedings and no temporary 
representative is appointed; if the legal representative dies or loses legal 
capacity, but the party concerned has no authorised representative and no 
temporary representative is appointed; if a declaration of bankruptcy has 
had legal implications for the party concerned; if a body decides that it 
cannot resolve a preliminary question or that it cannot resolve it according 
to the law. 

83 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative penalty? Please indicate 
also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative penalties (as per Article 5 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

FI 

INTERR 

SUSP 

SE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

UK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

2.3. 

Limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure (recovery)  

European law does not provide for a limitation period for the enforcement of the decision establishing the administrative measure9. This period is of 
particular importance for the success of recovery procedures and may depend on reference to civil law.  

9 

EN 

Administrative measures are measures which have as a result the withdrawal of the advantage obtained plus, where so provided for, interest (Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95). 

84 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

10 

81bis VAT Code 

5 

- 

3 

5 

7 

- 

- 

4 

Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 

§ 3 and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

§ 228 paragraph 2 Tax Code 

§132 Taxation Act 

General Tax Law 58/2003 

4 

Article 355 (3) of the Customs Code 

- 

5 

10 

3 

- 

- 

6 

- 

4 

- 

Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 

Act  No  256/2000 Coll. on the  State  Agricultural  Intervention  Fund 
(SAIF) 

§ 3 and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 

Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 

- 

5 

6 

3 

- 

- 

6 

- 

4 

Article 285 Administrative Procedure Code 

§70 Section 1 Act No 337/1992 Coll., on the administration of taxes 
and fees; 

§ 3 and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 

Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 

Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 of 26-11 

Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 of 26-11 

Article  132.2  Law  30/1992  on  the  Legal  Framework  of  Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 

Article  132.2  Law  30/1992  on  the  Legal  Framework  of  Public 
Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 

- 

EN 

85 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

- 

- 

3 

Section 26(8) Law on Taxes and Fees 

5 

Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

- 

- 

- 

5 

- 

5 

Section  27  of  the  Act  of  30 May 1990  on  the  recovery  of  state 
taxes (1990 Recovery Act) 

Article 65(7) Customs Act of 2004 

10 

Section 1(174) Act No 266/2005 

10 

Section 1(174) Act No 266/2005 

Section  76  Royal  Decree  No  1214/1943  Consolidated  Court  of 
Auditors Act  

Section  76  Royal  Decree  No  1214/1943  Consolidated  Court  of 
Auditors Act 

- 

3 

5 

- 

5 

- 

5 

- 

5 

Section 360(4) Law On Administrative Proceedings. 

- 

3 

Section 360(4) Law On Administrative Proceedings 

Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

5 

Article 107(1) and (5) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

Article 150 Act CXL of 2004 on the general rules of administrative 
proceedings and services 

Section 4.4.3. of the General Administrative Law. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Article 70 §1 of the Tax Act of 29 August 1997 

10 

Articles 118, 125 § 1 of the Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code  

Article  47(1)  of  the  Agricultural  Land  and  Sugar  Payments  Act  of 
27 January 2007 

Article 125 § 1 of the Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code  

8 

Article 48(1) General Tax Law 

5/20  Articles309 and 310 Civil Code. The limitation periods stipulated by 

20 

civil law apply (of between 5 and 20 years) 

Articles  309  and  310  Civil  Code.  The  limitation  periods  stipulated 
by civil law apply (of between 5 and 20 years) 

Appeal  Decisions  of  the  2nd  Section  of  the  STA  pronounced  in 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

5 

5 

3 

5 

Article  131(1)  Government  Ordinance  No  92/2003  on  the  Fiscal 
Procedure Code 

Articles 125 and 126 Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 

Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings 

Section 13(2) Act on the Statute of Limitations, section 20 of the 
Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL) 

5 

5 

3 

5 

Article  112(3)  Government  Ordinance  No  79/2003  on  the  control 
and recovery of Community funds 

Articles 125 and 126 Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 

Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings 

Section  20  Act  706/2007  on  the  Collection  of  Taxes  and  Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

5 

- 

3 

5 

proceedings  727/02,  153/03,  325/03,  369/05  and  462/06,  of 
6.11.2002,  4.6.2003,  25.06.2003,  29.6.05  and  5.7.2006,  and  the 
appeal  decisions  pronounced  by  the  Tax  Dispute  Section  of  the 
Central  Administrative  Court 
the  Southern  Central 
Administrative  Court,  in  proceedings  5698/01,  6756/02,  7536/02 
and 104/03 on 30.10.2001, 6.7.2004, 26.10.2004 and 15.6.2005. 

and 

Article  112(3)  Government  Ordinance  No  79/2003  on  the  control 
and recovery of Community funds 

Article 71(3) Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings 

Section  20  Act  706/2007  on  the  Collection  of  Taxes  and  Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

10 

Section 28 Act on Discretionary Government Transfers (688/2001). 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
  
 
 
2.3.1. What limitation period does your national law provide for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure? (If the tables do not report anything for a given Member State, it is to assume 
that the national law does not foresee any limitation period). 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

SE 

5 

Paragraphs  3-4  Act  (1982:188)  relating  to  the  prescription of  tax 
demands, etc. 

10 

Paragraph  43  Regulation 
to  EC 
Regulations  concerning  Agricultural  Products  and  Chapter  1(18) 
Regulation (2004:760) concerned with direct support to farmers, etc. 

(1999:1148)  with 

respect 

10 

Paragraph 2 Prescription Act (1981:130) 

UK 

- 

- 

6 
and 
5 

The  limitation  period  in  UK  law  relating  to  civil  proceedings  for 
recovering  money  under  a  contract  (applicable  in  this  case)  is  6 
years but in Scotland, it is 5 years. 

2.3.2. When does the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure start to run? 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Article 171 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code  

As from 1 January of the year following the year during which the public 
obligation  became  payable  unless  a  law  makes  provision  for  a  shorter 
period . 

BE 

BG 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.2. When does the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure start to run? 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Act No 99/1963 Coll, on Civic Court Rule 

in 15 days from date of legal force of decision  

§ 2(1) and (2) and § 28 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

From the time when the original claim arose. 

§ 229 paragraph 1 Tax Code 

From the end of the calendar year in which claim first fell due. However, it 
does  not  start  before  the  end  of  the  calendar  year  in  which  the 
establishment  of  a  claim  from  the  tax  debt  relationship  became  effective 
from which the claim arises. 

§132 Taxation Act  

1 January of the year following the year in which the decision was taken. 

Date on which debt is established  

Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 

Statutes of Limitations Acts 1957 to 2000 

Date of the decision 

Date of the decision 

Article 66 Law 2717/99 Administrative Procedure Code 

Article  10(7)  Law  2690/99  Code  of  Administrative  Procedure,  in 
conjunction with article 241 of the Civil Code  

Joint ministerial decision 907/052/2003  

Following service of the decision on the administrative measure. 

From the day after proven service on the debtor of the decision imposing the 
administrative measure. 

This  deadline  commences  on  the  date  of  assessment  of  the  debt  by  the 
relevant tax office with registration of the relevant amount (cf. provisions of 
legislative  decree  356/1974  Public  Revenue  Collection  Code,  and 
presidential decree 16/1989 Rules of procedure for tax departments and local 
offices and duties of their officers. 

Article 15 General Budget Law 47/2003 

From the date of notification. 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.2. When does the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure start to run? 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

Article 107(2) Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

From the date on which the right to enforced recovery of a payment arises. 

Section 27 of the Act of 30 May 1990 on the recovery of national taxes 
(1990 Recovery Act) 

Since the beginning of the day following that on which the tax assessment 
in  its  entirety  falls  due  or,  if  this  is  at  a  later  date,  five  years  after  the 
beginning  of  the  day  after  that  on  which  the  last  prosecuting  document 
concerning the tax assessment was served to the tax debtor. 

Article 65(7) Customs Act of 2004 

Article 70 §1 Tax Act of 1997  

Article 120 § 1 and § 2, Act of 23 April 1964, Civil Code  

From the day of entering the amount due. 

From the end of the calendar year in which the tax payment date expired.  

From the day that the claim becomes mature. If the claim maturity depends 
on the taking up of a given measure by the authorised party, the course of the 
deadline  commences  from  the  day  on  which  the  claim  would  have  been 
mature, had the authorised taken measures at the earliest possible time. 

EN 

90 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.2. When does the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing an administrative measure start to run? 

Member 
State 

PT 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures (as per Article 4 of Regulation No 
2988/95) 

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures (as per Article 4 of 
Regulation No 2988/95) 

Article 48(1) General Tax Law 

Date on which the chargeable event occurred. 

Article  305  Civil  Code,  in  conjunction  with  Article  132  Administrative 
Procedural Code. 

Date on which the decision is notified to the party. 

RO 

Article  131(1)  Government  Ordinance  No  92/2003  on  the  Fiscal 
Procedure Code  

1  January  of  the  year  following  the  year  when  the  writ  of  execution  is 
issued . 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Article 125 Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 

Date when the duty was due for payment. 

Articles 52 and 71 Act No. 71/1967, on administrative proceedings  

The three-year period covering the enforcement of a decision starts on expiry of the period for fulfilling the obligation imposed (i.e. the expiry of the period is related to the executability of the decision issued in administrative procedures) 

Section 20 Act 706/2007 on the Collection of Taxes and Charges (VeroTPL) 

In recovery proceedings, from the beginning of the year following the year of making the decision. 

Section  20  Act  706/2007  on  the  Collection  of  Taxes  and  Charges 
(VeroTPL) 

In recovery proceedings, from the beginning of the year following the year of 
making the decision. 

Section 28 Act on Discretionary Government Transfers (688/2001) 

From  the  payment  of  the  discretionary  government  transfer  or  the  final 
instalment or from the termination of the period of use for the property in the 
financing decision. 

Paragraph  43  Regulation  (1999:1148)  with  respect  to  EC  Regulations 
concerning  Agricultural  Products  and  Chapter  1(18)  Regulation 
(2004:760) concerned with direct support to farmers, etc  

Paragraph 2 Prescription Act (1981:130) compared with paragraphs 26–
27  Regulation  (2007:14)  concerned  with  the  administration  of  EC 
structural funds. 

The day when the faulty amount was paid out.  

When  the  demand  occurred,  i.e.  on  the  occasion  of  the  time  when  the 
decision  to  annul  a  decision  about  wrongly  paid  out  support  gained  legal 
force, this implying a repayment obligation.  

As soon as the debt/irregularity is identified. 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

BE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

BG 

INTERR 

Article 172, par. 2 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code  

The  prescription  shall  be  terminated  with the  issue of the  act  for  establishment  of  the public  taking or with  the undertaking  of  actions  of  enforcement.  If the  act  for establishing shall  be repealed, the  prescription shall be  considered 
terminated. 

Article 82 Administrative Violations and Sanctions Law 

(2) The legal prescription shall begin from the enforcement of the act by which the sanction has been imposed and shall be stopped by any act of the respective bodies, undertaken regarding the punished person for incurring the sanction. 

Upon conclusion of the act which stops the legal prescription a new legal prescription shall begin. 

SUSP 

Article 172, par. 1 Tax and Social Security Procedure Code  

The prescription shall be stopped when proceedings for establishment of the public taking have begun, when the execution of the act, by which the taking has been established, has been stopped, when has been given a permission for 
rescheduling or postponing of the payment, when the act, by which has been determined the obligation, has been appealed, by imposing of securing measures, when penal proceedings have been instituted, on the decision of which 
depends the establishment or the collection of the public taking. 

CZ 

INTERR 

EN 

Article 64 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  

§70 section 2 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  

In  case  of  drawback  of  written  form,  in  case  of  prelimiary  question,  when 

As a result of (due to) a legal barrier limitation period stops to run and after 

92 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

SUSP 

DK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

applicant don´t pay a charge. 

cancellation of the legal barrier new limitation period starts to run.  

Article 66 of Act No 500/2004 Coll. Administrative Act  

§70 section 3 Act No. 337/1992 Coll., of tax and fees administration  

In case of retraction, non-execution of conditions of interruption etc.  

Due to legal barrier limitation period does not run and in case of 
elimination/cancellation of legal barrier limitation period continues to run 
again from the point where it stopped.  

§§ 20 to 22 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

"Temporary" interruption is characterised by the fact that , when the "temporary measure" takes place before the limitation period expires, a period of one year is allowed after the measure ends so that "real" interruption - typically in the 
event of legal proceedings – can take place before this additional period expires. 

§§3(2) and 3 No 3 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

Where the claim or debtor is unknown, the 3-year limitation period is suspended until the time when the claimant became or should have become aware of this. 

An absolute limitation period of 10 years applies in connection with suspension. The "absolute" nature of the 10-year limitation period means that the limitation period runs even if the claimant is innocently unaware of its claim. The 
absolute limitation period can never be suspended. 

§ 14 Limitation of Claims Act No 522 of 2007 

Furthermore, the Limitations Act lays down an additional 1-year period for claimants in cases where on grounds of various types of obstacles the claimant has been prevented from interrupting the limitation. 

These are cases where the claimant has been prevented from interrupting the limitation owing to ignorance of the debtor's whereabouts or by obstacles unconnected with the circumstances of the person concerned. 

DE 

INTERR 

§232 Tax Code  

Establishment  of  claim  in  writing.  Deferment  of  payment.  Stay  of 
payment. Suspension of enforcement. Lodging of security. Declaration of 
insolvency  proceedings.  Inclusion  in  insolvency  scheme  or  judicially 
imposed debt-servicing  plan.  Procedure  for discharge of  remaining debts. 

EN 

93 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

Procedure for determination of residence or abode. 

SUSP 

§230 Tax Code 

Claim cannot be pursued in event of force majeure within last six months 
of limitation period. 

§132 Taxation Act 

Yes 

EE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

IE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EL 

INTERR 

SUSP 

ES 

INTERR 

EN 

Article 65.2 General Subsidies Law 38/2003 

94 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

Article 132 Law 30/1992 on the Legal Framework of Public Administrations and the Common Administrative Procedure 

Any action taken by the administration of which formal notification is given to the beneficiary or associated organisation and which gives rise to one of the 
grounds for repayment. 

Lodging of appeals of any kind, referral of the case to the criminal jurisdiction or filing of a complaint with the Public Prosecution Service, and measures 
taken in relation to these appeals of which the beneficiary or the associated organisation is formally notified. 

Any duly authenticated measure taken by the beneficiary or the associated organisation leading to payment of the grant or of the reimbursement. 

- 

- 

- 

SUSP 

FR 

INTERR 

SUSP 

IT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

CY 

INTERR 

SUSP 

LV 

INTERR 

EN 

95 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

SUSP 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

Section 26(8) Law On Taxes and Fees 

Sections 45 and 46 Law On Administrative Proceedings 

If court proceedings in a particular matter or the enforcement of an administrative decision unfavourable to the addressee are suspended; where following the 
serving of an enforcement document recovery has not been effected in full and the document has been returned to the enforcer of the debt, a new deadline for 
submission of the document shall run from the day when the document is returned to the enforcer of the debt. 

Decision taken as the result of controls (checks, audits) performed by the 
tax  administration,  a  tax  calculation  or  a  decision  on  the  recovery  of 
overdue  tax  payments  is  contested  –  for  the  period  of  time  in  which  a 
submission is examined prior to court proceedings; 

Deadline for payment of the relevant taxes has been extended, deferred or 
staggered – with respect to the amount of tax whose deadline for payment 
has been extended or with respect to a deferred tax payment; 

Judgment declaring a taxpayer to be insolvent has entered into force. The 
taxpayer  who  has  been  declared  insolvent  shall  make  all  regular  tax 
payments in accordance with laws pertaining to the relevant taxes. 

Decision taken as the result of controls (checks, audits) performed by the 
tax  administration,  a  tax  calculation  or  a  decision  on  the  recovery  of 
overdue tax payments is contested – for the period of time during which a 
submission is examined prior to court proceedings.  

Appeal is lodged against the activities of bailiffs – for the period of time 
during which the complaint is being reviewed;  

Debtor  is  deceased  or  the  legal  person  has  ceased  to  exist  and  the  legal 
relationship established by the court allows for the transfer of rights – until 
the person assigned the debtor's rights has been determined; 

Debtor has lost his capacity to act – until the appointment of a trustee; 

Court decision has been taken suspending the execution of the relevant tax 
administration  decision  –  until  the  relevant  court  decision  has  been  set 
aside or for the period of time indicated in the court decision; 

Insolvency  proceedings  have  been  initiated  against  a  taxpayer  –  until  the 
insolvency proceedings have concluded; 

Decision on the  winding-up of  a  taxpayer  has been  taken  and  recorded  – 
until winding-up proceedings have been concluded;  

EN 

96 

EN 

 
  
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

Decision  has  been  submitted  for  enforcement  to  a  bailiff  and  a  tax 
administration official, who in accordance with law are granted the rights 
of  a  bailiff  –  until  the  decision  is  enforced  or  until  a  document  is  issued 
declaring recovery to be impossible.  

LT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

LU 

INTERR 

SUSP 

HU 

INTERR 

SUSP 

Article 108 Lithuanian Law on Tax Administration 

Where a tax credit agreement has been concluded; where other laws or legal enactments (for instance a bailiff's order) provide for the suspension of enforced recovery of payment arrears. 

Article  64  Act  XVII  of  2007  on  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure 
regarding  agricultural,  rural  development  and  fisheries  aid  and  other 
measures 

Article  150  Act  CXL  of  2004  on  the  general  rules  of  administrative 
proceedings and services 

Any enforcement action. 

Article  64  Act  XVII  of  2007  on  certain  aspects  of  the  procedure 
regarding  agricultural,  rural  development  and  fisheries  aid  and  other 
measures 

Article  150  Act  CXL  of  2004  on  the  general  rules  of  administrative 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

proceedings and services 

If  a  decision  on  the  right  to  apply  for  aid  is  examined  by  a  court,  the 
limitation  period  for  the  right  to  recover  the  aid  is  suspended  from  the 
commencement of action until the ruling enters into force. 

During  the  period  of  suspension  of  enforcement,  enforcement  actions, 
payment  facilities  allowed  in  the  enforcement  proceeding,  and  mortgage 
registration. 

MT 

INTERR 

SUSP 

NL 

INTERR 

SUSP 

AT 

Section 27  of  the  Act  of  30 May  1990  on  the  recovery  of  national  tax 
(1990 Recovery Act) 

Section 4.4.3.2 of the General Administrative Law Act  

The lapsing of a legal claim is interrupted by bringing a legal action (before the 
civil courts) or through recognition of the creditor's rights. 

The limitation period is interrupted only by the service of an enforcement 
document to the tax debtor. This includes any service to the tax debtor of a 
document  for  prosecution  purposes,  such  as  an  enforcement  order,  a 
repeated  order  to  make  payment  or  a  writ  of  attachment,  irrespective  of 
whether the prosecution measure in question brings any results. 

Section 27  of  the  Act  of  30 May  1990  on  the  recovery  of  national  tax 
(1990 Recovery Act) 

Suspension of the limitation period on the basis of section 27(2)(a) of the 
applicable law takes place only on the grounds of a formally granted stay 
of  payment,  granted  on  request  or  ex  officio.  Unilateral  cancellation  of 
recovery, for whatever reason, does not have the effect of suspension.  

EN 

98 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

INTERR 

SUSP 

PL 

INTERR 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

Article 65(8) Customs Act of 2004 

Article 70 § (2), (3) and (6)(2) and (3) Tax Act of 1997  

Application  of  the  enforcement  measure,  of  which  the  debtor  was 
informed. 

By  announcing  bankruptcy  (after  interrupting  the  course  of  expiry  of  the 
limitation period it starts running again from the day after the decision to cease 
bankruptcy proceedings becomes final). 

Article  70  §  (4)  Tax  Act  of  1997  in  connection  with  Article  1a  (12)(a) 
Enforcement Proceedings in Administration Act of 1966  

By applying the enforcement measure, of which the debtor was informed. 

SUSP 

Article 65(10) Customs Act of 2004  

Article 70 § (2), (3) and (6)(2) and (3) Tax Act of 1997  

Start  of  penal  proceedings  relating  to  treasury  crime  or  treasury  offence, 
lodging complaints to the administrative court. 

Deferment of the payment deadline of obligations or dividing the payment into 
instalments (basis: Article 70 § 2(1), Tax Act), 

Taking  a  complaint  to  the  administrative  court  (basis:  Article  70  §  6(2),  Tax 
Act), 

Lodging a demand that a civilian court establish the existence or non-existence 
of a legal relation (basis: Article 70 § 6(3), Tax Act). 

