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 2008 - Implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty by the Member States in 2008 {COM(2009) 372} {SEC(2009) 1003}
Date: 2009-07-15
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU Member State, European Commission, activity report, application of EU law, cooperation policy, fraud, fraud against the EU

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 15.7.2009 
SEC(2009) 1002 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Annex to the 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 
Protection of the financial interests of the Communities – Fight against fraud – Annual 
report 2008 
Implementation of Article 280 of the Treaty by the Member States in 2008 

{COM(2009) 372} 
{SEC(2009) 1003} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
INTRODUCTION 

The protection of the European Communities' financial interests and the fight against fraud is 
an area of shared responsibility between the Community and the Member States.  

Consequently, each year the Commission draws up a report in cooperation with the Member 
States on the measures taken to implement this obligation, according to article 280 of the EC 
Treaty.  This  report  is  addressed  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  Council  and  it  is 
published. 

The Commission report is drafted on the basis of the Member States' replies  to the"  Article 
280"  questionnaire.  The  present  questionnaire  covers  the  period  from  1  January  to  31 
December 2008. 

This document lists all the answers of Member States to the 2008 questionnaire. 

Over the time the report had become more and more voluminous. Both the Council and the 
European  Parliament  were  concerned  that  its  size  was  increasing  and  that  its  being  annual, 
horizontal  and  multisectoral  hampered  a  detailed  assessment  of  all  the  aspects  of  the 
protection  of  the  Communities'  financial  interests  by  the  Member  States.  Since  2003,  the 
Commission  has  therefore  applied  a  new  approach.  After  the  traditional  question  asking 
Members States to report on new measures taken in 2008, the questionnaire focuses on a few 
major themes. The aim is to gather information on topics which go beyond the measures taken 
in the course of a calendar year, thereby allowing a more detailed analysis of these topics. The 
topics change from year to year. 

As in previous years, the first part of this document presents the main measures that give 
effect  to  Article  280,  i.e.  measures  adopted  by  the  Member  States  to  combat  fraud  and  all 
illegal  activities  affecting  the  financial  interests  of  the  Communities.  In  order  to  make  the 
answers more concise and useful for the stakeholders, and at the request of several Member 
States, this part is structured differently than in the previous years. Member States have been 
invited to describe two or three "key" measures taken in the year 2008 in order to implement 
Article 280 of the Treaty, and not to list all measures in all sectors anymore.  

The second part concerns the competent national authorities in the field of fight against 
fraud  and  designated  for  the  cooperation  with  OLAF.  European  legislation  requires  that 
on-the-spot checks be conducted by the Commission in close cooperation with the competent 
authorities of the Member State concerned. From this point of view, prior identification of the 
competent national authority is essential for the success of on-the-spot checks. 

The  third  part  of  the  questionnaire  addressed  to  the  Member  States  refers  to  another 
specific  subject,  namely  the  reporting  of  irregularities.  In  the  fields  where  the  Member 
States  implement  the  budget  and  for  the  collection  of  the  Community's  own  resources, 
Community  legislation  requires  the  Member  States  to  report  suspicions  of  fraud  and  other 
irregularities.  Member  States  have  been  required  to  answer  a  series  of  questions  in  order  to 
allow  the  Commission  a  correct  and  in-depth  analysis  of  the  changing  trends  and  patterns 
related to irregularities in the European Union. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

DESCRIPTION  OF  KEY  DEVELOPMENTS  CONCERNING  THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 280 OF THE EC TREATY 

Maximum three most important legislative or administrative measures taken in the course of 
2008 for the protection of the European Community’s financial interests and the fight against 
fraud. These should be measures adopted at Member State’s own initiative and not measures 
which simply transpose Community legislation. 

In particular, Member States are asked to indicate:  

•  Type  of  measure  (law,  regulation,  etc.)  and  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 

Royal Decree of 29 April 2008 (M. B. 8 May 2008) 

To set up a body, organised on collegiate lines, to combat fraud, including tax fraud. 
This  body  is  tasked  with  drawing  up  a  draft  annual  action  plan,  with  making  sure 
that  the  implementation  of  this  plan  -  approved  by  the  Ministerial  Committee  for 
combating fraud, including tax fraud - is properly coordinated and with ensuring that 
the legislation is applied uniformly throughout the country.  