Article  97  §  1(4)  in  connection  with  Article  103  Code  on  Administrative 
Procedure 

The start of proceedings relating to tax crime or tax offence, if the suspicion of 
a crime or offence being committed is connected with the failure to carry out 
this  obligation; lodging  a  complaint  at  the  administrative  court  against  the 
decision  relating  to  this  obligation; lodging  a  demand  that  a  civilian  court 
establish  the  existence  or  non-existence  of  a  legal  relation  or  in  suspending 
proceedings, when the issue of a decision depends on settling the initial matter 
by a different authority or court. Suspension of proceedings halts the course of 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

deadlines provided for by the Code. Suspension is until the day that the court 
decision  becomes  binding  or  the  day  on  which  the  decision  of  a  different 
authority becomes final.  

PT 

INTERR 

Article 49 General Tax Law 

Summons  of  the  judgment  debtor;  claim;  appeal  to  a  higher  court; 
contestation; application for official review of settlement. 

SUSP 

Article 49 General Tax Law 

Payment in legally authorised instalments. 

As  long  as  there  is  no  definitive  or  final  decision,  in  cases  of  claims, 
contestations, appeals or objections, when the competent authority decides 
that collection of the debt should be suspended. 

RO 

EN 

Articles 50(1), 112 to 117, 128 Procedural Code of the Administrative 
Courts 

Any act which expresses the intention to exercise the credit claim against 
the recipient interrupts the limitation of the debt, e.g. claim for refund after 
the payment order for the final balance has been reviewed or, if so desired, 
summons to file opposition under tax proceedings. 

Through  recognition  of  the  right  before  the  holder  by  the  party  against 
which the right may be exercised. 

The request for payment in instalments, as it involves acknowledgement of 
the debt. 

Articles 50(1) 112 to 117, 128, Procedural Code of the Administrative 
Courts (CPTA). 

Notification given to the administrative authority of the submission of an 
application  for  suspension  of  the  administrative  act,  filed  under  a 
protective order, prevents it from commencing or continuing enforcement. 

The  posting  of  a  bond  when  the  case  involves  only  payment  of  an 
uncontested amount. 

The granting of the protective order filed for this purpose or the suspension 
of  the  effects  of  the  decision  as  a  result  of  posting  of  a  bond  therefore 
suspends recovery, until the final decision has been delivered in the main 
proceeding. 

100 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

INTERR 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

Articles 132 and 133 Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 

In addition to Article 13 and Article 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription.  

(Recognising the right whose action is limited, made by the person in whose benefit the limitation runs; submitting a sue or arbitration petition, even if it was submitted to a law court or arbitration body that does not have competence; act 
for the initiation of the enforcement procedure.) 

When the debtor, before or during the initiation of the forced execution procedure, makes a voluntary payment of the obligation provided for in the writ of execution or when the debtor recognizes the debt in any other manner; when, 
during the forced execution procedure, a forced execution act is concluded. 

SUSP 

Articles 132 and 133 Government Ordinance No 92/2003 on the Fiscal Procedure Code 

For fiscal debts: 

In addition to Article 13 and Article 16 of Decree no.167/1958 concerning the extinguished prescription  

(As long as the person against whom the limitation runs is prevented by an instance of force majeure to carry out interruption acts; during the period in which the creditor or the debtor is part of the Romanian Army Forces, and they are at 
war; until the settlement of the administrative claim made by the persons entitled, regarding remedies or reimbursements, pursuant to a contract for transportation or for the provision of mail and telecommunications services, but not later 
than the expiry of a 3 months term, calculated as of the date the claim is registered) 

During the validity period of the facility granted according to the law; as long as the debtor removes his incomes and goods from forced execution. 

SI 

INTERR 

SUSP 

EN 

Article 126(2) Tax Procedure Act (ZDavP-2) 

In cases where the sanction is not legally enforceable. If the body responsible for enforcing the sanction takes any action with a view to enforcing the sanction. 
Any official action taken by the tax authority for the purposes of enforcement of which the debtor is informed. 

Article 153 General Administrative Procedures Act (ZUP) 

representative 

If the other party dies; if the other party loses its legal capacity, but has no 
authorised 
temporary 
representative  is  appointed;  if  the  legal  representative  dies  or  loses  legal 
capacity,  but  the  party  concerned  has  no  authorised  representative  and  no 
temporary representative is appointed; if a declaration of bankruptcy has had 
legal  implications  for  the  party  concerned;  if  a  body  decides  that  it  cannot 

the  proceedings  and  no 

for 

101 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
2.3.3. What instances of interruption and suspension are contained in your national law with regard to the limitation period for implementing the decision establishing the administrative measure? 

Please indicate also whether your national law makes a difference between interruption and suspension and, if so, how. 

Member 
State 

For traditional resources, in particular, customs procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

For EAGF, in particular for procedures that may lead to 
administrative measures  

For structural and cohesion funds, in particular for procedures 
that may lead to administrative measures  

resolve  a  preliminary  question  or  that  it  cannot  resolve  it  according  to  the 
law. 

SK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

FI 

INTERR 

SUSP 

SE 

INTERR 

SUSP 

UK 

INTERR 

SUSP 

Paragraph 5 Prescription Act (1981:130) 

The  prescription  is  interrupted  by  the  debtor  undertaking  to  pay,  paying 
interest  or  acknowledging the  demand in  another  way  to  the creditor, the 
creditor  receiving  a  written  demand  or  a  reminder  of  the  demand,  the 
creditor taking legal action or citing the claim on the debtor in a Court or 
corresponding institution. 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3. 

MANAGEMENT  VERIFICATIONS  IN  RESPECT  OF  THE  EUROPEAN  REGIONAL 
DEVELOPMENT FUND

10 

The  Court  of  Auditors  has  so  far  given  only  a  partially  positive  statement  of  assurance  on 
payments from the European Union’s budget, pointing out that the main problem lies in the 
area  where  Member  States  are  primarily  responsible  for  ensuring  financial  control  of  EU 
expenditure.  

Better  knowledge  of  the  nature  of  irregularities,  their  causes  and  the  measures 
Member  States  take  on  detection  could  contribute  towards  obtaining  a  positive 
statement  of  assurance.  Therefore,  this  second  specific  part  of  the  questionnaire  is 
designed to gather information covering this field. 

To limit the extent of the questionnaire, it focuses only on the area of Structural funds and, 
within  this  area,  on  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF).  The  Commission 
already has information on second-level checks (e.g. through the annual reports required by 
Article  13  of  Regulation  438/2001),  and  therefore  the  questions  in  this  section  are  confined 
only to the management verifications (so called “first-level checks”) in the area of ERDF i.e. 
the management verifications under Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 438/2001. 

Article 4 requires Member States’ management and control systems to include procedures to 
verify  the  delivery  of  the  products  and  services  co-financed  and  the  reality  of  expenditure 
claimed and to ensure compliance with the terms of the relevant Commission Decision (under 
Article 28 of Regulation (EC) No 1260/199911) and with applicable national and Community 
rules on, in particular, the eligibility of expenditure, public procurement, State aid, protection 
of  the  environment  and  equality  of  opportunity.  These  management  verifications  are  the 
normal  day-to-day  controls  made  by  management  within  an  organisation  to  ensure  that  the 
processes for which it is responsible are being properly carried out. Such controls carried out 
systematically  and  effectively  are  the  main  procedure  for  preventing  and  detecting 
irregularities before certification of expenditure to the Commission. The results can be used as 
a  basis  for  the  risk  analysis  performed  by  the  audit  services  that  carry  out  second  level 
controls on the national management and control systems. 

Member States are asked to describe their management and control systems as they were set 
up at the end of 2007. When it comes to the reporting about statistical data, the questionnaire 
is limited only to the year 2005, as the Member States should by now have all the necessary 
data  pertaining  to  that  year.  Bulgaria  and  Romania  which  at  that  time  were  not  yet  the 
beneficiaries  of  ERDF  are  asked  to  answer  all  the  questions  in  this  section,  which  do  not 
require numerical data and in this way describe the present situation in the field concerned. 

10 

11 

This  information  coming  from  Member  States  has  not  been  cross-checked  with  data  available  in  the 
Commission’s Directorate-General for Regional Policy at the date of publication of the present Report.  
OJ L 161, 26.6.1999, p. 1–42 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.1. 

Guidelines for management verifications 

The  Commission  (Directorate-General  for  Regional  Policy)  sent  the  Member  States 
guidelines on the application of Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 438/2001 (doc. 
of  3  June  2006  entitled  “Working  document  concerning  good  practice  in  relation  to 
management verifications to be carried out by Member States on projects co-financed by the 
Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund”).  Have  these  guidelines  been  sent  to  all  the 
managing authorities (to be understood as covering also intermediate bodies where the task of 
management  verifications  has  been  entrusted  to  one  or  more  intermediate  bodies)  of  all 
programmes in your Member State? If so, were they sent in their original form or did you use 
them  to  draw  up  or  update  national  guidelines?  Please  provide  a  list  of  the  managing 
authorities for each category. 

3.1. Guidelines for management verifications 

Member 
State 

guidelines 
Commission 
sent 
managing 
to 
authorities in their original 
form  

sent 

to 
Guidelines 
managing  authorities  in 
the  form  of  national 
guidelines  drawn  up  or 
updated  on  the  basis  of 
the 
Commission 
guidelines  

Guidelines not sent to 
managing  authorities 
(or  no  information  in 
the  answer 
the 
questionnaire) 

to 

BE 

Flemish Region 

Walloon Region 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

Regional 
for 
Ministry 
Development (but not sent to 
entities  in  charge  of  grant 
schemes). 

Operational  Programme 
of  Rural  Development 
and 
Multifunctional 
Agriculture. 

some 

In 
Ministry 
Development. 

cases 

also 
for  Regional 

Agency  for  Enterprise  and 
Construction MA. 

X 

X  (Ministry  of  Finance). 
at 
Guidelines 

available 

German 
Community 

speaking 

information 
(No 
concerning  Brussels-
Capital Region). 

(No 
information 
concerning other MA). 

EN 

104 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.1. Guidelines for management verifications 

Member 
State 

guidelines 
Commission 
sent 
managing 
to 
authorities in their original 
form  

sent 

Guidelines 
to 
managing  authorities  in 
the  form  of  national 
guidelines  drawn  up  or 
updated  on  the  basis  of 
the 
Commission 
guidelines  

Guidelines not sent to 
managing  authorities 
(or  no  information  in 
the  answer 
the 
questionnaire) 

to 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

www.sturktuurifondid.ee 

X 

X12 

X (some MAs) 

X13 (other MAs) 

X (all MAs) 

X (all MAs) 

X14 

support 

Ministry 
Economic 
for 
Development,  MA  NOP 
Technical 
and 
system  actions;  Ministry  for 
for 
Infrastructure,  MAs 
Transport  and  Urban 
II; 
Trento  SF  department,  MA 
of Valle d’Aosta. 

CY 

Planning bureau (MA) 

Ministry  of  the  interior 
(IB) 

X 

LV 

LT 

X15 

Ministry  for Economic 
Development, 
Directorate-General 
for the Coordination of 
Incentives 
for 
Companies.  Abruzzo 
MAs; Veneto MAs. 

(No 
concerning 
MAs). 

information 
other 

12 

13 

14 

15 

Series of Checklists developed in early 2007 designed to ensure consistency and provide guidance and 
to improve documentation of Article 4 checks. Checklists sent to all Managing Authorities 
Revised  guidelines  for  audits  by  managing  authorities  under  Art.  [4]  Reg.  438/2001,  ref.  no. 
4574/EYS570/ 31.01.2007, amending and supplementing guidelines for audits by managing authorities 
under Art. 4 Reg. 438/2001, ref. no. 13985/EYS 2856/ 14.04.2005. Notified to all managing authorities 
of operational programmes under the 3rd CSF. 
Additionally, very precise national instructions have been sent to all the managing authorities without 
exception  on  the  application  of  Article  4  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  438/2001  in  respect  of  all  French 
regional and national programmes. 
The procedure for carrying out on-the-spot checks pursuant Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 438/2001 is laid down in the Administrative and Financial Rules governing measures contained in 
Lithuania's  2004–2006  single  programming  document  and  projects  financed  under  these  measures, 
approved under Minster of Finance Order No 1K-033 of 28 January 2004 (Official Gazette 2004, No 

EN 

105 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.1. Guidelines for management verifications 

Member 
State 

guidelines 
Commission 
sent 
managing 
to 
authorities in their original 
form  

sent 

Guidelines 
to 
managing  authorities  in 
the  form  of  national 
guidelines  drawn  up  or 
updated  on  the  basis  of 
the 
Commission 
guidelines  

Guidelines not sent to 
managing  authorities 
(or  no  information  in 
the  answer 
the 
questionnaire) 

to 

LU 

HU 

X 

The guidelines are published 
in  their  original  form  on  the 
homepage 
http://www2.pm.gov.hu/ 
web/home.nsf/portalarticles 
/5406CAEA6DE651BFC12571 
BE0034301C?OpenDocument  

MT 

X 

X 

X 

X (all MAs) 

X (all MAs) 

X (All MAs) 

X16 

IROP, IZ IROP17. 

No information. 

PONORTE,  POLVT, 
PRODESA,  POATQA 
PICURBANI 
and 
PORT. No information 
concerning other MAs. 

X 

X 

X18 

MA  Productive  Sector  OP 
and  MA  Competitiveness 
and Economic Growth OP. 

Intermediate 
Competitiveness 
Economic Growth OP. 

bodies 
and 

of 
Ministry 
Construction 
and 
Regional development: 
sent its own guidelines 

19-599;  2005,  No  21-667The  Handbook  on  the  Managing  Authority's  Working  Procedures  has  been 
amended. 
Working  documents  are  made  available  to  all  managing  authorities  in  the  ÖROK  (Austrian  Regional 
Planning Conference) working party. 
The updated document “IZ IROP Guidelines on on-the-spot Monitoring/Check Visits Issued Pursuant 
to Article 4 of Commission Regulation 438/2001” took into account EC guidelines. 
On the basis of the guidelines, the Managing Authority's Instructions for Structural Fund Management 
and  Control  Systems  were  updated  in  March  2007  and  sent  to  all  ministries  acting  as  intermediate 
bodies. 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

16 

17 

18 

EN 

106 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.1. Guidelines for management verifications 

Member 
State 

guidelines 
Commission 
sent 
managing 
to 
authorities in their original 
form  

FI 

SE 

UK 

X 

England19 

sent 

Guidelines 
to 
managing  authorities  in 
the  form  of  national 
guidelines  drawn  up  or 
updated  on  the  basis  of 
the 
Commission 
guidelines  

Guidelines not sent to 
managing  authorities 
(or  no  information  in 
the  answer 
the 
questionnaire) 

to 

(guidelines  2004  and 
2005). 

X 

Wales, Northern Ireland20 Scotland21 

19 

20 

21 

Guidelines  sent  to  Government  offices  in  their  original  form  as  part  of,  and  an  updated,  national 
guidance GN2.6 of November 2006. 
Northern Ireland: Guidelines have not been sent in their original form, they had to be amended to reflect 
local requirements. Guidance Note on requirements and procedures for completing Article 4 checks – 
with detailed checklists - has been sent. 
As a monitoring authority (MA), the Scottish Government developed own guidelines (no information 
on the date of the document, nor the content). 

EN 

107 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2. 

Actual conduct of verifications under Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) 
No 438/2001 and the authorities conducting them 

3.2.1.  Article  4  verifications  are  essentially  the  responsibility  of  the  managing  authority,22 
which  has  the  possibility  of  delegating  tasks  to  intermediate  bodies.23  Under  certain 
conditions some or all aspects of the verifications may also be outsourced to external firms.  

Article 4 verifications comprise two key components, namely desk-based checks and on-the-
spot checks. 

3.2.1.1. As regards desk-based checks, please indicate whether all documents relating to 
projects and expenditure claims are always subject to in-depth desk-based checks at the 
various stages of project implementation.24 

3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation 

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l

p
m

i

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

BE 

Yes25 

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b

i
g
i
l
e

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
c
/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i

d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

y
t
i
l
i

b

i
g
i
l

E

GSC
26 

FDE
27 

BC28 

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

GSC 

BC  GSC 

BC 

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l

b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l

b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l

u
r
d

i
a
e
t
a
t
S

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

BC  BC 

100% 

GS
C 

GS
C 

BC 

BC 

CZ 

Yes 
(except 
Ministr
y of 
Agricult

MT29  ME30  ME 

MIT 

MT 

MIT31 

MRD 
(Inter
reg) 

ME 

MT 

  MT 

MI
T 

13.84% 
(MA) 

95-
100% 

22 
23 

24 

25 
26 
27 
28 

For the definition of managing authorities, see Article 9 (n) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1260/1999. 
Intermediate  bodies  are  all  public  or  private  bodies  or  services  acting  under  the  responsibility  of 
managing (or paying) authorities or performing tasks on their behalf in relation to final beneficiaries or 
the bodies or firms carrying out actual operations. 
In-depth desk-based checks would include examination of the claim itself and the relevant supporting 
documentation,  such  as  invoices,  delivery  notes,  bank  statements,  engineers'  certificates,  progress 
reports  and  timesheets.  It  would  include,  as  a  minimum,  a  list  and  description  of  the  invoices  which 
support the claim, and details of contracts awarded. 
Except a Flemish Institute for the Promotion of Scientific and Technical Research in Industry (IWT). 
German speaking Community.. 
Federal Department for the Economy. 
Brussels-Capital Region. 

EN 

108 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation 

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

X 

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
g
i
l

E

MRD
32 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l
b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l
b
u
P

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l
u
r
d
i
a
e
t
a
t
S

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

X 

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

(other 
ministri
es) 

- 

100% 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

100% 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

100% 

100% 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

- 

- 

100% 
(most 
bodies) 
50% 
(Piedmo
nt) 
14% 
(Basilic
ata) 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

ure). 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b
i
g
i
l
e

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

DK33 

No 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

DE34 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

CY 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

LV 

LT 

LU 

29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Ministry of Transport. 
Ministry of Environment. 
Ministry of Industry and Trade. 
Ministry of Regional Development. 
For Denmark, information is available only for Objective 2 programmes. 
Only  three  Land  ministries  supplied  the  data  for  this  table.  Germany  indicated  that  « all  statutory 
provisions are scrutinised », but did not give detailed information on subjects matter of checks. 

EN 

109 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation 

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b
i
g
i
l
e

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

HU 

Yes35 

MT 

Yes 

NL 

AT 

PL 

X 

X 

X 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

IROP 

IROP 
SOP 
ECG 

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

X 

X 

X 

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
g
i
l

E

X 

X 

X 

IROP 

IROP 

IROP 

OP-
TA37 

SOP 
ECG 

X 

IROP 

IR
OP 

SO
P 
EC
G 

PT  

Yes 

X 

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l
u
r
d
i
a
e
t
a
t
S

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l
b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l
b
u
P

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

100% 

100% 

X 

X 

IR
OP 

SO
PT 

X 

X 

IR
OP 

SO
PT 

X 

X 

IR
OP 

SO
PT 

X 

X 

X 

IR
OP 

SO
PT 

X 

100%36 

IR
OP 

100% 

100% 
(except 
SOPT 
3.29%) 

X 

X 

100% 
(most 
MAs) 

20%, 
52% 
and 
74.85% 
(3 MAs) 

RO 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

SI 

SK 

Yes 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

- 

- 

94-
100% 

(except: 
3.62% 
PSOP, 
1% 

35 

36 
37 

Hungary  indicated  that  the  check  is  « complete »,  but  did  not  give  detailed  information  on  subjects 
matter of checks. 
Except Municipality of Maastricht and Ministry of Internal affairs. 
OP Technical assistance. 

EN 

110 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.1. a) Verification of expenditure claims during project implementation 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

FI 

SE 

UK 

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b
i
g
i
l
e

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
c
/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
g
i
l

E

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l
u
r
d
i
a
e
t
a
t
S

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l
b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l
b
u
P

Yes38 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

W 

E, NI 

E, NI 

NI 

Yes39 

Yes: 
England 
(E)40, 
Norther
n 
Ireland 
(NI)41 

No: 
Wales 
(W)42, 
Scotlan
d43. 