Royal Decree of 12 June 2008  

A new measure has been taken on the model of the mandatory deposit of periodic 
declarations  taking  account  of  the  improvements  to  the  tools  used  by  the 
administration and operators in their work, namely the electronic submission of the 
annual list of taxable clients and of the list of exempted intra-Community deliveries. 
This measure not only makes it easier for the administration and companies to deal 
with such declarations but, above all, enables the supplier lists used for the checks 
made  on  taxable  persons  to  be  drawn  up  more  quickly  and  more  efficiently  and 
helps speed up exchanges of information with the other Member States.  

The Royal decree gradually obliges taxable persons who are required to submit the 
aforesaid documents and who have the necessary IT resources available to them to 
submit the documents electronically, that is to say as from 1 July 2008 in the case of 
those taxable persons who submit periodic VAT declarations on a monthly basis and 
as from 1 July 2009 in the case of taxable persons who submit such declarations on 
a quarterly basis. 

Programme Law of 22 December 2008, (M. B. 29 December 2008) 

Introduced measures that made for greater efficiency in collecting VAT receipts and 
were designed to improve the collection of taxes and of excise, customs and other 
duties  and  such  like.  In  particular,  Article  191  replaces  Article  81b)  of  the  VAT 
Code  with  a  view  to  extending  by  two  years  the  limitation  period  for  engaging  in 
proceedings for recovering the tax, interest and fines imposed by taxation authorities 
when the offence referred to in Articles 70 or 71 of this Code was committed with 
the intention of defrauding or for malicious purposes. This limitation shall from now 
on become effective at the end of the seventh calendar year following that in which 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
the collectability clause comes into force.  

Articles 194 and 195 are about assigning the sums to be refunded or paid to those 
persons liable for payment and this with a view to improving the collection of sums 
payable by the latter in the form of tax credits and excise and other duties. 

Law of 19 September 2008, (M. B., 22 October 2008) 

Approving the Protocol and Joint Declaration, signed in Brussels on 17 April 2007, 
amending  the  additional  Protocol  on  taxes  annexed  to  the  Convention  concerning 
administrative  and  judicial  cooperation  in  the  field  of  regulations  relating  to 
achieving the objectives of the Benelux Economic Union, signed in The Hague on 
29 April 1969, provided for recognition by the other two countries of the system of 
joint and several liability in force in the country in which the VAT is due in order to 
make the resources needed for collecting this tax available to the administrations of 
the three countries.  

BG 

Law amending the Law on Public Financial Inspections, (SG, 14.11.2008) 

The Law was amended in order to allow for improved collaboration and cooperation 
with  the  supervisory  bodies  of  the  European  Commission.  It  lays  down  the 
procedures for enforcement action in case an economic operator refuses to cooperate 
voluntarily  with  supervisory  authorities,  including  with  the  controllers  of  the 
European  Commission.  Financial  inspectors  are  given  the  legal  right  to  perform 
searches and seize documents from inspected organisations and persons, subject to 
the sanction of the court, in cooperation with the authorities of the Ministry of the 
Interior.  The  regulation  governing  the  implementation  of  the  Law  lays  down 
detailed  rules  for  on-the-spot  checks  performed  by  the  financial  controllers  of  the 
European Commission. Procedure is established for the implementation of Recitals 
14  and  15  of  Council  Regulation  (EURATOM,  EC)  No  2185/96  of  11  November 
1996 concerning on-the-spot checks and inspections carried out by the Commission. 

Law on the conflict of interest (in force as from 1 January 2009) 

The  Law  lays  down  provisions  on  the  definition  and  identification  of  a  conflict  of 
interest,  its  prevention,  its  legal  consequences  and  related  legal  disputes,  the 
incompatibility  between  public  service  and  private  interests,  as  well  as  the 
protection  of  whistle-blowers  who  have  submitted  information  on  conflict  of 
interest.  

Law amending the Law on public procurement (in force as from 1 January 2009) 

It lays down procurement principles, conditions and procedures aimed to guarantee 
effectiveness  in  spending  budgetary  and  non-budgetary  resources.  A  database  will 
be  established  for  participants  in  procurement  procedures  for  whom  there  is 
evidence of fraud or irregularities involving EU funds.  

Council of Ministers Decree No 119 of 30 May 2008  

Laying  down  the  conditions,  procedures  and  mechanism  for  recovery  of  undue 
payments and overpayments, and resources unlawfully received or implemented by 
budget  and  state  enterprises  from  pre-accession  instruments,  EU  funds,  as  well  as 
national  co-financing  or  pre-financing.  The  procedure  for  recovery  of  debt  is 
therefore  simplified  and  shortened.  It  is  envisaged  that  debt  will  be  recovered 
through deduction of amounts from subsequent payments from the national budget 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
to the relevant agency.  

Council  of  Ministers  Decree  No  18  of  2003  establishing  an  Anti-Fraud 
Coordination Service  

Has  been  amended  to  extend  its  composition  and  to  allow  for  timely  reporting  of 
irregularities  and  for  collaboration  among  the  institutions  fighting  fraud  and 
irregularities. 

CZ 

National  Strategy  for  the  protection  of  the  European  Community’s  financial 
interests (Government resolution No 535/2008 of 14 May 2008) 

Action plan  

to  implement  the  priorities  of  the  objectives  of  the  National  Strategy  for  the 
protection of the European Community’s financial interests (Government resolution 
No 1275 of 15 October 2008) 

Act No 140/1961 Coll., the Criminal Act 

Was  amended  to  introduce  the  paragraph  129a:  "damaging  the  European 
Community’s financial interests". The amendment entered force on 1 July 2008. 

DK 

DE 

EE 

/ 

/ 

Government of the Republic Regulation No 125 of 7 August 2008  

Amends  the  conditions  and  procedure  for  recovering  and  repaying  aid  and  for 
providing  information  on  irregularities  arising  during  the  granting  and  use  of  aid. 
The  amendment  enables  aid  to  be  recovered  on  the  basis  of  a  percentage  rate  in 
cases  where  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  the  sum  involved  in  the  irregularity  or 
where the cost of this would be prohibitive.  

Instructions of 7 August 2008 for dealing with irregularities 

The aim of the instructions is to identify situations where the requirements relating 
to the use of the aid are not fulfilled and to provide implementers with guidelines for 
recovering amounts in part or in full or for abandoning recovery.  

Instructions  concerning  the  minimum  requirements  for  the  supervision  of 
structural instruments  

Updated  at  the  beginning  of  2008.  These  instructions  lay  down  in  detail  those 
aspects of projects which are to be inspected as an absolute minimum and the way in 
which the inspection process is to be organized so as to ensure, inter alia, that duties 
are sufficiently separated and that there is a sufficient level of quality control. They 
also lay down more  clearly-defined bases (including procedures) for the managing 
authority to carry out regular inspections of intermediate and implementing bodies. 
Previously, inspections were organized more in the form of cooperation and the flow 
of  information  was  less  regulated.  The  measure  is  necessary  to  ensure  that  the 
managing authority is informed of the procedures and operations of other bodies in a 
situation where the amount of funds and the number of measures is soaring and it is 
no  longer  possible  to  obtain  the  necessary  information  as  effectively  through  less 
formal forms of cooperation. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
IE 

Section 134 of the Finance Act, 2008  

Provides  Revenue  Officers  with  the  opportunity  to  question  suspects  detained  in 
Garda  Síochána  (Ireland’s  National  Police  Service)  custody.  The  Section  refers  to 
offences which Revenue Officers ordinarily investigate; however, it allows Revenue 
Officers to participate in questioning persons who have been detained by the Garda 
Síochána. 

EL 

1) Shared management audit: 

Decision 2/49837/0004/2.7.2008 (Government Gazette II 1334/8.7.2008) “Powers 
and special operation issues of the FCC”; 

(Government  Gazette  II  1334/8.7.2008) 
Decision  2/49840/0004/2.7.2008 
“Internal organization and  distribution  of powers among the support services 
of the FCC”; 

Decision  567/ΕDΕD/2.12.2008 
“Establishment of the Private-Sector Expert Register”*. 

(Government  Gazette  II  2486/5.12.2008) 

As  a  result  of  and  pursuant  to  Law  3614/2007  entitled  “Management,  audit  and 
implementation of development interventions for the 2007-13 programming period” 
(Government  Gazette  I  267,  3.12.2007),  the  Minister  for  Economic  Affairs  and 
Finance issued three decisions specifying the powers, structure and operations of the 
Financial  Control  Committee.  The  FCC  is  the  competent  body  for  verifying  the 
operation of the management and audit system for NSRF Operational Programmes 
(OPs)  and  the  Fisheries  Operational  Programme;  it  carries  out  inspections  of  all 
competent  management  and  certification  bodies.  Among  other  things,  these 
decisions established the Private-Sector Expert Register, from which private-sector 
experts are selected to participate as members of the FCC. 