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

Interreg
) 

100% 

100% 

100% 
(E, NI) 

38 

39 
40 

41 
42 

43 

Finnish authorities also verify that the expenditure is reasonable and necessary for the implementation 
of the project, the compliance with employment law, VAT expenditures.  
No indication of subject matter of checks.  
Transactional  chacklist  of  invoices  and  progress  report  are  made  with  each  claim,  and  eligibility  of 
invoices. 
Eligibility invoices, procurement, payroll and bank statements. 
All  claims  are  checked  for  accuracy,  compliance  with  approved  expenditure  categories/activity, 
progress against monitoring targets and special conditions of grants. 
In Scotland, sampling is used as basis for checks which covers all aspects of the expenditure.  

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project 

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b
i
g
i
l
e

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
g
i
l

E

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l
u
r
d
i
a
e
t
a
t
S

BE 

Yes 

GSC 

GSC 

BC  GSC 

CZ 

Yes 
(except 
MT) 

FDE 

BC 

BC 

MF44 

ME 

MIT 

MIT 

MRD 

MRD 
(Inter
reg) 

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

- 

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l
b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l
b
u
P

GSC 

BC  BC 

BC 

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

GS
C 

BC 

MI
T 

5% (MIT) 

35% (ME) 

100% 
(ME, 
MRD) 

DK 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

- 

DE45 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Not 
applica
ble 

Yes 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

- 

- 

100% 
(most 
bodies) 
14% 
(Basilicata
) 

44 
45 

Ministry of Finance. 
Only  three  Land  ministries  supplied  the  data  for  this  table.  Germany  indicated  that  « all  statutory 
provisions are scrutinised », but did not give detailed information on subjects matter of checks. 

EN 

112 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project 

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b
i
g
i
l
e

X 

X 

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

X 

X 

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

X 

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
g
i
l

E

X 

X 

X 

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

X 

X 

X 

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

X 

X 

X 

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

X 

X 

X 

s
e
l
u
r
d
i
a
e
t
a
t
S

X 

X 

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

X 

X 

X 

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l
b
u
P

X 

X 

X 

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l
b
u
P

X 

X 

X 

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

CY 

Yes 

LV 

LT 

LU 

Yes 

Yes 

Not 
applica
ble46 

HU47 

Yes 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

Not 
applica
ble48 

Yes 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

100% 

Yes49 

IROP 

IROP 

IROP 

IROP 

IR
OP 

SOP-
ECG 

PT  

Yes 

X 

OP-
TA50 

SOP-
ECG 

X 

IROP 

IR
OP 

IR
OP 

IROP 

IR
OP 

IR
OP 

IR
OP 

SO
P-
EC
G 

X 

X 

100% 
(most 

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

100% 

100% 

100% 

100% 

- 

100% 

100% 

46 

47 

48 
49 

50 

All  projects  are  verified  100%  during  the  process  of  implementation.  No  control  takes  place  at  the 
closure of the project.  
Hungary  indicated  that  the  check  is  « complete »,  but  did  not  give  detailed  information  on  subjects 
matter of checks. 
No project was finalised in 2005 for Malta. 
As  an  exception,  two  managing  authorities  state  that  the  expenses  are  verified  in  the  course  of  the 
projects.  The  final  report  verifies  the  conformity  of  the  project’s  results  compared  to  the  objectives 
stipulated in the candidacy. 
OP Technical assistance. 

EN 

113 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.1. b) Verification of expenditure claims at the closure of the project 

f
o

s
k
c
e
h
c

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d

h
t
p
e
d
-
n
I

t
c
e
j
o
r
p

g
n
i
r
u
d

s
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

l
l
a

)
o
N
/
s
e
Y

(
n
o
i
t
a
t
n
e
m
e
l
p
m

i

Subject matter of checks 

e
h
t

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

d
o
i
r
e
p
e
l
b
i
g
i
l
e

n
a

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l
p
m
o
C

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

y
t
i
l
i
b
i
g
i
l

E

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

g
n
i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l
u
r

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l
u
r
d
i
a
e
t
a
t
S

y
t
i
n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p
c
i
l
b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l
b
u
P

r
o
f

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

f
o
e
g
a
t
n
e
c
r
e
P

d
e
r
e
v
o
c

5
0
0
2

MAs) 

20%, 52% 
and 
74.85% (3 
MAs) 

- 

- 

RO 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

SI 

SK 

Yes 

Yes 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

94-100% 

(except: 
0.64% 
MA SOP, 
0% 
Interreg) 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

100% 

E 

100% 

100% (E, 
NI) 

FI51 

SE52 

UK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 
(Englan
d (E)53, 
Norther
n 
Ireland 
(NI)54) 
No 
(Wales, 

51 

52 
53 

54 

Finnish  authorities  also  verify  that  the  monitoring  information  is  correct,  the  project  has  attained  its 
objectives and the on-the-spot verification has been appropriately performed and documented.  
No indication of subject matter of checks.  
In England, independent audit certificate is required under a threshold. If below the threshold, the final 
claim is checked by GO to ensure compliance with the grant offer.  
In  compliance  with  agreed  Closure  guidance  and  checklist  (the  answer  to  the  questionnaire  did  not 
contain information on subject matter of checks).  

EN 

114 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
5
5

I
n
S
c
o
t
l
a
n
d
,

s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g

i
s
u
s
e
d
a
s

b
a
s
i
s

f
o
r

c
h
e
c
k
s
w
h
i
c
h

c
o
v
e
r
s

a
l
l

a
s
p
e
c
t
s
o
f

t
h
e

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
.

E
N

1
1
5

E
N

d
5
5

)
.

S
c
o
t
l
a
n

3
.
2
.
1
.
1
.

b
)

V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f

e
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e

c
l
a
i
m

s

a
t

t
h
e

c
l
o
s
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t

Member State 

In-depth  desk-based  checks  of 
all  projects  during  project 
implementation (Yes/No) 

Expenditure related to the 
eligible period 

Expenditure  related  to  an 
approved 
project/Compliance 

Compliance 
programme conditions 

with 

Eligibility 

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

m
a
t
t
e
r

o
f

c
h
e
c
k
s

Delivery 
services co-financed 

of 

products/ 

Accounting checks 

Adequacy  of  supporting 
documents 

State aid rules 

Environmental rules 

Equal 
requirements 

opportunity 

Public procurement rules 

Publicity rules 

Percentage of expenditure for 
2005 covered 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1.2. a) As regards on-the-spot checks, please provide the total number of checks carried 
out at the various stages of project implementation and specify which authorities carried 
them out. 

Verification during project implementation 

Verification on closure of the project 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE59 

IE 

EL63 

ES 

FR 

56 

57 

58 
59 

60 
61 
62 

63 

64 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
managing 
authority 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
intermedi
ate body 

No.  of  on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
outsourcin
g 

Percentage 
of 
expenditure 
for 
2005 
covered 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
managing 
authority 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
intermedi
ate body 

Percentage 
of 
expenditure 
for 
2005 
covered 

No.  of 
on-the-
spot 
checks 
by 
outsour
cing 

39556 

0 

49 

1802 

0 

557 
Figures 
are not 
complete. 
See point 
3.3.1. 

0 

97 

2667 

41 

0 

- 

532 

118860 

0 

273 

2 

37 

0 

- 

1 

0 

3.14% (GC) 

368 

100% (MT) 
97% (MIT) 
7% (MA) 

88 

6 

635 

0 

0 

- 

5% (MIT) 
100% (MA) 

0 

0 

0 

All 
projects 

100% 

3.33% 
(Hamburg) 
38% 
(Thuringia) 

- 

5%-100%61 

0 

962 

2858 

532 

- 

0 

0.71% 
(Hamburg) 
12% 
(Thuringia) 
26% 
(Rhineland 
Palatinate) 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1454 

30.89 

83.34% 

N/a 

N/a 

N/a 

N/a 

392 per programme64 

1454 

30.89 

2667 

For  the  Ministry  of  the  Walloon  Region,  in  relation  382  on-the-spot  checks  were  conducted  by  the 
competent  functional  administrative  units  in  these  programme  monitoring  data  base  (not  possible  to 
give details concerning the stages of project implementation.  
5 checks carried out by the authorities of Hamburg. It comprises also intermediate bodies or outsourced 
checks. 
Rhineland Palatinate. 
It  is  not  possible  to  distinguish  upon  completion  of  the  checks  or  during  implementation.  The  case 
number 532 consists of checks which were made from 2004 to 30.6.2007. 
MA have advised that this figure is correct due to there being many small projects in the Peace II OP. 
22%(BMW), 15% (S&E), 10%(Urban), 5% (Peace II), 71% (Technical Assistance), ESIOP: 100%. 
In most of MAs, data are not available yet. MAs have advised that all projects are subject to the same 
degree of scrutiny by the MAs and the Implementing Bodies. No particular distinction is made between 
interim and final claims at a project level. 
Not  possible  to  identify  which  verifications  were  conducted  during  implementation  and  which  on 
closure. 
On  an  average  basis,  392  potentially  verifiable  operations  were  carried  out  per  programme  for  2005, 
given  that  between  January  2000  and  31  December  2005  the  average  number  of  operations  per 

EN 

116 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.2. a) As regards on-the-spot checks, please provide the total number of checks carried 
out at the various stages of project implementation and specify which authorities carried 
them out. 

Verification during project implementation 

Verification on closure of the project 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
managing 
authority 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
intermedi
ate body 

No.  of  on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
outsourcin
g 

Percentage 
of 
expenditure 
for 
2005 
covered 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
managing 
authority 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
intermedi
ate body 

Percentage 
of 
expenditure 
for 
2005 
covered 

No.  of 
on-the-
spot 
checks 
by 
outsour
cing 

482 

101 

117 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

0 

0 

5 

4667 

31 

7 

-70 

1 

53 

183 

- 

3396 

-68 

- 

- 

9 

0 

- 

- 

- 

- 

0 

AT71  1  (during 

project 
implement
ation 
+ 
closure) 

685 
(during 
project 
implement
ation 
+ 
closure) 

100% (most 
bodies) 
2.16% - 
26% (other 
bodies65) 
100% 

15% 

- 

200% 

- 

-69 

- 

1308 

2481 

417 

N/a 

N/a 

N/a 

0 

- 

- 

6 

- 

- 

13 

730 

- 

- 

- 

- 

3 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

No  data  for 
on-the-spot 
checks72. 

1  (during 
project 
implement
ation 
+ 
closure) 

685 
(during 
project 
implement
ation 
+ 
closure) 

100% (most 
bodies) 
5.5%-15% 
(other 
bodies66) 
N/a 

4.27% 

- 

- 

- 

- 

100% 

No  data  for 
on-the-spot 
checks. 

programme was 2 355, with verification during project implementation for the most important ones, or 
upon  closure  before  payment  of  the  balance  of  the  ERDF  contribution.  The  on-the-spot  checks  are 
systematically followed with an inspection report attached to the "service delivered" control certificate. 
26%  (Liguria),  14%  (Basilicata),  10%  (Sicily),  4.92%  (Calabria),  3%  (Piedmont,  Lombardy),  2.16% 
(Veneto). 
26% (Liguria), 23.27% (Veneto), 30% (Abruzzo), 10% (Sicily, Marche), 8.3% (Ministry of education), 
7% (Lombardy), 5.5% (Piedmont)), 14% (Basilicata), 10% (Sicily), 4.92% (Calabria), 3% (Piedmont, 
Lombardy), 2.16% (Veneto). 
Checks following payment requests. 
No intermediate body for ERDF in Malta. 
In 2005, the Article 4 check template did not indicate the expenditure checked during the verification 
check.  Following  the  EU  Commission’s  ERDF  audit,  the  template  was  adjusted  to  include  the  table 
indicating the expenditure checked. 
Ministry of internal affairs : each project checked once. 
Statistics concerns year 2006. Under Austria's management and control system intermediate bodies are 
responsible  for  the  implementation  of  projects  and  verifications  pursuant  to  Article  4  of  Regulation 

65 

66 

67 
68 
69 

70 
71 

EN 

117 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.2.1.2. a) As regards on-the-spot checks, please provide the total number of checks carried 
out at the various stages of project implementation and specify which authorities carried 
them out. 

Verification during project implementation 

Verification on closure of the project 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

PL 

PT  

SI 

SK 

FI 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
managing 
authority 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
intermedi
ate body 

No.  of  on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
outsourcin
g 

Percentage 
of 
expenditure 
for 
2005 
covered 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
managing 
authority 

No. of on-
the-spot 
checks  by 
intermedi
ate body 

207 

191773 

0 

1805 

19 

94 

6 

207674 

784 

88 

100% 
(IROP) 
2% (OP TA) 

Over 51% 
(for more 
then half of 
MA) 
- 

0.07% to 
100%76 
8 projects 
out of 12 
were visited 
(Åland). 

9 

10 

- 

1 

83 

- 

2575 

165 

1390 + 15 
in Åland 

0 

0 

- 

- 

SE78 

- 

- 

UK 

368879 

1754 (NI) 

8 (NI) 

- 

- 

10% 
England80 

for 

100 (W) 

Percentage 
of 
expenditure 
for 
2005 
covered 

No.  of 
on-the-
spot 
checks 
by 
outsour
cing 

0 

0 

0 

0 

- 

- 

- 

100% 
(IROP) 
19% (SOP 
ECG) 
Over 96% 
(for more 
then half of 
MA) 
- 

0.09% to 
100%77 
82% for 
Åland 
Objective 2 
programme 
2000-2006. 
- 

32.6% for 
England 

0 

9 

- 

- 

- 

72 

73 

74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 

80 

(EC)  No  438/2001.  Furthermore,  on-the-spot  checks  are  usually  carried  out  before  the  completion  of 
projects  and  disbursement  of  funds.  It  is  impossible  to  provide  a  breakdown  for  the  project 
implementation and project closure phases as no data exist. 
Total of 113% of expenditure declared checked (desk check + on the spot). Duplication consequently 
unavoidable. 
In total the intermediate bodies carried out in 2005 1664 controls at the project implementation sites for IROP. On 
the  basis  of  data  held  by  MA  IROP  for  2005  it  is  not  possible  to  establish  how  many  controls  were  carried  out 
during project implementation, and how many were completed. 
See footnote above concerning IROP 
25 checks were made in 2005, 89 in 2006 and 261 in 2007. 
3.36% Ministry of Economy, 100% Environment Ministry, 92% CPD 2, 96% BIOP, 0.07% Interreg.  
0.09% Ministry of Economy, 100% Environment Ministry, 92% CPD 2.  
No data available.  
3469 checks carried out by England GOs, some with the help of independent accountants; 119 checks 
carried  out  by  Northern  Ireland  managing  authorities,  100  by  Wales  managing  authorities.  No  data 
available for Scotland. 
In England, as agreed by the European Commission, 30% of the total expenditure declared is subject to 
Article 4 checks. No data available for Northern Ireland and Scotland. For Wales, on the spot visits are 
not  based on  percentage  of  eligible  expenditure, WEFO  agreed with  the  Commission  to  visit  50% of 
approved projects in every calendar year from 2006 until the end of the programme period. 

EN 

118 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks. 

Stage of the project: 
during 
project 
implementation/at 
the  closure  of  the 
project 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

BE81 

During pr. impl. 

At the closure 

During pr. impl. 

CZ 

At the closure 

During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 

At the closure 

DK 

DE83 

EE 

IE 

Subject matter of checks 

c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
C

/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

n
a

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

X 

X 
X 

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
  C
e

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

FR82 

MT 
MIT 

MIT 

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

y
t
i
l
i

b

i
g
i
l

E

GC 
FR 
GC 

MIT 

MIT 

X 
X 

GC 
FR 
GC 
FR 
MF, MT, 
MIT 

MF 
MIT 

X 

X 

X 

FR 

X 
X 

X 

X 

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

g
n

i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

GC 

GC 

s
e
l

u
r
d

i
a
e
t
a
t
S

GC 

GC 

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l
u
r

GC 

GC 
FR 
MF 

y
t
i

n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

GC 

GC 
FR 
MF 

MF 

MF 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p

c
i
l

b
u
P

GC 

GC 
FR 
MF 
MT 

MF 

X 

X 
X 

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l

b
u
P

GC 

GC 
FR 
MF 
MT 
MIT 
MF 
MIT 

X 
X 

81 
82 
83 

Subject matter of checks not listed in the answer to the questionnaire for Walloon Region. 
Flemish Region.  
Subject matter of checks not listed in the German answer to the questionnaire (the answer mentions “all statutory provisions”). 

EN 

119 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks. 

Stage of the project: 
during 
project 
implementation/at 
the  closure  of  the 
project 

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

During pr. impl. 

EL84  At the closure 

Subject matter of checks 

n
a

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
  C
e

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
l
i

b

i
g
i
l

E

c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
C

/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU85 

MT

84 
85 

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

X 
X 

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

g
n

i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l

u
r
d

i
a
e
t
a
t
S

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i

n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

c
i
l

b
u
P

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

X 

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p

X 
X 

X 

X 

X 
X 
X 
X 
X 

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l

b
u
P

X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 
X 

Not possible to identify which verifications were conducted during implementation and which on closure. 
Hungary indicated that the check is « complete », but did not give detailed information on subjects matter of checks. 

EN 

120 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.1.2. b) As regards on-the-spot checks, please specify the subject matter of checks. 

Subject matter of checks 

Stage of the project: 
during 
project 
implementation/at 
the  closure  of  the 
project 

n
a

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
E

o
t

d
e
t
a
l
e
r

d
e
v
o
r
p
p
a

c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
C

/
t
c
e
j
o
r
p

e
t
a
t
S
r
e
b
m
e
M

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT86 

SI 

At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 

IROP 

At the closure 

IROP 

During pr. impl. 
At the closure 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure87 
During pr. impl. 
At the closure 

SK 
FI88 During pr. impl. 

X 

X 
X 
X 

h
t
i

w

e
c
n
a
i
l

p
m
o
  C
e

e
m
m
a
r
g
o
r
p

s
n
o
i
t
i
d
n
o
c

y
t
i
l
i

b

i
g
i
l

E

f
o

y
r
e
v
i
l
e
D

s
e
c
i
v
r
e
s
/
s
t
c
u
d
o
r
p

d
e
c
n
a
n
i
f
-
o
c

s
k
c
e
h
c

g
n
i
t
n
u
o
c
c
A

f
o

y
c
a
u
q
e
d
A

g
n

i
t
r
o
p
p
u
s

s
t
n
e
m
u
c
o
d

s
e
l

u
r
d

i
a
e
t
a
t
S

l
a
t
n
e
m
n
o
r
i
v
n
E

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i

n
u
t
r
o
p
p
o

l
a
u
q
E

s
t
n
e
m
e
r
i
u
q
e
r

s
e
l
u
r

t
n
e
m
e
r
u
c
o
r
p

c
i
l

b
u
P

s
e
l
u
r

y
t
i
c
i
l

b
u
P

X 
X 
X 
X 
IROP 
OP -TA 

IROP 

X 

X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
IROP 
SOP-
ECG 
IROP 
SOP-
ECG 
X 
X 
X 

X 
X 
X 

SOP-
ECG 

SOP-
ECG 

X 
X 
X 

SOP-ECG  SOPT 

SOPT 

SOPT 

SOP-ECG  SOPT 

SOPT 

SOPT 

X 

X 

X 

X 
X 

X 
X 

SOPT 
SOP-
ECG 
SOPT 
SOP-
ECG 

X 

X 

SOPT 

SOPT 

X 

X 

X 
X 

86 
87 
88 

Some managing authorities did not submit statistical data regarding the on-the-spot checks, because the 2005 figures were not recorded. 
No data available. 
No data available, except Åland. 

EN 

121 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
E
N

8
9

N
o
d
a
t
a

a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.

1
2
2

E
N

3
.
2
.
1
.
2
.

b
)

A
s

r
e
g
a
r
d
s
o
n
-
t
h
e
-
s
p
o
t

c
h
e
c
k
s
,

p
l
e
a
s
e

s
p
e
c
i
f
y
t
h
e

s
u
b
j
e
c
t

m
a
t
t
e
r
o
f

c
h
e
c
k
s
.

U
K

S
E

Member State 

A

t

t
h
e

c
l
o
s
u
r
e

8
9

D
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
.

i

m
p
l
.

A

t

t
h
e

c
l
o
s
u
r
e

A

t

t
h
e

c
l
o
s
u
r
e

D
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
.

i

m
p
l
.

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

i

m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
a
t

t
h
e

c
l
o
s
u
r
e

o
f

t
h
e

d
u
r
i
n
g

p
r
o
j
e
c
t

S
t
a
g
e

o
f

t
h
e

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
:

X

Expenditure 
related 
to 
approved 
project/Complianc
e 

an 

Compliance  with 
programme 
conditions 

Eligibility 

X

S
u
b
j
e
c
t

m
a
t
t
e
r

o
f

c
h
e
c
k
s

X

X

Delivery 
products/services 
co-financed 

of 

Accounting checks 

X

X

X

X

X

Adequacy 
supporting 
documents 

of 

State aid rules 

Environmental 
rules 

Equal  opportunity 
requirements 

Public 
procurement rules 

Publicity rules 

X

X

X

X

X

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.1.3. Are records of checks performed and irregularities detected in projects kept in 
the programme monitoring database? (Yes/No) 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

Yes (except Brussels-Capital). 

Yes. 

Yes.  Information  only  on  Objective  2  programmes.  Other  programmes:  no 
information. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes:  Valle  d’Aosta  RA,  Ministry  for  Economic  Development,  Basilicata  RA, 
Sicily  RA,  Calabria  RA,  Ministry  for  Infrastructure,  Emilia  Romagna  RA, 
Piedmont  RA,  Ministry  of  the  Interior,  Abruzzi  RA,  Lombardy  RA,  Ministry  of 
Education, Marche RA, Autonomous Province of Trento, Veneto RA90. 

No: Campania RA, Tuscany RA, Ministry for Universities and Research, Veneto 
RA91, Lazio RA, Liguria RA, Puglia RA. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Yes92 

90 
91 

SPD Objective 2 2000/2006 and Interreg III Italy-Slovenia 
Interreg III Italy-Austria 

EN 

123 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2.1.3. Are records of checks performed and irregularities detected in projects kept in 
the programme monitoring database? (Yes/No) 

PL 

Yes: IROP93, SOPT, OP – Technical Assistance, SOP ECG 

No: IROP94, INTERREG 

PT 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

Yes. Certain managing authorities mentioned there is a record of all irregularities 
detected  in  the  management  control  system.  However,  there  is  no  systematic 
record in computer applications of all the checks made. 

No. 

Yes (ITMS). 

Yes95 (except Åland). 

Yes. Summaries are available at the administrative authorities. 

UK 

Northern Ireland, Wales and England: Yes. 

Scotland: No. 

92 

93 

94 

95 

Verification reports were drawn up. In the case of recoveries information recorded in ERDF monitoring 
system/payment agency system. 
The SIMIK system registers management and control systems of controls and irregularities relating to reporting to 
the EC. 
The  SIMIK  system  does  not  register  the  control  of  projects  carried  out  under  controls  pursuant  to  Article  4  of 
Regulation  438/2001.  In  the  programme  implementation  reports  the  Intermediate  and  Implementing  Institutions 
inform  the  Managing  Authority  about  the  number  of  controls  carried  out.  Furthermore,  MA  IROP  verifies  and 
approves Intermediate Institution control plans.  
Yes, but the Fimos2000 monitoring system's information content is not in a standard form but has been 
based on an open text field. Therefore, a paying authority guideline (SM-2005-02936/Ha-63) has been 
issued, according to which the Ministries and Regional Councils using ERDF funds have to report to 
the  paying  authority  recorded  information  on  all  verifications  that  gave  rise  to  comments.  The 
information can be reported either as copies of the original forms or the monitoring system, provided 
that the information has been comprehensively recorded therein (code/name of the project, date of the 
verification,  name  of  the  verifier,  results  of  the  verification  and  measures  implemented  in  respect  of 
irregularities). If the above information has been recorded in or transferred to Fimos, separate reporting 
to  the  paying  authority  is  not  necessary.  Also  the  follow-up  measures,  if  any,  are  reported.  The 
information is reported to the paying authority twice a year. 

EN 

124 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
3.2.2. If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method  is  used  to  determine  what  operations  will  be  subject  to  such  checks?  Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling? 

BE 

German speaking community: random principle (7.14% of the projects), and risk 
analysis based on previous reporting, previous errors or irregularities. 

Walloon  Region:  in  general,  100%  of  files  are  checked,  but  when  a  sampling 
method is used, it is a random sampling method (some Directorate Generald); or 
random  principle  combined  with  risk  analysis.  Directorate  General  Natural 
Resources  and  Environment:  checks  when  problem  detected  by 
the 
Accompaniment Committee. 

CZ 

When  100%  is  not  checked,  the  sampling  method  used  is  a  combination  of 
analysis and representative sampling, or a risk analysis based sampling. Risk 
analysis is related to, in particular, the amount of the subsidy for a project, number 
of stages, rating determined in selecting a project, number of employees and so on. 

MRD:  systematic checks of all projects up  to  a defined  amount, risk analysis 
for the other projects. 

DK 

A model with weighted risk and significance is used. 

EE 

IE 

EL 

When 100% is not checked, samples based on a risk-assessment. 

BMW, S&E, Urban: Risk Analysis- Based. 

PSOP, Peace II, Tech. Asst., ESIOP: Representative Sampling. 

The  sampling  method  used  is  multi-stage,  layered  sampling  to  determine 
representative sample. 

EN 

125 

   EN 

 
3.2.2. If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method  is  used  to  determine  what  operations  will  be  subject  to  such  checks?  Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling? 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

Risk analysis and cover of all executive bodies at the end of the period. 

There are two possibilities: 

1)  Based  on  representative  sampling  of  operations  and  beneficiaries, 
incorporating  the  following  risk  criteria:  amount  of  the  operation  and  of  the 
grant; type of operation; status of beneficiaries. 

2) Systematic inspection before payment of the balance of the ERDF contribution. 
In France, many provisions on the allocation of public funds entail compulsory on-
the-spot inspections (approval of tourism services, for example). 

There is also a systematic requirement for the commissioning of certain types of 
projects  to  be  inspected  on  the  spot  by  the  competent  State  technical 
departments.96 

The most commonly used method used to determine which operations have to be 
checked  is  the  “representative  sample,”  adjusted  where  necessary  following 
risk assessment. 

Risk analysis. 

Checks  are  carried  out  on  all  beneficiaries.  If  the  beneficiary  implements  more 
than  one  structural  fund  project,  project  risk  assessment  is  taken  into  account 
when  establishing  the  set  of  projects  to  be  checked.  All  projects  assessed  as 
presenting a high risk are included in the set. 

LT 

Implementing authorities perform scheduled and unscheduled on-the-spot checks: 

1.  Scheduled  on-the-spot  checks  are  performed  in  accordance  with  an  annual 
schedule  which  is  reviewed  and  renewed  every  3  months  in  view  of  the 
progress made in implementing each project and any difficulties ascertained 
during  implementation.  The  annual  schedule  of  on-the-spot  checks  and  its 
amendments are approved by the head of the implementing authority concerned or 
an authorised representative; 

2. An implementing authority must carry out an unscheduled on-the-spot check 
where  suspicion  has  arisen  that  information  supplied  by  a  project  manager 
may be imprecise, incomplete or misleading. 

96 

Coverage  of  operations  is  assessed  during  system  audits  of  the  programmes  by  the  CICC-Structural 
Funds  (the  Interministerial  Commission  for  Coordination  of  Controls  in  respect  of  operations  part-
financed  by  European  Structural  Funds)  on  the  basis  of  two/three  audits  per  period  for  the  most 
important of them. 

EN 

126 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2.2. If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method  is  used  to  determine  what  operations  will  be  subject  to  such  checks?  Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling? 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

Checks are carried out on every project as a rule. 

Risk analysis considering representativity requirements. 

Malta performs on-the-spot checks up to 100%. 

The method varies from one management authority to another. Some of them opt 
for  a  comprehensive  check,  while  others  make  a  selection  on  the  basis  of  the 
risks affecting the projects under examination. The programme accountants note 
that the management authorities of all programmes have established the sampling 
method.  This  method  is  appropriately  applied,  with  the  exception  of  two  cities 
belonging to the Cities Programme. 

On-the-spot checks are carried out usually for 100% of projects, at the latest when 
the individual projects are completed.  

Most  of  managing  authorities  state  that  all  projects  are  subject  to  on-the-spot 
check at least once during the project implementation. 

When  this  is  not  the  case,  sampling  is  done  on  the  basis  of  risk  analysis.  Risk 
analysis  can  take  into  account  for  example  the  amount  of  the  subsidy,  the 
information on the beneficiary, information about the suspicion of irregularity, etc. 
In some cases, projects exceeding a certain amount are systematically subjects 
to  check.  Detailed  risk  assessment  methods  have  been  communicated  to  the 
Commission. 

Most of the managing authorities state that all projects are subject to on-the-spot 
checks.  Authorities  that  conduct  on-the-spot  checks  on  a  sample  of  operations 
indicated 5 times the representative sample, 4 times the risk analysis and once 
both methods. 

Both methods are used: risk analysis and representative sampling. 

On-the-spot checks are carried out at least once during the implementation of each 
project before the final payment of funds. 

In  the  programme  on  Improving  the  enterprise  support  framework,  the  choice  of 
checks was made on the basis of representative sampling (amount of the project, 
regional coverage). 

In on-the-spot checks of individual projects, checks are made on a representative 
cross-section  of  a  number  of  invoices  out  of  the  total  number  of  paid  invoices 
submitted by the final recipient in request for payment. These must account for not 
less than 30% of the total eligible costs. 

In 2008 a sample will be checked again on the basis of risk analysis. 

EN 

127 

   EN 

 
3.2.2. If on-the-spot checks are carried out on a sample of the operations, what sampling 
method  is  used  to  determine  what  operations  will  be  subject  to  such  checks?  Risk 
analysis-based or representative sampling? 

SK 

On  the  spot  verification  is  carried  out  on  a  representative  sampling  basis  for  the 
accepted requests for payment (administrative verification: 100%). 

FI 

SE 

UK 

The  selection  of  samples  of  demand-based  projects  is  based  a  risk  analysis,  or  the 
combination of project risk analysis and representative selection. 

Risk  analysis  can  take  into  account  the  phase  of  the  project,  and  whether  the  demand-
based project was subjected to on-the-spot verifications, whether it was instigated through 
the discovery of failures during administrative verification of the payment request, or by 
the  Paying  Authority  or  the  authorities  responsible  for  implementing  Article  10  of 
Commission Regulation 438/201, etc. 

The  procedures  used  by  the  intermediate  bodies  vary.  They  have  been  described  in  the 
management and control system. According to the managing authority guideline, at least 
40% of the projects and all projects with considerable funding have to be verified. Risk 
analysis-based  sampling  may  be  based  on  the  characteristics  of  the  project  or  the 
beneficiary. Some bodies use random sampling. 

Åland, INTERREG IIII A Skärgarden: The principle is that someone from the Secretariat 
visits each project at least once a year. 

Åland, Objective 21 programme 2000-2006: Random sampling. 

Both risk-based control and representative sampling investigations are used. 

For England, the sample is representative of the types of activity being funded 
through the programme, the types of delivery organisations and the amount of 
grant involved. An assessment of risk is taken into account, with the inclusion 
of those projects thought to be at higher risk of default. All high risk rated projects 
are  included  in  the  sample.  To  ensure  coverage  of  all  project  types,  10%  of  the 
sample  is  taken  from  the  low  risk  banded  project  category.  The  remaining 
balance is taken randomly from the medium risk projects. 

Wales, Northern Ireland – no sampling (100% checks). 

Risk  analyses  are  used  to  select  projects  visited  under  Article  4  and  10  in 
Scotland. 

EN 

128 

   EN 

 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

BE 

Yes:  Flemish  Region,  German  speaking 
Community. 
Not 
applicable. 

Brussels-Capital: 

Risk analysis takes place on the basis of three parameters and results either in controls or no 
controls. 

– 

By means of a percentage as well as categorisation into risk groups on the basis 
of  the  increased  financial  volume;  simultaneous  involvement  in  several  EU-
funded  measures  (danger  of  double  funding);  irregularities  noticed  during 
previous checks (checking of the corrective measures). 

CZ 

Yes  (except  for  MA  were  checks  are  done 
on a basis of 100% sample). 

Risk is expressed by the amount; starting in 2008, it will be given a rating (Ministry of 
Transport). 

The OPIE/MIT managing authority prevents the occurrence of the risk of early termination 
of  subsidising  a  supported  OPIE  project  by  laying  stress  on  the  applicant’s  rating  in 
selecting a project similarly to the way banks evaluate loan applicants. As regards OPIE, it 
has been proven that if a company applying for a subsidy has a rating (financial health test) 
above  “+B”,  the  risk  of  an  OPIE  project  experiencing  early  termination  within  five  years 
(according  to  Regulation  No  1260/1999,  Article  30(4b))  is  eliminated  significantly 
(Ministry of Industry and Trade). 

In  ex-post  checks  (not  made  in  2005  yet)  –  risks  are  given  a  rating  based  on  a  project’s 
financial demands, either on a time basis (upon the expiration of 2/3 – 3/3 of the obligation 
period, e.g., checks regarding EAGF/part of HRDP upon payment of a five-year amount are 
initiated  after  2/3  of  this  period),  or  based  on  3  or  more  projects  submitted  by  a  single 

EN 

129 

EN 

 
  
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

applicant within a year (frequency is risk). (Ministry of Agriculture). 

MRD:  Interreg:  Depends  on  the  amount  of  subsidy  from  structural  funds  and  the  project 
period, subsidy beneficiary type and so on. 

JROP: Quantified risk (scale). 

DK 

Yes. (Objective 2 programmes) 

The  risk  assessment  is  banded  according  to  points  assigned  for  assessed  risk  and  on  the 
basis of type of project (complexity), type of beneficiary and amount involved etc. 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

Yes. 

50 % of implementers do. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

Various  methods  are  used:  e.g.  risk  expressed  as  a  level:  high,  medium,  low;  10%  of 
projects checked, etc. 

Medium/High Risk 

According  to  no.  4574/ΕΥS/570/31.01.2007  (Revised  guidelines  for  audits  by  managing 
authorities under Art. 4 Reg. 438/2001), the risk is expressed as an amount (project budget). 
This  amount  is  determined/estimated  by  the  programme  managing  authority  in  order  to 
obtain  reasonable  assurance  of  the  legality  and  regularity  of  declarations  of  expenditure 
submitted to the Commission. All projects which overshoot the budget set as a limit by the 
managing authority are audited in their entirety. 

EN 

130 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

ES 

FR 

IT 

Yes. 

No. 

Yes:  

A qualitative assessment is made. 

The risk is not an exclusive criterion. 

As a rule, the risk is quantified on the basis of the following criteria: 

Valle  d’Aosta  RA,  Ministry  for  Economic 
Development97,  Basilicata  RA,  Sicily  RA, 
Campania  RA,  Calabria  RA,  Ministry  for 
Infrastructure, Piedmont RA, Lombardy RA, 
Liguria RA 

No:  Ministry  for  Economic  Development98, 
Emilia  Romagna  RA,  Ministry  of 
the 
for 
Interior,  Abruzzi  RA,  Ministry 
Universities  and  Research,  Ministry  of 
Education,  Marche  RA,  Autonomous 
Province of Trento, Veneto RA99, Lazio RA. 

– 

– 

– 

the number of operations; 

the amounts involved; 

the type of intervention. 

When  checks  are  planned  and  conducted  account  is  taken  of  certain  qualitative  aspects  (state  of 
procedure) and quantitative aspects (financial progress) and the findings of any previous checks 

97 

98 
99 

EN 

Coverage of operations is assessed during system audits of the programmes by the CICC-Structural Funds (the Interministerial Commission for Coordination of Controls in 
respect of operations part-financed by European Structural Funds) on the basis of two/three audits per period for the most important of them. 
Ministry of Economic Development (NOP and Technical assistance and systems measures). 
Veneto RA: Interreg III Italy-Slovenia and Interreg III Italy-Austria. 

131 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

CY 

LV 

Yes. 

Yes. 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

Given a rating 

A risk assessment is undertaken, taking into account the following criteria:  

- the amount of expenditure to be assigned to a project or grant scheme;  

- the duration of the project or grant scheme;  

- the complexity of the project or grant scheme (number and scope of acitivities, amount of 
procurement  foreseen,  planned  administrative  expenditure,  partnership  arrangements  and 
number  of  partners,  amount  of  construction  work  envisaged  (in  the  case  of  a  construction 
project), confidence in the recipient – assessment of the recipient, his or her reputation, prior 
co-operation).  

The risk is expressed in figures, taking into account a quantitative assessment of each of the 
criteria  mentioned.  Depending  on  the  outcome  of  the  quantitative  risk  assessment  the 
project is classified as a high-, medium- or low-risk project.  

The  risk  assessment  is  taken  into  account  when  determining  the  set  of  projects,  original 
supporting documents and amount of fixed assets to be checked. 

At least once a year the relevant project is re-evaluated and as a result the set of projects to 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
  
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

LT 

Yes.  

LU 

HU 

No. 

Yes. 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

be checked is updated. 

All  authorities  responsible  for  administering  EU  Structural  Funds  develop  methods  for 
identifying risks in accordance with their own internal procedures and use these methods as 
a basis when planning scheduled on-the-spot checks and carrying out unscheduled on-the-
spot project checks. 

Planning of a field-day covers the following sub-tasks: 

– 

– 

– 

elaborating  a  sampling  methodology  to  conduct  a  field-day  based  on  risk 
analysis, 

risk analysis based on the sampling methodology, 

preparing a yearly control plan. 

Cooperating organisations (KSz) elaborate the sampling methodology to field-days that are 
based on risk analysis. This job is done under the coordination of the Managing Authority 
(MA)  following  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  Ministry  of  Finance  and  the  Common 
Operational  Handbook.  The  methodology  is  approved  by  the  MA.  The  methodology 
provides  for  inter  alia  guidelines  on  risk  analysis  and  the  interim  review  of  the  yearly 
control  plan.  On  the  basis  of  the  approved  methodology  the  cooperations  organisation 

EN 

133 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

conduct  the  risk  analysis  and  set  up  a  yearly  field-day  plan  that  is  sent  to  MA  for 
information.  In  cooperation  with  the  MA.  The  cooperation  organisaction  provide  for  a 
yearly review of the sampling methodology, the risk analysis and the design of the yearly 
field-day plan. 

On  a  field-day,  the  applied  sampling  methodology  must  be  presented  and  explained,  the 
registation about the individual cases taken into the sample must be kept and the results of 
the  controls  recorded.  The  applied  sampling  methodology  must  be  revised  regularly  with 
attention being paid to error rates and other well-known risk factors. The review proceeding 
must also be recorded. 

The yearly field-day plan must contain at least the following information: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

organizations and projects to be examined: beneficiaries or projects indicated 
in agreements and chosen on the basis of risk analysis, 

reference to the applied sampling methodology and risk analysis, 

aim of the examination: see the introductory part, points to be checked on the 
field-day, 

examined period: e.g. from the signing of the grant agreement or the end of 
the previous control period up to the date of the examination, 

EN 

134 

EN 

 
  
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

– 

– 

agenda  of  the  examination:  at  least  in  quarterly  breakdown  but  a  monthly 
breakdown is recommended (checking the dates with beneficiaries), 

necessary sources1: number of specialists’ days, foreseeing ad hoc controls. 

Aspects for consideration at risk analysis (e.g.): 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

type of project, 

dimension of project (high-value projects bear a higher level of risk), 

type  of  beneficiary  (e.g.  on  the  basis  of  the  control  procedures  of  the 
beneficiary), 

number of projects completed by the beneficiary, 

rate of assistance, 

type of account, 

number of problems or irregularities arising during the project. 

MT 

N/a.  In  the  case  of  ERDF,  the  Managing 
Authority  performs  100%  checks  on 

EN 

135 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

NL 

AT 

PL 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

expenditure  prior  to  sending  any  payment 
claim to the Commission. 

Yes. 

N/a 

Given a rating, percentage and amount. 

Yes: IROP, SOP Transport, OP – Technical 
Assistance, SOP ECG 

No: INTERREG 

IROP : The Managing Authority IROP in terms of control of the management and control system chooses a 
Region for checks in keeping with risk analysis for the given calendar year, in which it checks the correctness 
of the functioning of the system. Risk areas are taken into consideration during risk analysis in choosing the 
Region for checking, risk is expressed on a scale (low, average, high). 

Next, the MA IROP chooses at least one measure on the basis of risk analysis, under which it selects sample 
projects  on  the  basis  of  which  it  checks  the  application  of  procedure.  (Complementary  information  on  risk 
analysis has been communicated to the Commission).  

SOP Transport. Risk is calculated by means of a number indicator – from 1 to 4, where 1 signifies the lowest 
risk, and 4 the highest. 

OP – Technical Assistance. Risk is expressed on a scale of 1 to 5 allocated to given criteria in risk analysis 

SOP  ECG.  For  Implementing  Institute  (PARP)  checks  relating  to  e.g.  Measure  2.3  –  this  is  a  points  value 
(later calculated as a percentage share). 

PT 

No, except two managing authorities. 

Two  managing  authorities  indicated  the  risk  was  taken  into  account.  In  response  to  point 
3.2.3.2,  they  stated  that  the  risk  was  calculated  based  on  previous  knowledge  and 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

RO 

Yes. 

SI 

SK 

Yes. 

Yes. 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

experience,  according  to  the  complexity  of  the  operations  and  executors  involved.  The 
following interval ranges were adopted for the inherent risk and control risk: high risk (60% 
to 90%) medium risk (30% to 60%) low risk (10% to 30%). 

Based on the risk factors established by each Management Authority and by the Authority 
for  Certification  and  Payment,  each  risk  has  a  percentage  and  a  score.  Thus,  risks  are 
grouped in a risk class: high, medium and low risk. Verifications mainly concern those from 
the high risk class. 

Risk level: high, medium, low. 

Preliminary financial verification of projects is based on a risk factor analysis.  

The risk factors are:  

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

The financial scale of the project (size of non-repayable financial aid) 

Sources of funding 

Level of beneficiary debts and liabilities  

Financial results for the past year 

Ownership or personal links of the beneficiary with other firms. 

EN 

137 

EN 

 
  
 
3.2.3. Use of risk in planning and execution 

Member 
State 

FI 

SE 

UK 

taken 

formally 
planning 

into 
3.2.3.1.  Is  risk 
account  when 
individual 
assignments  or  determining  overall 
coverage  of  verifications  (based  on,  e.g., 
the  potential  financial  loss,  reputation 
issues etc)? (Yes, No) 

3.2.3.2. If YES, please state the manner in which risk is expressed / quantified (either 
given a rating – high, medium, low or a percentage or the amount): 

– 

– 

Sector 

Information  arising  from  monitoring  reports  –  project  implementation  stage 
(IB/MB). 

Additional details have been communicated to the Commission. 

Yes (except Åland). 

All projects in which public assistance exceeds 100 000 € have to be verified. 

Yes. 

Yes. 

The risk is quantified as an amount. 

The UK risk is assessed on the track record of the applicant, the nature of the project and the 
amount  of  grant/total  project  value  and  given  a  rating  of  High,  Medium  or  Low.  The 
assessment takes into account the views from appraisal, payment and inspection staff who 
have knowledge of applicants/projects. All high risk rated projects are included in the sample. To 
ensure coverage of all project types, 10% of the sample is taken from the low risk banded project 
category. The remaining balance is taken randomly from the medium risk projects. 

EN 

138 

EN 

 
  
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

BE 

No (except Walloon Region). 

Walloon Region: Attestations from auditors or reviewers are used as supporting documents 
in providing assurance, where necessary. 

CZ 

Yes. 

German  speaking  Community:  not  in  every  case.  External  auditors  do  not  always 
adequately take into account EU-specific controls. 

Provided that final beneficiaries themselves decide to submit accountants’ certificates (such 
as auditor’s reports), such documents are considered trustworthy by the managing authority. 

DK 

Yes. (Objective 2 programmes) 

Yes, accountants' certificates are regarded as useful in providing assurance. 

The  accountants'  certificates  are  issued  by  a  registered  or  chartered  accountant.  After 
receiving  the  letter  of  authorisation,  the  project  accountant  issues  a  certificate  that  the 
accountant  has  been  acquainted  with  Notice  No  1059  of  the  Agency  for  Enterprise  and 
Construction  of  4  De-cember  2000  on  responsibilities  and  competence  etc.  for  the 
management of aid from the Euro-pean Regional Fund and related national co-financing and 
Notice No 1166 of 15 December 2000 on accounts and accountancy in connection with the 
payment of aid from the European Regional Fund and related national co-financing and that 
the  person  concerned  is  acquainted  with  the  content  of  these  documents.  The  accountant 
must also state that he has carried out an examination of the project management procedures 
and  registration  systems  and  that  he  con-siders  them  to  be  satisfactory  and  in  compliance 
with the requirements of the aforesaid Notices. 

While  accountants’  certificates  are  useful  on  the  on  hand,  on  the  other  hand  additional 
financial demands act as a disincentive to potential applicants for EU resources. 

139 

EN 

DE 

Yes. 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

EE 

IE 

No. 

No. 

EL 

No. 

ES 

FR 

No. 

Yes. 

No. 

In  general  and  from  our  experience  accountant’s  certificates  are  not  that  useful  as 
commercial accountants have limited experience in dealing with EU Regulations. 

The Managing Authority for Peace II has made the following statement:  

“UK Government Accounting practice advocates the use of auditor’s certificates. A number 
of Government Departments in the UK insist that these certificates are used. In these cases 
they are viewed as an additional level of control. However, it is recognised that they do not 
cover  all  required  aspects  and  in  particular  the  eligibility  of  expenditure  in  terms  of 
compliance with EC Regulation”. 

As most operational programmes are implemented by public bodies and verifications under 
Art. 4 Reg. 438/2001 include verification of the natural object of the actions implemented, 
this option was not considered useful for operational programmes under the 3rd CSF. 

Yes  because,  when  endorsed  by  an  auditor  or  chartered  accountant  in  the  case  of  private 
beneficiaries,  or  by  a  public  accounting  officer  in  the  case  of  public  beneficiaries,  they 
provide  assurance  that  the  invoices  submitted  by  the  operator  have  been  settled  with  the 
suppliers. 

In the case of private beneficiaries, the bank statement showing the debit corresponding to 

EN 

140 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

IT 

Yes:  Basilicata  RA;  Campania  RA;  Calabria 
RA;  Ministry  for  Infrastructure;  Piedmont  RA; 
Ministry  of  the  Interior;  Abruzzi  RA;  Marche 
RA; Apulia RA; Lazio RA; Liguria RA;  

No:  Valle  d’Aosta  RA;  Tuscany  RA;  Ministry 
of  Economic  Development;  Emilia  Romagna 
RA;  Lombardy  RA;  Autonomous  Province  of 
Trento;  Ministry  for  Universities  and  Research; 
Veneto RA. 

CY 

LV 

Yes. 

Yes. 

the  invoice  is  also  deemed  to  be  third-party  proof  of  acquittal  of  expenditure  incurred  by 
beneficiaries.  

Accountants' certificates are useful for tracing payment flows and actual expenditure by the 
final beneficiary or user in connection with Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No. 438/01. 

- 

The Central Finance and Contracting Agency (CFCA) requests that the beneficiary submits 
a sworn auditor's report on expenditure claimed in any request for structural funds that has a 
total value in excess of LVL 500 000. Given that the CFCA carries out complete checks of 
all  structural-fund-related  supporting  documents,  the  sworn  auditor's  reports  submitted  by 
the  beneficiary  are  used  only  to  obtain  additional  assurance  of  the  relevance  of  the 
recipient's expenditure, but do not serve as incontrovertible confirmation of the relevance of 
the expenditure submitted. 

LT 

Yes, but not in all cases. 

Pursuant  to  the  Administrative  and  Financial  Rules  governing  measures  contained  in 

EN 

141 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

Lithuania's  2004–2006  single  programming  document  and  projects  financed  under  these 
measures,  approved  under  Minster  of  Finance  Order  No  1K-033  of  28  January  2004 
(Official  Gazette  2004,  No  19-599;  2005,  No  21-667),  intermediate  bodies  administering 
EU  Structural  Funds  financing  can  specify  that  the  final  report  on  project  implementation 
must be accompanied by an audit report. 

However,  authorities  have  noted  that  the  requirement  to  provide  an  audit  report  together 
with the final report on project implementation has not always proved justified. The auditors 
employed  by  project  implementers  did  not  always  carry  out  their  work  in  a  satisfactory 
manner  –  errors  were  found  by  implementing  authorities  when  they  verified  documents 
supporting  payment  requests  and  expenditure,  and  it  was  not  always  possible  to  trust 
auditors' work. 

Art. 33(2) of Joint Decree 14/2004 (VIII. 13.) TNM-GKM-FMM-FVM-PM requires that the 
application for payment be countersigned by a certified accountant. By the amendment of 
the Decree the above measure was repealed as it had significantly increased administrative 
burdens while it had not substantially verified the adequacy of the declarations. 

Malta  pre-finances  all  expenditure.  Expenditure  is  checked  at  line  Ministry  level,  at 
Treasury  level  and  subsequently  by  the  Managing  Authority  during  the  verification  of 
expenditure. 

LU 

HU 

No 

No. 

MT 

No. 

EN 

142 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

NL 

Yes. 

AT 

No. 

Promoters  are  required  to  submit  detailed 
financial  statements.  In  some  cases  banks 
carry  out  preliminary  checks.  Article  4 
audits  always  have  to  be  carried  out  by  the 
authorities (to ensure independence). 

During the 2000-2006 programme, the practice at both programme and project level under 
the ERDF was for an accountant's certificate to be issued by external accountants (with the 
exception  of  D-2  cities  where  the  Accountancy  Department  of  the  Ministry  of  Internal 
Affairs  acted  as  programme  accountant).  This  means  that  an  accountant's  certificate  was 
submitted  on  completion  of  projects  at  project  level,  and  with  the  annual  report  and  the 
Article  13  report  at  programme  level.  Each  Single  Programming  Document  used  an 
individually  employed  programme  accountant.  The  Commission  has  indicated  on  many 
occasions that, under Regulation (EC) 438/2001, an accountant's certificate is required only 
before the final conclusion. For this and other reasons, a pilot project is under way in the 
Single  Programming  Document  for  the  Northern  Netherlands  which  dispenses  with  the 
project account, so that the management authority itself carries out the required checks. For 
the  new  2007-2013  programme  period,  the  duties  of  the  audit  authority  are  centralised 
within  the  Financial  Audit  Department,  which  will  be  responsible  for  the  checks  and 
products referred to in the new Regulation 1083/2006. This centralisation means that there 
is  less  need  for  accountants'  certificates  over  and  above  those  required  under  the  relevant 
regulations. 

Accountants'  certificates  are  of  use  only  if  they  are  issued  by  an  independent  certified 
accountant. 

EN 

143 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

100 

EN 

No. 

Not applicable 

Most managing authorities: No. 8 managing 
authorities: Yes.  

In  cases  where  the  requirement  applies  to  the  measure  the  certification  of  the  expenditure  by 
accredited accountants according to the rules of the Order of Official Auditors and the Chamber of 
Official  Accountants  facilitates  the  entire  process.  By  confirming  that  investment  expenditure  has 
been  incurred  and  by  providing  the  elements  necessary  to  verify  the  expenditure’s  eligibility,  it 
provides assurance of reliability. 

No. 

Yes. 

No. 

No100 (Åland: Yes). 

Yes,  insofar  as  they  would  simplify  the  approval  of  payment  requests  and  provide  a  high  level  of 
assurance.  

Accountants' knowledge of the special terms applicable to the structural funds differs. The regularity 
of the project and the eligibility of expenditure cannot be assured by an audit. Some of the financing 
bodies  require,  as  a  rule,  the  auditor's  statement  as  a  condition  for  processing  the  payment 
application, some on a case-by-case basis (on the basis of the beneficiary or project type). In very 
small projects the costs incurred from this would be disproportionate. It is considered important that 
it is clear to the implementing body whether the costs of the auditor's statement are eligible or not. 
The interpretation depends on whether the financing authority has required it to be included in the 

It is in the discretion of the financing authority to decide upon the need and to set the requirements in the financing decision; the requirement may become applicable on the 
basis of the national aid system. However, there is no provision that would extend to all ERDF co-financed activity. 

144 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

financing decision or not.  

The practice of the intermediate bodies may be that the financing authority determines when an audit 
is required in the project and decides to perform it as its own measure performed by its auditor or as 
an outsourced service on its own account. The financing authority shall pay the costs. The extent of 
the audit shall be determined on a case-by-case basis. 

Åland:  Yes.  Accountants'  verifications  are  made  on  the  spot  and  the  projects'  applications, 
bookkeeping and results are checked. 

No, the auditors responsible for the regional fund have found a low level of confidence in 
what the auditor can certify in practice. 

England:  Yes,  it  can  be  an  added  assurance  to  the  control  systems  already  in  place. 
However,  as  far  as  expenditure  checks  are  concerned,  they  do  not  generally  report  on  the 
eligibility of the project expenditure. 

Wales:  Yes.  They  confirm  eligibility  or  otherwise  of  all  expenditure  claimed  through 
reference back to supporting documentation. WEFO require independent audit certificates at 
project  level  on  an  annual  basis  and  at  final  claim  stage.  Where  audit  qualifications  arise 
adjustments are made to the payment claim accordingly. WEFO retains 5% of grant on all 
projects until the satisfactory receipt of a final claim and independent audit certificate.  

For NI, all responses indicated that Accountants’ certificates are considered to be of benefit 
across  the  whole  range  of  programmes,  as  they  provide  an  independent  assurance  of  the 
finances  of  the  project  and  also  an  additional  level  of  control  which  supports  both 

SE 

No. 

UK 

For  England,  yes  but  thresholds  exist. 
However,  at  the  end  of  2007,  GO  were 
instructed that a risk-based system could be 
applied in order to reduce the burden. 

Wales – yes. 

Northern Ireland - No (although there is no 
obtain  Accountants 
requirement 
Implementing  Body 
certificates 
obtained  certificates 
its 
for  100%  of 
projects). 

to 
one 

EN 

145 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2.4. The terms of grant agreements may include a requirement for final beneficiaries to provide an accountant’s certificate with expenditure 
declarations they submit for payment.  

Member 
State 

3.2.4.1.  Are  accountants’  certificates 
required in your Member State? (Yes/No) 

3.2.4.2. Are accountants' certificates considered useful in providing assurance? Please 
explain. 

Scotland – No. 

Investigating Bodies and Monitoring Authorities. 

Scotland stated that Accountants Certificates can usefully enhance levels of assurance but 
are not mandatory. Recent Commission advice also casts doubt on the extent to which the 
Commission will accept Accountants Certificates. 

EN 

146 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.3. 

Results of Article 4 verifications 

3.3.1. Number of irregularities detected in 2005 and financial value 

Although  the  Community  legislation  applicable  in  the  field  of  structural  funds  in  the  year 
2005  (Article 12  of  Regulation  No 1681/94)  provided  for  notification  of  irregularities 
involving more than €4000 (and irregularities of less than €4000 only at the express request of 
the Commission), to gain a complete picture of the situation in the Member States it would be 
useful  to  gather  information  on  all  irregularities  detected  in  management  verifications, 
including those below the €4000 threshold and not communicated to Commission (OLAF) in 
application of the COCOLAF working document from 11th April 2002. Therefore, Member 
States were asked to provide the number of all irregularities101 detected in 2005 under 
Article  4  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  438/2001,  including  those  not  communicated  to  the 
Commission (i.e. irregularities involving less than €4000 or detected before payment). 

The following tables summarize the information provided by the Member States concerning 
this question. The first table displays the absolute number of irregularities, while the second 
table deals with the percentages of the irregularities.  

It should be pointed out that Bulgaria and Romania are not included in the tables since they 
were  not  Member  States  in  the  concerned  period  (2005).  Furthermore,  most  of  the  EU-10 
Member  States  detected  no  or  very  few  irregularities  due  to  the  fact  that  in  2005  these 
Member  States  did  not  dispose  of  a  large  amount  of  funds  yet.  Finally,  some  old  Member 
States did not provide their figures or provided only partial figures.  

101 

The definition of "irregularity" is to be found in Regulation No 2988/95, Article 1(2) of which states 
that “‘irregularity’ shall mean any infringement of a provision of Community law resulting from an act 
or omission by an economic operator, which has, or would have, the effect of prejudicing the general 
budget of the Communities or budgets managed by them, either by reducing or losing revenue accruing 
from  own  resources  collected  directly  on  behalf  of  the  Communities,  or  by  an  unjustified  item  of 
expenditure”.  

EN 

147 

   EN 

 
                                                 
NUMBER OF IRREGULARITIES DETECTED IN 2005 

Number of irregularities 
detected by managing 
authorities 

Number of irregularities 
detected by intermediate bodies 

Not 
specified

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d
y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

230 

12 

130 

22 

t
o
p
s
-
e
h
t
-
n
o

y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

74 

18 

9 

20 

Expenditure ineligible under eligibility rules or grant conditions  

Failure to meet deadlines  

Missing or incomplete supporting documents  

Infringement of rules concerning public procurement  

d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
o
N

l
a
t
o
T

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d
y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

t
o
p
s
-
e
h
t
-
n
o

y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
o
N

l
a
t
o
T

TOTAL 
NUMBER OF 
DETECTED 
IRREGULARITI
ES 

114 

418 

119 

60 

264 

443 

1 

31 

139 

42 

15 

64 

9 

31 

46 

128 

196 

62 

78 

4 

7 

1 

2 

Failure  to  meet  other  regulation/contract  conditions,  such  as  state  aid 
rules, publicity  

27 

34 

61 

53 

23 

89 

165 

False or falsified supporting documents  

Failure to take account of revenue  

Other irregularities  

Not specified 

Total  

EN 

2 

40 

22 

27 

7 

2 

40 

50 

1 

8 

8 

7 

4 

4 

19 

12 

181 

55 

192 

428 

97 

104 

10 

8 

18 

485 

189 

213 

887 

467 

168 

770 

1405 

20 

23 

148 

EN 

861 

78 

335 

122 

226 

21 

52 

478 

142 

2315 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
PERCENTAGES OF IRREGULARITIES DETECTED IN 2005 

% of irregularities detected by 
managing authorities 

% of irregularities detected by 
intermediate bodies 

Not 
specified

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d
y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

t
o
p
s
-
e
h
t
-
n
o

y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
o
N

l
a
t
o
T

d
e
s
a
b
-
k
s
e
d
y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

t
o
p
s
-
e
h
t
-
n
o

y
b
d
e
t
c
e
t
e
D

k
c
e
h
c

d
e
i
f
i
c
e
p
s

t
o
N

l
a
t
o
T

TOTAL % OF 
DETECTED 
IRREGULARITI
ES 

Expenditure ineligible under eligibility rules or grant conditions  

9,94 

3,20 

4,92 

18,06 

5,14 

2,59 

11,40 

19,14 

0,00 

37,19 

Failure to meet deadlines  

0,52 

0,78 

0,04 

1,34 

0,65 

0,00 

1,34 

1,99 

0,04 

3,37 

issing or incomplete supporting documents  

5,62 

0,39 

0,00 

6,00 

2,76 

0,17 

5,53 

8,47 

0,00 

14,47 

Infringement of rules concerning public procurement  

0,95 

0,86 

0,00 

1,81 

0,39 

0,30 

2,68 

3,37 

0,09 

5,27 

Failure  to  meet  other  regulation/contract  conditions,  such  as  state  aid 
rules, publicity  

1,17 

1,47 

0,00 

2,63 

2,29 

0,99 

3,84 

7,13 

0,00 

9,76 

False or falsified supporting documents  

0,09 

0,00 

0,00 

0,09 

0,35 

0,30 

0,17 

0,82 

0,00 

Failure to take account of revenue  

1,73 

0,00 

0,00 

1,73 

0,35 

0,17 

0,00 

0,52 

0,00 

0,91 

2,25 

Other irregularities  

Not specified 

Total  

0,95 

1,17 

0,04 

2,16 

7,82 

2,38 

8,29 

18,49 

0,00 

20,65 

0,00 

0,30 

4,19 

4,49 

0,43 

0,35 

0,00 

0,78 

0,86 

6,13 

20,95 

8,16 

9,20 

38,32 

20,17 

7,26 

33,26 

60,69 

0,99 

100,00 

EN 

149 

EN 

 
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.3.2.  Based  on  you  experience,  what  are  the  root  causes  of  irregularities?  Why  do 
irregularities occur? 

Description  of  root  causes:  Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (if  possible,  indicate 
provisions); Not enough guidance on the implementation of the rules and conditions; Frequent 
changing of staff/shortage of staff; Difficulties in training staff; other possible causes. 

If possible, please state a percentage for each category.  

3.3.2.  Based  on  your  experience,  what  are  the  root  causes  of  irregularities?  Why  do 
irregularities occur? 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

EE 

Unclear eligibility rules and condition (Flemish Region 60%), not enough guidance 
on the implementation of the  rules  and  conditions  (Flemish  Region  40%), frequent 
changing of staff/shortage of staff (German speaking Community 30%), difficulties 
in training staff (German speaking Community 70%). Brussels-Capital Region: Poor 
area distribution key for projects located in buildings shared with other projects that 
are  not  part  of  by  structural  funds,  poor  identification  of  revenues  generated  by 
ERDF  projects,  problems  of  sustainability  (project  abandoned  after  31/12/2006), 
project  abandoned  and  non-completed  given  the  inability  to  drum  up  co-financing 
within  the  eligibility  period.  German  speaking  Community:  insufficient  knowledge 
of the beneficiary on the criteria and guidelines. 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (30%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation  of 
the  rules  and  conditions  (30%),  frequent  changing  of 
staff/shortage of staff (20%), difficulties in training staff (10%). For the Ministry of 
Environment, 95% of identified suspected irregularities comprise breach of the terms 
and conditions laid down in Act No 137/2006 Coll. on public procurement (and its 
previous versions). However, analysis of individual cases has shown that they need 
not  comprise  intentional  breach;  rather  than  that,  irregularities  are  based  on  the 
enormous complexity of the law, inconsistent interpretation of some of its provisions 
and  the  ensuing  possibility  of  errors  in  applying  the  law.  Interreg:  Using  funds  for 
other  purposes  than  the  project’s  purpose  (goal)  –  20%.  JROP:  Note:  In  2005,  no 
irregularities were detected; as a result, it is impossible to make an objective list of 
reasons for irregularities. 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (5%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (5%), frequent changing of staff/shortage 
of  staff  (10%),  bankruptcy  (70%),  aid  rules  and  conditions  not  understood  by 
beneficiary (10%). 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (24%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation  of  the  rules  and  conditions  (23%  problems  with  following 
procurement rules 15% authorised actions not performed 15% problems with proper 
use of aid under 5a), frequent changing of staff/shortage of staff (1%), difficulties in 
training staff (1%). 

Expenditure  eligibility  is  regulated  in  various  legal  acts,  of  which  it  is  difficult  for 
aid  recipients  to  get  an  overview.  Aid  recipients  do  not  always  fully  familiarise 
themselves with their obligations (obtaining three offers, conserving documentation, 
continuing  action  until  after  the  end  of  the  eligibility  period),  and  do  not  apply  to 

EN 

150 

   EN 

 
3.3.2.  Based  on  your  experience,  what  are  the  root  causes  of  irregularities?  Why  do 
irregularities occur? 

implementation  units  when  they  have  problems  in  a  timely  manner.  There  can  be 
several  people  responsible  for  a  project,  with  the  division  of  labour  not  clearly 
defined;  handovers  not  documented  at  times  of  staff  changes,  with  new  project 
leaders lacking a historical record. 

IE 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition,  in  particular  Land  Issues,  Receipts, 
Overheads  (Medium  to  High  percentage),  Misapplication  of  Rule  5,  Inclusion  of 
overheads, Administrative errors (Low percentage). 

Not enough guidance on the implementation of the rules and conditions, in particular 
lack  of  familiarity  of  the  regulations  at  the  beginning  of  the  programme  led  to  the 
occurrence of irregularities (low percentage). 

From  experience  misinterpretation  is  one  of  the  main  contributors  but  this  is  often 
not a result of lack of guidance but rather misinterpretation of that guidance. 

Frequent  changing  of  staff/shortage  of  staff.  (Low  to  Medium  percentage.  At  final 
beneficiary and implementing body level, it is difficult to quantify with any degree 
of certainty as it has not been officially cited as a reason for irregularities occurring). 

Difficulties in training staff (at implementing body level. Low percentage). 

Miscalculation of overhead apportionments. 

Inadequate supporting documentation with claims 

EL 

ES 

FR 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (75%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (5%), frequent changing of staff/shortage 
of staff (5%), difficulties in training staff (15%). 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (10%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (90%). 

Over-financing of operations. By a Government decision, since mid-2002, to avoid 
penalising  operators  for  factors  over  which  they  have  no  control,  such  as  the 
payment  of  a  grant  by  a  local  or  regional  authority  which  in  France  has  legal  and 
financial autonomy under the Constitution of the Vth Republic, the payment of aid 
from the Structural Funds has no longer been subject to the payment of national co-
financing (Ministerial circular of 19 August 2002 introducing simplifying measures 
in the management of the Structural Funds). 

If national co-financing is paid on a flat-rate basis, in cases of under-implementation 
of  a  project  the  amount  of  the  Structural  Fund  contribution  is  adjusted  to  real 
expenditure and a repayment order is issued. 

IT 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (25%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation  of  the  rules  and  conditions  (22.5%),  frequent  changing  of 
staff/shortage of staff (21,43%), difficulties in training staff (23,86%). 

EN 

151 

   EN 

 
3.3.2.  Based  on  your  experience,  what  are  the  root  causes  of  irregularities?  Why  do 
irregularities occur? 

Falsification  at  the  preliminary  stage  (in  particular  false  self-certification  regarding 
requirements).  These  declarations  may  also  involve  double  funding  (where  the 
operator presenting the application declares that no other funding has been received 
for the same project);  

Falsification  of  accounts,  particularly  the  beneficiary’s  internal  accounts  (false 
invoices, etc.) 

CY 

Unclear eligibility rules and condition in specific aid schemes. 

LT 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

Frequent  changing  of  staff/shortage  of  staff  (20%),  difficulties  in  training  staff 
(80%).  One  of  the  most  important  causes  is  the  shortfall  in  the  capacity  of  project 
implementers, particularly in the area of public procurement. 

Primary causes for irregularities are to be found in the incidentally illegal utilization 
by the beneficiary or in a manner differing from the intended purpose. Irregularities 
are  partly  unintended  and  arise  from  administrative  failures  or  misinterpretation  of 
rules. There are no data available for the categories of the above chart. 

Frequent  changing  of  staff/shortage  of  staff,  different  approaches  used  for  national 
funds  and  Structural  Funds,  different  systems  of  control  as  between  Structural 
Funds’ systems and other Community Programmes / Initiatives. 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (95%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation  of 
the  rules  and  conditions  (4.5%),  frequent  changing  of 
staff/shortage of staff  (0.5%). Other possible causes:  The final beneficiaries supply 
unclear, incomplete or incorrect information (not necessarily on purpose), including 
incomplete progress and final reports. Arithmetical errors. Increase in costs that are 
not eligible for subsidisation. Costs paid prior to the date after which they would be 
eligible for subsidisation or after the final date. Failure to abide by applicable rules 
on tendering.  

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (10%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (5%), frequent changing of staff/shortage 
of staff (10%), difficulties in training staff (50%). 

Unclear eligibility rules and condition (16%), not enough guidance on the 
implementation of the rules and conditions (35%), frequent changing of 
staff/shortage of staff (15%), difficulties in training staff (8%), Incorrect 
understanding of the principles on expending structural funds on the part of 
beneficiaries, lack of sufficient knowledge of the Public Procurement Act, 
beneficiary negligence, capital and personal links – purchasers and contractors. 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (in  particular  the  eligibility  rules  relating  to 
the performance of public procurement rules), frequent changing of staff/shortage of 
staff,  failure  by  prosecutors  in  interpreting  the  eligibility  rules  and  conditions. 
Difficulties ensuring a balanced economic and financial situation in the course of the 

EN 

152 

   EN 

 
3.3.2.  Based  on  your  experience,  what  are  the  root  causes  of  irregularities?  Why  do 
irregularities occur? 

project/contract. 

SI 

SK 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (65%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation  of 
the  rules  and  conditions  (25%),  frequent  changing  of 
staff/shortage of staff (10%). 

Unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (10-30%),  not  enough  guidance  on  the 
implementation  of  the  rules  and  conditions  (10-30%),  frequent  changing  of 
staff/shortage of staff (10-25%), difficulties in training staff (5-25%). 

Failure to adhere to the obligations arising from the NRFC provision agreements by the final 
beneficiaries/recipients. Changes in conditions in the course of project implementation and 
failure  to  communicate  them  within  the  contractual  deadline  to  the  MA  or  the  IB/MB. 
Failure  to  comply  with  NRFC  agreements  by  the  recipients,  problems  with  public 
procurement,  invoicing  works  not  completed  by  the  contractor.  Inadequate  staffing  for  the 
IB/MB – project  managers for SF projects have other tasks within the organisation, which 
prevents  them  from  investing  the  right  amount  of  time  into  project  implementation 
conditions. In respect of criminal law, where irregularities of a criminal nature are taken to 
court,  along  with  the  factors  mentioned  above,  the  most  common  reasons  are  subsequent 
checks of the persons requesting assistance and checks as to whether they meet the criteria 
for  assistance,  and  whether  they  meet  the  formal  requirements.  Failure  to  comply  with 
NRFC agreements by the final beneficiaries/recipients. Substituting materials contrary to the 
approved project budget. Submitting accounting records for payments for works, goods and 
services that have not been provided. 

FI 

Small  projects,  small  project  volume  of  financing  authorities.  No  critical  mass  for 
knowledge is created.  

Skärgården: Unclear eligibility rules and conditions (20% ), not enough guidance on 
the  implementation  of  the  rules  and  conditions  (80%  -  and,  by  extension,  the 
projects’ planning of inputs and measure). Inadequate information and communication. 

UK 

Northern  Ireland:  unclear  eligibility  rules  and  condition  (30%),  not  enough 
guidance  on  the  implementation  of  the  rules  and  conditions  (30%),  frequent 
changing  of  staff/shortage  of  staff  (20%),  difficulties  in  training  staff  (10%), 
miscalculation of overheads or inadequate supporting documents (10%). In England 
and Wales, difficulties in training staff and organisations (grant recipients) failing to 
observe  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  grant  offer.  Also,  it  is  believed  that 
organisations  often  fail  to  cascade  these  terms  and  conditions  to  relevant  staff. 
Scotland: difficulties in training staff (100%). 

EN 

153 

   EN 

 
3.4.  Measures taken after detection of irregularity 

3.4.1. Please state the number of measures taken for each category below. 

Member 
State 

Corrective  measures  in 
form  of  improvements  in 
systems/procedures 

Decision 
recover 

to 

Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 

Failure 
recover103  

to 

Reallocation  of  money  to 
other  expenditure  within 
the  same  project  of  the 
same beneficiary 

Other 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE104 

EE 

IE 

102 
103 
104 

EN 

2 

9 

0 

0 

2 

Not applicable.  Not applicable. 

Not applicable. 

Not applicable. 

Not applicable. 

16 

37 

6 

10  (6  repaid,  4 
still 
under 
consideration) 

applicable 

Not 
irregularities  detected 
2005). 

(no 
in 

Procedures and legislation 
are amended as 
shortcomings emerge – 
separate account is not 
taken of them 

Matters 

brought 

to  Because 

all  See above 

See above 

See Article 5, paragraph 1 of Regulation No 1681/94, OJ L 178, 12.7.1994, p. 43–46. 
See Article 5, paragraph 2 of Regulation No 1681/94 as modified by Regulation No 2035/2005, OJ L 328, 15.12.2005, p. 8–12. 
No data available. In future data to be recorded by listing pursuant to art.2 Regulation (EU) No 448/2001. 

154 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.4.1. Please state the number of measures taken for each category below. 

Member 
State 

Corrective  measures  in 
form  of  improvements  in 
systems/procedures 

Decision 
recover 

to 

Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 

Failure 
recover103  

to 

Reallocation  of  money  to 
other  expenditure  within 
the  same  project  of  the 
same beneficiary 

Other 

future 

items; 

attention 
offending 
of 
body;  guidance  provided 
treatment  of 
for 
training 
similar 
seminars 
to 
relevant  personnel;  for  all 
cases there is a subsequent 
adjustment  out  of  the  next 
interim claim. 

provided 

- 

0 

2 

- 

1 

irregularities are 
adjusted  out  of 
subsequent 
all 
claims 
amounts 
are 
recovered.  Due 
to  the  nature  of 
the  Irish  system 
losses  are 
all 
borne  by 
the 
Exchequer. 

3 

110 

53 

196 

- 

1 

0 

0 

6 

- 

0 

0105 

12 

- 

45 

2 

- 

0 

0 

- 

So far no cases of actual failure to recover, but payment facilities have been granted to beneficiaries (repayment in stages). 

155 

EN 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LT 

105 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.4.1. Please state the number of measures taken for each category below. 

Member 
State 

Corrective  measures  in 
form  of  improvements  in 
systems/procedures 

Decision 
recover 

to 

Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 

Failure 
recover103  

to 

Reallocation  of  money  to 
other  expenditure  within 
the  same  project  of  the 
same beneficiary 

Other 

0106 

14 

N/a 

X 

10 

166 

0107 

0 

N/a 

0 

0 

0108 

0 

N/a 

15 – so called 5(2) 
reports issued. 

0 

(Not frequent) 

1111 

- 

0 

N/a 

2 

34 

- 

133 (??) 

N/a 

X 

0 

6110 

LU 

HU 

- 

1 

MT109 

N/a 

X 

9 

11 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

All irregularities detected have been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. 
All irregularities detected have been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. 
All irregularities detected have been reimbursed by the beneficiaries. 
No irregularity was discovered in 2005 as a result of Article 4 checks. 
Regularisation of subsequent payment request or final request, resulting in reduction of the eligible investment. 
Recovery not effected as the recipient was the Centre for school and out-of-school activities and the funds were covered by the Ministry of Education and Sport. 

EN 

156 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.4.1. Please state the number of measures taken for each category below. 

Member 
State 

Corrective  measures  in 
form  of  improvements  in 
systems/procedures 

Decision 
recover 

to 

Abandonment/Wa
iver of recovery102 

Failure 
recover103  

to 

Reallocation  of  money  to 
other  expenditure  within 
the  same  project  of  the 
same beneficiary 

Other 

FI 

SE 

Aland/Skärgården: 
100%. 
Supplementary information is 
required.  Aid  is  not  paid  out 
unless 
satisfactory 
information is received. 

reports 

to 
Apart 
from 
Ekobrottsmyndigheten 
(The 
Financial  Crime  Authority), 
are 
corrective  measures 
form  of 
applied 
in 
the 
improvements 
in 
systems/procedures 
where 
payment has not been carried 
out.  

the 

Where  payment 
has  been  carried 
out,  decisions  are 
made  concerning 
recovery. 

UK112 

5 

44 

6 

13 

112 

EN 

As data concerning irregularities detected following art.4 checks is incomplete, data included in this table should be considered with caution, because it includes for England 
also irregularities detected following art.10 checks. 

157 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3.4.2. If a waiver of a recovery is made or there is a failure to recover, state the possible 
reasons.  

BE 

CZ 

DE 

IE 

FR 

IT 

LT 

Generally,  the  waiver  of  a  recovery  or  failure  to  recover  is  justified  by  the  fact 
that the irregularity is no longer recognized, or the operator is insolvent. 

Care  is  always  taken  to  recover  amounts  that  become  ineligible,  even  if  they 
become ineligible at a later date.  

Debtor is insolvent to pay. 

Not applicable as all monies are effectively recovered. 

– 

– 

Insolvency of the beneficiary (judicial liquidation). 

Bankruptcy, untraceable companies; strong likelihood of lack of assets 

The procedure for recovering funds is laid down in the Rules on Recovery for the 
national  budget  funds  arising  from  EU  financial  assistance,  the  financial 
mechanisms of the European Economic Area and Norway and co-financing paid 
through  special  programmes  under  the  Lithuanian  State  Budget  and  (or)  used 
contrary  to  legislation,  registering  and  entering  into  accounts  such  funds, 
establishing whether a project implementers' debts may be dubious and writing off 
such  debts  (hereinafter  the  'Rules  on  Recovery'),  approved  under  Lithuanian 
Government Resolution No 590 of 30 May 2005 on approving the above Rules on 
Recovery. 

The Rules on Recovery lay down that where a project implementer who has been 
sent  a  decision  on  the  recovery  of  funds  fails  to  repay  these  funds  during  the 
period  of  time  specified  in  the  decision,  repays  only  part  of  the  funds  or  an 
amount of funds deducted from the next payment request submitted by the project 
implementer  or  from  other  allocations  from  the  State  budget,  and  where  this 
amount  is  greater  than  LTL  10 000,  and  the  project  implementer  is  not  a 
budgetary  authority,  the  subrogation  right  to  the  recovery  of  this  amount  shall, 
within  30  days  of  the  time  limit  specified  for  repayment,  be  transferred  to  AB 
Turto Bankas (hereinafter ‘Turto Bankas’) under an agreement on the transfer of 
subrogation  rights.  Turto  Bankas  undertakes  recovery  of  the  debt  in  accordance 
with the agreement on the transfer of subrogation rights, taking into account the 
procedure laid down in the Rules on Recovery. 

The  Rules  on  Recovery  lay  down  that  the  administering  authority  or  the  EU 
Structural Funds implementing authority (where it has been granted authority by 
the administering authority), or Turto Bankas (where the debt has been transferred 
under an agreement on the transfer of subrogation rights) shall write off a project 
implementer's dubious debts where, more than 24 months since the dispatch of the 
decision  to  the  project  implementer,  no  assets  have  been  found  to  belong  to  the 
project implementer or the assets found are not liquid (where any assets are found 
and  these  are  sold  according  to  established  procedures  and  part  of  the  debt  is 
covered,  only  the  remaining  part  of  the  debt  shall  be  written  off);  the  project 
implementer has died and liabilities have not been transferred to another person; 
the  project  implementer  is  bankrupt  and  any  assets  are  insufficient  to  cover  the 

158 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.2. If a waiver of a recovery is made or there is a failure to recover, state the possible 
reasons.  

debt;  the  project  implementer  is  in  liquidation  and  any  assets  are  insufficient  to 
cover the debt. 

A  project  implementer's  dubious  debts  are  written  off  only  where  the  project 
implementer  is  in  liquidation  and  has  failed  to  meet  liabilities  in  respect  of  the 
administering  authority  or  the  implementing  authority  (where  authorised  by  the 
administering authority). Where the project implementer is in liquidation but any 
rights and obligations are transferred to a successor, the dubious debts may not be 
written  off,  except  in  cases  where  the  assets  of  the  successor  to  the  project 
implementer’s rights and obligations are not sufficient to cover the debts. 

HU 

The National Development Agency (NFÜ) does not waive recovery. If there is no 
voluntary performance and the guarantees are not enforceable, a last possibility to 
recover the amount of aid is to recover it in the form of taxes, which is a task of 
the tax authority. 

MT 

No irregularity was discovered in 2005. 

Nonetheless,  as  a  general  principle,  the  Government  of  Malta  is  said  to  have 
waived his right of recovery when he refrains from applying within the stipulated 
period  the  recovery  /  remedial  action  contemplated  in  the  applicable  Laws  and 
Regulations. 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

FI 

SE 

Bankruptcy. 

In  most  cases  this  concerns  bankruptcies  which  also  had  to  be  reported  as 
irregularities until the end of 2005. The relevant court proceedings are in progress 
– the number of recoveries is very low. 

Not applicable 

In general, managing authorities consider that recovery is always possible. 

A recovery process is only abandoned when, in addition to the voluntary payment 
by the company and insufficient coverage of the bank guarantee, it is found there 
are  insufficient  assets  to  attach  the  amount  of  the  debt,  i.e.  when  a  tax 
enforcement  is  “ruled  insufficient”  (lack  of  tangible  assets)  or  under  an 
irrecoverable insolvency proceeding. 

The recipient was the Centre for school and out-of-school activities and the funds 
were covered by the Ministry of Education and Sport 

The corrections are always made prior to payment. The resources are never paid 
out and recovery is therefore not appropriate. 

The  project owner has  acted in  good  faith and the administrative authority must 
accept the expense. In certain cases, bankruptcy can be one reason. 

159 

   EN 

 
 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

BE 

Brussels-Capital Region: Withdrawal of certified sums and identification of other 
eligible expenditure for the same project or reallocation of available funds to other 
projects. 

Walloon  Region:  Follow-up  of  irregularities  is  done  within  each  functional 
administrative  unit.  Irregularities  for  which  ERDF  shares  are  above  €10,000  of 
ERDF share are first presented to the OLAF inter-administrative taskforce for the 
Walloon  Region  before  they  are  communicated  to  OLAF  via  the  AFIS  system 
(Anti-fraud Information System). 

German-speaking  Community:  an  ad-hoc  check  of  the  corrective  measures 
constitutes a prerequisite for concluding the on-the-spot check. 

CZ 

Financial corrections are determined. 

Procedure according to the Methodology of Financial Flows within subject-matter 
jurisdiction of the MF. 

DRC: Follow up is listed in the programme complement. 

JROP: Follow up is undertaken in order to find out whether or not the entity being 
checked has taken corrective measures. It is undertaken based on previous check 
results  and  based  on  notice/failure  to  give  notice  of  taking  corrective  measures. 
Follow  up  is  undertaken  depending  on  assessment  by  the  head  of  the  control 
group or the department head or the section director. 

The  beneficiary  is  notified  of  the  repayment  demand  by  letter.  Irregularities 
greater  than  €4000  (2005)  are  reported  to  OLAF.  Payment  is  consistently 
surveyed and collection may be trans-ferred to a collection agency. Amounts paid 
are recorded and set against the next payment re-quest to the Commission. 

By means of recovery procedure or adjustments to the administration and control 
system in the field concerned. 

All identified cases are documented. Cases involving total aid (EU and Estonian 
targeted  funding)  of  more  than  EEK  40  000  (€2  556)  are  communicated  in  an 
infringement report to the Ministry of Finance (pursuant to Regulation No 278 of 
22  December  2006  https://www.riigiteataja.ee/ert/act.jsp?id=12769549).  Reports 
are submitted quarterly until a definitive solution for the case has been reached. 

Aid  implementers  monitor  irregularities,  with  no  need  for  any  involvement  of 
MA. 

There  is  a  subsequent  adjustment  and  reallocation  of  expenditure.  Managing 
Authority  follows  up  Intermediate  Bodies  to  complete  and  submit  Irregularity 
Forms. Irregularities discovered are highlighted at seminars to create awareness of 
issues arising. All detected Irregularities are adjusted out of a subsequent claim to 
the Commission. See answer to 3.4.1 in relation to follow up. 

The  MA  for  Peace  II  has  added  the  following:  “In  2007  SEUPB  introduced 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

160 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

guidance  on  recoveries  which  sets  out  the  steps  all  implementers  must  follow. 
Where  these  are  exhausted  and  recovery  has  not  been  affected  the  accountable 
department will need to take appropriate legal or write-off action”.  

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

Integrated IT system. 

The  application  for  the  management  of  European  funds,  Fondos  2000,  is 
monitored;  all  irregularities  and  checks  carried  out  are  recorded  and  the 
corresponding  financial  corrections  are  made.  The  state  of  play  as  regards  the 
corrections is checked before new expenditure is reported to the Commission. 

The management authority of the programme concerned, in consultation with the 
paying agency, makes the financial corrections and follows up on them. 

Follow-up is performed in accordance with the reporting procedure laid down in 
Articles 3 and 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94 as amended by Regulation (EC) 
No  2035/05.  The  Italian  authorities  report  every  case  of  irregularities  connected 
with  the  use  of  EU  funds  when  it  is  detected.  Where  the  conditions  of  the 
abovementioned Regulations are met, they fill out the report form and forward it 
to the Department for EU policies at the Prime Minister's Office, which notifies 
the  European  Commission  using  the  AFIS  system.  At  the  same  time  the 
authorities  in  question  take  the  administrative  measures  required  of  them 
(suspension  –  cancellation  etc).  The  Commission  is  kept  abreast  of  every 
administrative or judicial development in connection with the irregularity detected 
by  means  of  the  update  forms  which  are  forwarded  under  the  abovementioned 
procedures.  

Where irregularities have been reported the management and paying authorities: 

– 

– 

Do  not  include  the  amounts  covered  by  the  irregularities  in  the 
declarations  of  expenditure  and  applications  for  repayment  to  the 
European Commission 

Assume  the  risk  regarding  recovery  of  the  sums  unduly  paid  out, 
stripping out the payments made from the certification of expenditure. 

Quarterly reporting to competent authority. 

If it is established that an irregularity has occurred, it is corrected by averting its 
financial  consequences.  Financial  consequences  are  averted  by  withholding  a 
certain  amount  from  the  current  or  next  request  for  structural  funds,  recovering 
irregular  expenditure,  submitting  reports  on  irregularities  and  informing  the 
managing  authority  (the  supreme  State  budget  institution  and  the  State  Audit 
Office,  as  well  as  the  Cabinet  of  Ministers)  of  irregular  expenditure  effected  by 
State budget institutions.  

Monitoring  of  irregularities  takes  place  with  the  second-level  intermediate  body 
(the  Central  Finance  and  Contracting  Agency)  keeping  track  of  whether  the 
beneficiary is respecting deadlines for repayment of funds. If need be, procedural 
documents  are  prepared,  the  recovery  of  irregular  expenditure  ensured  and  law 

161 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

enforcement services engaged to investigate any irregularity. 

LT 

Pursuant to the Administrative and Financial Rules governing measures contained 
in  Lithuania's  2004–2006  single  programming  document  and  projects  financed 
under these measures (hereinafter the 'Rules'), approved under Minster of Finance 
Order No 1K-033 of 28 January 2004 (Official Gazette 2004, No 19-599; 2005, 
No 21-667): 

HU 

MT 

– 

– 

where an authority ascertains an infringement which, in its opinion, 
may  be  rectified,  the  project  implementer  is  granted  a  maximum 
period  of  10  working  days  to  rectify  the  infringement.  Where  the 
project  implementer  fails  to  rectify  the  infringement  within  this 
period,  the  Rules  provide  for  sanctions  against  the  project 
implementer (including recovery of part or all of project funds). 

where an authority ascertains an infringement which, in its opinion, 
is  irresolvable  or  cannot  be  rectified,  the  Rules  provide  for 
sanctions  against  the  project  implementer  (including  recovery  of 
part or all of project funds). 

Officials  from  the  authorities  responsible  for  administering  infringements 
regularly  monitor  the  implementation  of  recommendations  or  requirements  by 
project implementers both where a fixed period has been laid down for a project 
implementer to rectify an infringement and where a decision has been adopted to 
recover project funds. 

It differs according to the type of irregularity. 

The responsibility for co-ordinating corrective action and the monitoring of such 
action with respect to irregularities is vested with the Managing Authority. 

The onus to identify and report any kind of irregularity shall rest with all the key 
players  who  are  involved  in  the  Structural  Funds  operations.  These  include  the 
Paying  Authority,  the  Managing  Authority,  the  Treasury  Department,  the 
Department  of  Contracts,  the  Final  Beneficiaries  and  the  Internal  Audit  and 
Investigations Directorate. Every body involved in the implementation of projects 
financed  by  the  Structural  Funds  is  responsible  to  report  any  irregularity  it  may 
detect  to  the  Managing  Authority  copying  the  Internal  Audit  and  Investigations 
Directorate – the Audit Body and the Paying Authority. 

In  case  of  an  irregularity  which  necessitates  recovery  of  funds,  the  Final 
Beneficiary shall ensure that recovery is effected. The Managing Authority (MA) 
will ensure that:  

– 

– 

Recovery proceedings are initiated and finalised by the Final Beneficiary 
without unjustified delay (not more than two months);  

The  Paying  Authority  (PA)  is  informed  of  the  reported  irregularities 
which necessitate a recovery of funds and of developments made in the 
recovery of funds by the Final Beneficiary.  

162 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

The  PA  will  keep  an  account  of  amounts  recoverable  from  payments  of 
Community  assistance  already  made  according  to  Article  8  of  Regulation  (EC) 
438/2001. 

Following recovery, the PA will repay the irregular payments recovered, together 
with  interest  received  on  account  of  late  payment,  by  deducting  the  amounts 
concerned from its next statement of expenditure and request for payment to the 
Commission, or, if this is insufficient, by affecting a refund to the Commission. 

In an Annex to the fourth quarterly report on irregularities sent to the Commission 
by the Internal Audit and Investigations Directorate (IAID), the PA will prepare a 
statement of the amounts awaiting recovery at that date, classified by the year of 
initiation of the recovery proceedings. 

(1) 

The  PA  has  made  the  following  arrangements  to  maintain  a 
from 
debtors’ 
expenditure to be declared: 

to  deduct  amounts 

ledger  and 

recovered 

– 

– 

– 

A  separate  ledger  will  be  kept  for  each  Structural  Fund  showing  the 
details of the individual debtor and cross reference to the appropriate file 
pertaining to the individual project. 

Any amount recovered would be set off in the appropriate debtor’s ledger 
and recorded in the individual project file. 

Data would also be kept regarding the receipts of the amounts recovered. 

It  is  pertinent  to  point  out  that  Article  39  of  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No. 
1260/1999  provides  that  the  Member  States  shall  make  the  financial  corrections 
required in connection with the individual or systemic irregularities. The Manual 
of  Procedures  for  Structural  Funds  2004–2006  distinguishes  between  3  types  of 
financial corrections: 

– 

– 

– 

Specifically  Quantified  Corrections  –  Corrections  made  where  a 
quantifiable  irregularity  is  detected  for  an  individual  operation  or 
several individual operations. 

Extrapolated  Corrections  –  Corrections  applicable  where  a 
quantifiable error has occurred and there is a high probability that 
the  irregularity  has  occurred  also  in  other  operations  of  the  same 
type or throughout a measure or programme. 

Flat-Rate  Corrections  –  Corrections  applicable  with  respect  to 
individual  breaches  or  systemic  irregularities  that  are  not  in 
practice  quantifiable  such  as  those  resulting  from  a  failure  to 
undertake checks effectively to prevent or detect irregularities. 

NL 

Irregularities are recorded in the irregularity registration system. The next Article 
4 check (involving a progress report, a final report, an on-the-spot inspection or a 
5%  check)  involves  checking  whether  the  observed  irregularity  still  requires 

163 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

follow-up, or whether it has already been resolved. 

AT 

PL 

PT 

SI 

SK 

Recovery claims are recorded in an appropriate administrative system. Measures 
are  taken  at  regular  intervals  to  assess  the  state  of  affairs.  This  may  result  in  a 
reminder, a summons or some other communication. 

Every reported irregularity has to be dealt with – either by recovery, reduction of 
eligible expenditure or introduction of a 5(2) procedure (special report). 

Withholding refunds, the performance of checking control measures (on-the-spot 
and desk-based), issue of post-control recommendations. 

Irregularities  detected  during  monitoring  of  the  project  are  corrected  during 
validation of the expenditure. 

As  soon  as  an  irregularity  has  been  detected,  the  prosecutor  is  authorised  to 
initiate adversary proceedings. If the irregularity is confirmed, the amount of the 
debt resulting from the irregularity is calculated and a demand made to return it. If 
the  amount  is  not  returned  voluntarily,  the  appropriate  judicial  proceedings  are 
filed.  Monitoring  generally  occurs  through  telephone/e-mail/fax  contacts  and 
notifications. 

CCDR: 1ST level control and return application. If the amount is not returned, it 
is deducted from other payment application. 

The  instructions  of  the  management  and  control  systems  for  the  use  of  the 
structural funds are updated with preventive and corrective measures based on the 
irregularities and deficiencies detected. 

The state of individual irregularities is constantly followed up in the ITMS and by 
individual implementation managers of the MA PSOP when PSOP measures are 
subjected to verification. Irregularities are corrected either by requesting a refund 
of  the  irregular  funds,  or  by  restoring  the  situation  to  what  it  was  before  the 
irregularity arose 

The  manager  responsible  for  irregularities  keeps  a  database  of  irregularities, 
which  is  used  to  monitor  the  resolution  status  of  irregularities  –  the  database  is 
updated  at  least  once  per  month,  and  if  it  is  found  that  the  irregularity  was  not 
corrected within the time set, the manager warns the final beneficiary/recipient of 
their obligation to refund the money. 

The Paying Authority and Paying Unit: keep a record of selected debtors and the 
debts  of  final  beneficiaries/recipients  because  of  irregularities  and  financial 
correction 

The MA cooperates with the Paying Authority and the Paying Unit in resolving 
irregularities 

On  the  basis  of  the  SF  financial  management  system:  Reports  on  confirmed 

164 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

irregularities, recording in ITMS 

For  correcting  irregularities,  the  SRTA  gives  the  final  beneficiary/recipient  a 
deadline  for  remedying  the  irregularity.  The  final  beneficiary/recipient  gives 
written notification of the remedy. The verification group carries out on the spot 
checks to ensure the irregularity has been remedied. 

Preliminary financial control (formal, material and mathematical verification of a 
payment request, checks on the site of the project, checks for non-duplication of 
expenditure) Request to repay irregular funding.  

In  2005  the  occurrence  of  irregularities  was  prevented  by  providing  training  for 
the  final  recipients.  In  subsequent  years  a  variety  of  measures  were  taken  to 
correct irregularities by improving information for final recipients. 

Verification of the status of irregularities on the basis of irregularities recorded in 
the ITMS and Detected Irregularities Reports entered into the ITMS. 

FI 

The  intermediate  body  is  under  national  law  responsible  for  the  monitoring  of 
actions,  control  and  recovery  proceedings.  Procedures  are  specified  in  the 
description  of  the  management  and  control  system  of  each  intermediate  body. 
Intermediate  bodies  inform  the  certifying  authorities  and  the  Ministry  in  their 
administrative sector according to EC legislation of any irregularities, recoveries 
and other measures taken in order to rectify the irregularities detected. 

is  recorded  on 

information  system.  Those 
the  Fimos2000 
Information 
intermediate  bodies  whose  information  is  not  included  in  Fimos  have  to  submit 
the information to the paying authority. 

The ineligible part is deducted from the payment made to the beneficiary on the 
basis of the payment application. If the irregularity is detected at a later stage, the 
amount  can  be  deducted  from  a  future  payment.  Before  the  final  payment,  the 
project is examined as a whole. Each Ministry controls in its administrative sector 
that  the  financing  authorities  take  the  necessary  measures.  The  authority  that 
granted 
any  measures: 
acknowledgement,  recovery,  transfer  of  the  project  under  national  funding. 
Skärgården :  Supplementary  information  required.  Aid  is  not  paid  out  unless 
satisfactory supplementary information is received. 

is  primarily 

responsible 

assistance 

the 

for 

SE 

UK 

Re-crediting  is  followed  up  by  the  administrating  authority.  Cases  reported  to 
Ekobrottsmyndigheten (The Financial Crime Authority) are also followed up. 

For  England  and  Wales  -  day-to-day  action  by  appropriate  offices.  Recovery 
usually from next claim or if not feasible, a recovery order is issued to the grant 
recipient,  who  is  not  permitted  to  reuse  the  ineligible  amount.  CLG  request 
quarterly updates from the GOs. 

In Northern Ireland, projects are informed verbally and in writing. Adjustments 
made,  moneys  recovered  or  clawed  back.  Database  adjusted  to  record  details. 

165 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.3. How is follow up and correction of irregularities performed? 

Those  above  threshold  are  notified  to  Commission  for  submission  to  OLAF  (if 
required). 

Reviewed and investigated by the Managing Authority concerned in Scotland 

166 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 

BE 

CZ 

Additional  checks,  more  on-the-spot  checks.  Walloon  Region:  the  OLAF 
taskforce for the Walloon Region provides tips to its members on how to avoid a 
high rate of irregularities (reminder of the importance of first level checks, respect 
of audit trail, etc.). 

As  of 31  December  2007,  only  two  confirmed  irregularities  with  closed 
investigation – see 3.3.2. 

Procedure  according 
the  Methodology  of  Financial  Flows  (systemic 
irregularities  during  the  programming  period  2007-2013  are  provided  for  on  p. 
29). 

to 

DRC: No irregularities were detected. 

Interreg: Increase in intensity of checks.  

JROP:  As  JROP  has  not  found  a  high  irregularity  rate  or  apparently  systemic 
irregularities, no special measures needed to be taken to reduce irregularity rate. 

DK 

The  general  analysis  of  the  causes  of  irregularities  has  prompted  a  greater  input 
concerning  aid  conditions  etc.  (e.g.  the  brochure  "Good  Advice  about  Regional 
Fund Projects"), which is sent to the beneficiaries. Data about project guidelines 
etc. serve to explain the rules on aid and their application in greater detail. 

The  importance  of  the  aid  rules  is  also  strongly  impressed  on  the  project 
accountant. 

The  beneficiaries  are  otherwise  closely  monitored  by  the  administrative 
authorities while the project manager or others is/are required to provide an audit 
trail as proof of accounting procedures and in-house inspection. 

Adjustment  of  checking  strategy/risk  analysis  in  regard  sampling.  Increasing 
intensity of checks. 

If need be, a greater number of such projects are checked. 

Increase  in  the  intensity  and  depth  of  checks.  If  an  error  is  of  serious  systemic 
nature  revised  guidance  will  be  issued  and  further  training  where  relevant  and 
appropriate will be provided 

Recommendations  in  audit  reports  and  general  instructions  based  on  findings  or 
documents, questions. 

When checks are carried out on a sample and systemic irregularities are identified, 
the  rest  of  expenditure  is  analysed  in  relation  to  the  irregularity  detected,  and  if 
this is difficult, a flat-rate assessment is carried out. In the event of high indexes 
for non-systemic irregularities, checks were carried out more intensively. 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

167 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 

FR 

IT 

LT 

Not applicable. This is because the Article 4 audit is carried out systematically in 
France before each aid payment (advance and balance). 

Adoption  of  user  manuals  to  make  everyone  aware  of  the  procedures  for 
conducting checks.  

Where  systematic  irregularities  are  discovered  level  I  and  level  II  checks  are 
stepped up and closer checks are conducted on all persons involved. 

In  accordance  with  Lithuanian  Minister  of  Finance  Order  No  1K-315  of 
25 September 2006  on  the  creation  of  a  working  party,  an  infringement 
monitoring  working  party  was  established,  comprising  representatives  of  all 
institutions  administering  EU  Structural  Funds,  and  the  following  tasks  were 
assigned to it: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

sharing  experience  and  examples  of  good  practice  in  establishing 
infringements relating to the use of EU Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund 
and co-financing resources; 

examining issues concerning the ascertainment of infringements relating 
to EU Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund and co-financing resources; 

where  necessary,  putting  forward  proposals  for  improving  infringement 
administration procedures. 

The  infringement  monitoring  working  party  performs  the  following 
functions: 

discusses issues relating to the application, clarification and amendment 
of legal enactments governing infringement administration; 

puts  proposals  to  the  managing  authority  on  improving  procedures  for 
dealing with infringements; 

analyses information relating to infringements ascertained by authorities; 

shares  experience  and  examples  of  good  practice  in  dealing  with 
infringements; 

discusses issues relating to managing the risk of illegal use of funds; 

discusses issues relating to infringement prevention; 

performs other functions relating to dealing with infringements. 

With  a  view  to  dealing  with  high  rates  of  irregularity  or  apparently  systemic 
irregularities,  the  systems  for  dealing  with  infringements  is  continually  being 
improved in line with the working party's proposals. 

168 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

In case of frequent irregularities the intensity of controls is increased and projects 
possibly involved are reclassified to a higher-level risk group of projects. In case 
of  systemic  irregularities  the  NFÜ  Coordinating  Managing  Authority  in 
cooperation  with  the  relevant  department  or  unit  provides  for  a  normative 
environment  necessary  to  remedy  the  irregularity.  It  should  be  noted  that  most 
irregularities are individual and systemic irregularities rarely come up. 

Amend Manual of Procedures where applicable. Issue explanatory circulars to the 
stakeholders  involved.  Hold  meetings  with  relevant  stakeholder/s  to  discuss  and 
find a permanent solution. 

National  Action  Plan,  report  by  Directorate  General  for  Regional  Affairs  dated 
31 January 2008, measures to improve matters. 

The general rule is that systemic problems are not necessarily irregularities within 
the  meaning  of 
the  Regulation  –  administrative  errors  are  not  always 
irregularities. 

In  the  case  of  systemic  deficiencies  corrective  measures  are  taken  and  this  may 
well  lead  to  financial  corrections.  The  corrected  amounts  may  in  some 
circumstances  be  reported  as  irregularities.  However  the  AFIS  system  is  not 
designed for such reporting. 

IROP: The Managing Authority IROP, commencing from August 2006, organises 
quarterly  meetings  on  fraud  and  financial  abuse  for  Implementing  and 
Intermediate  Institutions.  The  purpose  of  these  meeting  sis  to  exchange 
experience and knowledge on the topic – controllers from Article 4 participate in 
the meetings. Furthermore, MA IROP organises training on control, irregularities 
and consolidation of EU and Republic of Poland financial interests – trainings are 
organised  with  the  participation  of  MF  representatives,  the  Police,  controllers 
from Article 10. 

In  order  to  improve  control,  increase  its  effectiveness  and  standardise  binding 
principles in this respect under IROP, MA IROP drew up in 2006 Guidelines on 
Checks  from  Article  4  (updated  on  31  July  2007).  Furthermore,  it  was 
recommended  to  carry  out  cross-checking  at  the  Beneficiaries  implementing  a 
number of projects from structural funds. 

In  order  to  improve  public  procurement  checks  training  was  organised  on  the 
Public Procurement Act, guidelines were drawn up on public procurement checks 
together  with  check  lists,  cooperation  was  started  with  the  Public  Procurement 
Office. 

Concerning  the  intensity  of  checks,  the  Implementing  and  Intermediate  Bodies 
check  100%  of  secondary  sources  (documentation  attached  to  the  beneficiary’s 
payment application). 

169 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 

Furthermore, system simplifications and improvements have been carried out: 

In  January  2006  a  number  of  simplifications  were  also  carried  out  concerning 
confirmation of expenditure incurred by the Final Beneficiary under Measure 2.2. 
A  new  form  of  paying  out  grants  to  pupils  was  introduced  in  keeping  with 
suggestions of DG EMPL representatives (the obligation that Measure 2.2. Final 
Beneficiaries  present  copies  of  invoices  has  been  replaced  by  the  obligation  to 
present  certificates  signed  by  school  Directors  confirming  that  a  pupil  has 
participated  in  the  educational  course).  Guidelines  concerning  this  improvement 
were  consulted  in  an  ongoing  fashion  with  Regional  representatives  and  were 
submitted to the Regions. These changes were accepted by the IROP Monitoring 
Committee  and  came  into  force  on  the  day  of  entry  into  force  of  the  IROP 
Addendum.  

Concerning on-the-spot checks: 

From  the  beginning  of  implementing  IROP  to  mid-2006  institutions  involved  in 
the implementation of IROP had the obligation to carry out on-the-spot checks of 
100% of completed projects. In June 2006 the IROP Managing Authority made it 
possible to carry out on-the-spot checks on a sample of projects under Priority 2 – 
sample checks could be carried out on a sample of projects chosen on the basis of 
risk  analysis  described  in  the  selection  methodology  for  on-the-spot  samples  of 
projects.  Concerning  Priorities  1  and  3  it  is  possible  to  carry  out  a  check  on  a 
sample, on condition that an Annex is added to the project subsidy contract base 
don  the  obligatory  model  of  December  2006.  In  practical  terms,  the  majority  of 
institutions  involved  in  implementing  IROP  carried  out  on-the-spot  checks  after 
the  completion  of  the  project.  In  the  event  of  there  being  suspicion  that  the 
irregularity is of a systemic character the check becomes more intensive. 

CI INTERREG: In the event of the irregularity coefficient increasing, the checks 
on the threat of irregularity become more intensive.  

SOP  Transport:  For  projects  with  the  largest  number  of  irregularities  (both  in 
terms of number and magnitude) the checks become more intensive (frequent). 

PT 

Stepping-up  checks,  demarcation  of  error  perimeters  and 
quantification. 

respective 

SI 

SK 

Tighter demands in the initial assessment of the project and reinforced monitoring 
of the project. 

An  increase  in  the  intensity  of  checks,  or  a  request  to  correct  the  irregularity, 
failing which the recipient is asked to return the funds. 

Systemising  checks,  increasing  the  intensity  on  the  basis  of  risk  analyses  and 
communications 
final 
beneficiaries/recipients themselves. 

intermediate 

bodies, 

and 

the 

the 

of 

of 

170 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 

Increasing  the  intensity  of  spot  checks,  updating  MA  handbooks  and  guidelines 
for final beneficiaries/recipients, issuing methodological aids on the most frequent 
errors in ESF projects, training for final beneficiaries/recipients. 

Increasing the intensity of checks, direct consultation and operational decision of 
problems with the final beneficiary, 100% verification of payment requests and on 
the  spot  checks  within  the  scope  of  final  payment  requests,  when  the  project  is 
verified as a whole.  

Intensive  communication  with  the  final  beneficiary/recipient,  more  frequent 
checks. 

Increasing the intensity of on the spot verification, closer communication with the 
final beneficiary/recipient to prevent failings and irregularities from arising. 

Increasing the intensity of checks. 

Despite  the  low  level  of  irregularities,  measures  aimed  at  improving  the 
information  of  final  beneficiaries,  more  detailed  physical  checks  of  project 
implementation, and refunding non-eligible funding. 

Assignment as a risk project for the purpose of ongoing intensive verification of 
compliance with the terms of the NRFC Agreement. 

FI 

Mainly  by  preventive  measures.  Thus,  the  primary  measures  are  control  and 
guidance  according  to  the  principle  of  good  governance  to  keep  the  number  of 
irregularities as low as possible. 

A  so-called  steering  group  is  established,  for  instance  for  projects  under  the 
Regional  Development  Act  with  considerable  estimated  budgets  or  those 
receiving  funding  from  various  sources,  as  well  as  interregional  projects,  and  if 
necessary, also in other cases. The task of the steering group is, first and foremost, 
to act as a support group for the beneficiary. Members of the steering group must 
include a sufficient number of experts, including representatives of the financing 
parties  (supervisor)  and  project  personnel.  The  steering  group  follows  the 
implementation of the project in relation to the project plan and financing decision 
and,  if  necessary,  suggests  amendments  to  the  implementer  of  the  project.  The 
steering group must evaluate the results obtained by the project in relation to the 
objectives  set  for  it  and,  for  its  part,  develop  procedures  to  enhance  the 
implementation  of  the  project.  Depending  on  the  nature  of  the  project,  it  is  the 
task of the steering group to advance the project networking. The steering group 
must also approve the final report of the project before it can be submitted to the 
authorities.  In  addition,  the  steering  group  deals  with,  for  example,  interim 
reports, payment application and suggested amendments. 

In  preparing  the  financing  decisions,  the  backgrounds  of  the  project  actors  are 
checked, including financial resources and other conditions for implementing the 
project.  In  the  evaluation  of  expertise  and  solvency,  for  instance,  the  applicant's 

171 

   EN 

 
 
3.4.4. What action is taken to deal with high rates of irregularity or apparently systemic 
irregularities (e.g., extrapolation, increase in intensity of checks)? 

credit  information  and  familiarity  with  financial  management  are  checked. 
Especially  a  beneficiary  who  has  not  previously  been  granted  aid  from  the 
structural funds is familiarised with the operational principles. 

SE 

UK 

Details with the relevant instructions contained in the verification form, which is 
completed  during  the  processing  of  the  payment  application,  are  discussed  as 
applicable  with  the  implementer  of  the  project  in  the  start-up  meeting  or 
equivalent  in  order  for  the  implementer  to  acknowledge  its  obligations 
beforehand. 

The administrative authority and the responsible Article 15 organ use information 
in  their  control  and  audit  procedure  work.  Reports  are  generally  submitted  to 
Ekobrottsmyndigheten (The Financial Crime Authority). 

England:  Increased  checks/monitoring.  Meetings/discussions  with  organisation 
about  the  issues  and  recommendations  to  improve  systems  etc.  Some  GOs  have 
taken  action  through  workshops,  forming  monitoring/irregularities  committees 
and/or  pre-engagement  visits  when  the  terms  and  conditions  of  grant  are 
explained and the likely actions if grant recipients fail to comply. This latter point 
has proved very successful in GO East. 

Northern Ireland: Revised guidance issued and checks were increased.  

Scotland: Targeting of projects / applicants likely to be affected. 

172 

   EN 

 
 
3.5. 

Information to final beneficiaries. 

Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possible consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 

BE 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

Yes.  Granting  convention,  Vademecum  and  organization  of  project  follow-up 
committees 

Yes. By the intermediate body in the course of processing applications, or through 
conditions of allocating contributions (part of the Decision to provide a subsidy). 

Interreg:  Conditions  of  providing  a  subsidy/financing  agreement  (applicable 
section on the procedure to be taken by the Managing/National Authority in case 
of finding suspected irregularity).  

Potential applicants are already informed of irregularities upon submitting project 
applications (and beneficiaries during implementation) as implied by Instructions 
for subsidy applicants and beneficiaries. 

JROP:  Final  beneficiaries  are  given  advance  notice  of  irregularity  consequences 
in  the  Conditions  of  the  Decision  to  provide  a  subsidy  and  instructions  for 
applicants and instructions for beneficiaries. 

In case of detecting a specific irregularity, final beneficiaries are informed about 
the  detection  of  and  the  subsequent  measures  to  investigate  and  rectify  the 
irregularity  via  specific  documents,  such  as  check  reports/certificates,  copies  of 
notices for the tax office and so on. 

Yes. The letter of authorisation contains relevant information. 

Principles  of  the  law  on  administrative  procedures  are  sufficiently  well  known. 
See §§ 48 and 49 General Administrative Procedures Act(s) of the Länder. 

Yes. Verbally and/or in writing. The order sets out a list of the activities which the 
beneficiary failed to carry out by the deadline, the measures required and all rights 
and obligations. 

Yes. Through financial management training seminars, in writing and also on site-
visits.  A  series  of  on-site  pre-closure  visits  are  currently  under  way  both  at 
Managing Authority and Intermediate Body level which facilitates an even greater 
level  of  communication  on  common  type  errors  which  could  potentially  lead  to 
irregularities. 

Yes.  Final  beneficiaries  are  fully  informed  of  their  legal  obligations  and  of  the 
consequences  of  possible  irregularities  as  a  result  of  failure  to  comply  with  the 
obligations undertaken in return for financing from the operational programme in 
the integration decision. Whenever an irregularity is identified during on-the-spot 
administrative  verifications  by  the  managing  authority,  the  final  beneficiary  is 
advised  of  the  consequences  of  the  irregularities  (letter  or  audit  results  sent  to 
beneficiary  setting  out  all  the  findings  of  the  verification  and  the  proposed 

173 

   EN 

 
 
3.5. 

Information to final beneficiaries. 

Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possible consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

consequences). 

Yes. In writing. 

Yes.  The  beneficiaries  are  informed  in  the  acts  awarding  ERDF  funding,  which 
specify their rights and obligations and the scope of their responsibilities. 

Yes.  The  relevant  EU,  national  and  regional  rules  are  referred  to  in  the  forms, 
information sheets and notices setting out the final beneficiary’s obligations and 
the  consequences  of  any  failure  to  meet  them.  Reference  is  made  to  these 
documents in the notification that the funding has been awarded. 

Yes. Via terms in the grant letter. 

Yes.  In  accordance  with  contracts  concluded  on  project  implementation  and  the 
provision of ERDF co-financing, the intermediate body has the right to reduce the 
amount of ERDF co-financing that needs to be paid back or to refuse to pay it out 
at all, or alternatively to request that all or part of the ERDF co-financing that the 
intermediate body has already paid be paid back, should it ascertain that a funding 
beneficiary has not complied with European Community or Latvian legislation on 
the implementation of structural funds. The contract indicates that the beneficiary 
of  funding  from  a  structural  fund  must  implement  the  relevant  project  in 
accordance  with  European  Community  and  Latvian  legislation.  By  signing  a 
project implementation contract, the funding beneficiary affirms that not only has 
he  or  she  become  acquainted  with  the  terms,  but  also  with  the  requirements  of 
regulations pertaining to the Structural Funds. For this reason it can be considered 
that the beneficiary is also aware of the consequences of permitting irregularities. 

Yes. The procedure for informing funding recipients of their legal obligations and 
rights and the possible consequences of financial infringements is laid down in the 
Administrative and Financial Rules governing measures contained in Lithuania's 
2004–2006  single  programming  document  and  projects  financed  under  these 
measures  (hereinafter  the  'Rules'),  approved  under  Minster  of  Finance  Order  No 
1K-033 of 28 January 2004 (Official Gazette 2004, No 19-599; 2005, No 21-667). 

Paragraph  213  of  the  Rules  lays  down  that  where  an  authority  ascertains  an 
infringement  which,  in  its  opinion,  may  be  rectified,  the  project  implementer  is 
granted a maximum period of 10 working days to rectify the infringement. 

Where, in the opinion of the authority, an infringement is irresolvable or cannot 
be rectified, the project implementer may be subject to the sanctions laid down in 
paragraph 213 of the Rules (including financial sanctions). 

Paragraph 217 of the Rules lays down that a project implementer must be notified 
immediately of any decision concerning an infringement. 

174 

   EN 

 
 
3.5. 

Information to final beneficiaries. 

Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possible consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 

LU 

HU 

Yes. In the grant agreement. 

Yes.  Following  the  closure  of  an  irregularity  procedure  the  NFÜ  informs  the 
beneficiary in written form, by post. 

MT 

Yes.  

– 

– 

– 

The  Letter  of  Offer  stipulates  the  legal  obligations  of  the  Final 
Beneficiaries.  

The Manual of Procedures for Structural Funds 2004–2006 issued by the 
Managing  Authority  was  distributed 
to  all  Final  Beneficiaries. 
Additionally the MA informs the Project Leader on updates issued by the 
MA itself via circulars or other means. 

The  Managing  Authority  organised  training  seminars  explaining  to  the 
Final  Beneficiaries  their  legal  obligations  and  rights  including  those 
related to irregularities. 

Yes. Brochures, information meetings, inspections and training courses for project 
applicants. 

Yes.  The  consequences  are  set  out  in  the  grant  agreements  and  the  general 
conditions for beneficiaries of ERDF funds. 

NL 

AT 

PL 

Yes.  

IROP:  There  are  provisions  in  the  model  project  subsidy  contracts  defined  by 
MA  IROP,  which  inform  the  Beneficiary  about  the  consequences  of  detected 
irregularities  and  obligate  the  Beneficiary  to  remove  the  irregularities  and  to 
inform  institutions  being  a  party  to  the  subsidy  contract  of  the  existence  of 
irregularities.  In  the  contract  there  is  a  description  of  procedure  for  recovering 
unduly  collected  means  or  means  collected  at  an  excess  level  together  with 
interest  as  in  tax  in  arrears.  In  keeping  with  the  contract,  failure  to  remove  the 
irregularities within the set period may lead to the project subsidy contract being 
terminated.  

In  the  event  of  irregularities  being  discovered  during  verification  of  secondary 
sources the Beneficiary is informed about the consequences by means of a letter 
on the verification results. However, in the event of irregularities being discovered 
as  a  result  of  an  on-the-spot  check  the  Beneficiary  receives  post-control 
information and post-control recommendations, by means of which he is informed 
of the consequences of the discovered irregularities. 

Furthermore,  the  Intermediate  Body  and  Implementing  Institution  organise 
training for the Beneficiaries, during which the Beneficiaries are informed of the 

175 

   EN 

 
 
3.5. 

Information to final beneficiaries. 

Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possible consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 

principles  of  the  Programme,  amongst  others,  of  the  principles  of  expending 
resources. 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

CI  INTERREG:  Information  is  submitted  during  training  organised  by  the 
Regional Offices and as part of working contacts with Intermediate Bodies. 

SOP  Transport:  Basic  information  is  contained  in  every  subsidy  contract  (also 
relating to the manner of calculating interest on inappropriately expended means). 

OP  –  Technical  Assistance:  Part  of 
the  entries  (concerning  financial 
consequences)  are  contained  in  the  subsidy  contracts/decisions.  Furthermore, 
TAOP  2004-6  beneficiaries  are  the  most  important  institutions  in  the  structural 
fund  implementation  system,  they  search  for  knowledge  in  an  ongoing  fashion 
whilst creating, managing and implementing the system.  

SOP  ECG:  Appropriate  entries  are  contained  in  the  contents  of  the  subsidy 
contract and guidelines for beneficiaries. 

Yes.  In  generic  terms:  Written  contract,  official  letters,  e-mails  containing 
guidance,  rules  and  procedures  regarding  the  measure.  Beneficiaries  are  kept 
informed  throughout  the  candidacy  and  through  an  appropriate  official  letter  in 
the event of an irregularity. CCDR: Official letter. 

Yes.  The  beneficiaries  are  informed  of  their  rights  and  obligations,  as  well  as 
regarding irregularities and the consequences thereof within the Applicant's Guide 
and  the  financing  contract  model.  The  beneficiaries  assume  these  obligations 
when signing the financing contract.  

Yes.  The  possible  consequences  of  any  irregularities  detected  are  mentioned  in 
the co-financing agreement. 

Yes. The rights of final beneficiaries/recipients are set out in the NRFC Funding 
Agreement.  During  on  the  spot  verification,  the  team  informs  the  final 
beneficiary/recipients  of  possible  sanctions  and  consequences  so  that  they  are 
aware  of  them  and  can  prevent  them.  The  final  beneficiary/recipients  are  also 
informed by e-mail or telephone. 

Contractually  within  the  scope  of  providing  information  in  relation  to  the 
implementation of ŠF projects, in the Non-Refundable Financial Aid Agreement 
and at final beneficiary/recipient training sessions. Where ineligible expenditure is 
found,  the  recipients  are  warned  in  the  course  of  irregularities  in  writing, 
beneficiaries are informed of the SF Financial Management Concept and via the 
Finance  Ministry  website,  beneficiaries  are  informed  in  personal  consultations 
and verifications of public procurement and on the spot checks. 

Agreements with the final beneficiary/recipient contain provisions that deal with 
sanctions  for  irregularities,  and  where  disputes  arise  project  managers  consult 

176 

   EN 

 
 
3.5. 

Information to final beneficiaries. 

Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possible consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 

with final beneficiaries/recipients, as well as members of the control group, warn 
them of potential irregularities and thereby help avoid them. 

the 
Agreement 
beneficiaries/recipients. 

on 

provision 

of  NRFC, 

handbooks 

for 

final 

Training  for  final  beneficiaries  through  public  information  published  on  the 
managing authority website, and personal consultations. 

The  rights  of  final  beneficiaries/recipients  are  set  out  in  the  NRFC  Agreement. 
Before signing NRFC Agreements, the final beneficiaries/recipients are informed 
of  their  main  duties  as  regards  fulfilment.  Recipients  are  informed  of  failures  to 
meet their obligations (late submission of data, e.g. for monitoring) by telephone 
or e-mail. In the case of further failure to meet their obligations under the NRFC 
Agreement, the recipients are given written warning. 

FI 

Yes.  It  is  noted  in  general  in  the  financing  decision  that  if  the  terms  set  in  the 
decision  are  not  complied  with,  the  payments  can  be  suspended  and  the  aid 
already paid can be recovered with interest. In addition, measures will be taken, if 
necessary, to bring charges in order to impose criminal sanctions. 

The  terms  of  the  financing  decision  also  include  the  obligation  to  immediately 
inform the financing authority of any changes and obstacles to implementing the 
project according to the decision under the threat of discontinuance and recovery 
of  payments.  The  grounds  for  lawful  recovery  have  also  been  specified  in  the 
decision. 

During  the  programming  period  of  2007–2013,  a  standard  electronic  financing 
decision form will be used, which combines the key obligations of the beneficiary 
and, furthermore, addresses, for instance, the exceptional and severe regulation in 
respect of the permanent nature of the operations and the monitoring thereof. 

Åland: In the financing decision, the steering committee decides on the funding allocated 
to the project and the Secretariat's technical project checks always provide information on 
the provisions (legal and administrative) the project must comply with in order to receive 
funding from the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). The legal provisions to 
be listed are the various Council and Commission regulations regarding financing within 
the  framework  of  the  structural  funds,  the  provincial  government's  policy  decision 
regarding payment obligations and eligible expenditure, which are co-financed from the 
structural funds, decisions on public procurement, etc.  

The  project  has  also  been  continuously  informed  by  providing  information  when  the 
Secretariat has participated in the meetings and in the project meetings arranged for the 
project actors.  

Information is also available on the programme's homepage www.skargarden.com. 

SE 

Yes.  In the conditions supplement that accompanies the decision concerning the 

177 

   EN 

 
 
3.5. 

Information to final beneficiaries. 

Final beneficiaries are generally informed of their legal obligations and rights. Are they 
also informed about the possible consequences of the found irregularities? (Yes/No). If 
YES, by which means are they informed? 

project. 

UK 

Yes. Grant Offer Letter and verbally. 

178 

   EN