2) Customs: 

For  the  purpose  of  implementing  the  Convention  on  Mutual  Assistance  and 
Cooperation  between  Customs  Administrations  (which  was  ratified  by  Law 
2772/1999 (Government Gazette I 282)), the declaration referred to in Article 32(4) 
of the Convention – regarding the temporary validity of the Convention among the 
Member  States  having  also  submitted  said  declaration  –  was  submitted  in  2008  to 
the Committee of the Council. 

Implementation  of  the  FIDE  computer  system  following  the  vote  passing  Law 
3675/2008  (Government  I  137/2008)  on  the  use  of  IT  in  the  field  of  customs,  as 
regards the creation of an archive for customs investigation files. 

3) Financial crime: 

Law  3691/2008  on  the  “Prevention  and  suppression  of  money  laundering  and 
terrorist financing and other provisions” (Government Gazette I 166, 5.8.2008). 

Apart from incorporating Directives 2005/60/EC (OJ L 309/2005) and 2006/70/EC 
(OJ  L  214/2006)  and  certain  recommendations  of  the  FATF  team  into  Greek  law, 
also introduces some new provisions, the main ones of which are: 

•  Recommendation  of  the  Strategy  and  Policy  Committee  to  tackle  money 

laundering and terrorist financing; 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
•  Recommendation of the Private-Sector Consultation Body; 

•  Greater powers for authorities responsible for combating  money laundering and 

terrorist financing; 

•  Tackling the risks posed by individuals, transaction and activities prone to money 

laundering and terrorist financing; 

•  Laying down proportionate, effective and dissuasive administrative sanctions and 

streamlining existing penalties. 

ES 

Law  1/2008  of  4  December  for  the  enforcement  in  the  EU  of  decisions  that 
impose financial penalties (BOE (Official Gazette) 293, 05.12.2008) 

•  It  governs  the  way  in  which  the  Spanish  judicial  authorities  will  recognize  and 
enforce  a  decision  requiring  the  payment  of  a  financial  penalty  issued  by  the 
competent authority of another Member State of the European Union. 

•  It applies, for instance, to offences categorised as fraud, including fraud affecting 

the financial interests of the European Communities.  

•  This law transposes Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 

2005 into Spanish law. 

ORGANIC  LAW  2/2008  of  4  December  amending  Organic  Law  6/1985  of  1 
July 1985 on the judicial system, supplementing the Law for the enforcement in 
the EU of decisions that impose financial penalties (BOE 293, 05.12.2008)  

Amends  Law  6/1985  as  regards  the  jurisdiction  of  the  courts  concerning  the 
enforcement of judgments.  

Royal  Decree  1804/2008  of  3  November  implementing  Law  36/2006  of  29 
November on measures to prevent tax fraud (BOE 278, 18.11.2008) 

Aims  at identifying possible fraudsters  and prevent involvement  in fraud schemes. 
The following measures to combat tax fraud are included in this legislation; 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Improves  the  content  of  certain  notarial  deeds  relating  to  immovable 
property.  

Improves the procedure for revoking the NIF (tax identification number) by 
the AEAT (Tax Administration Agency): New cases of revocation and new 
legal  consequences  of  revocation  (removal  from  the  Registers  of  Intra-
Community Operators and Exporters and other economic operators). 

Introduces  the  annual  requirement  for  electricity  supply  companies  to 
communicate  contractor  details  and  the  land  register  reference  of  the 
property and its location.  

Royal  Decree  2126/2008  of  26  December  amending  the  Regulation  on  Value 
Added Tax approved by Royal Decree 1624/1992 of 29 December. 

Establishes a voluntary monthly VAT refund system and sets up a monthly refund 
register. 

Adopts  two  measures  in  order  to  prevent  tax  fraud:  (i)  measures  to  exclude 
defaulters from the register and (ii) the requirement to present a disclosure statement 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
FR 

IT 

in each assessment period with content of VAT records.  

Tax Fraud Prevention Plan approved in 2005:  

Was updated in November 2008. It is a strategic planning instrument that focuses on 
the design of preventive measures to avoid tax fraud and investigation as the central 
element of control measures.  

Law 14/2008 of the Catalonia Parliament of 5 November of the Catalonia Anti-
Fraud Office. (DOGC 5256, 12.11.2008) 

Aiming  at  preventing  and  investigating  possible  specific  cases  of  illegal  use  or 
allocation of public funds in the Autonomous Community of Catalonia. 

/ 

Decree  Act  No.  112  of  25  June  2008,  section  83c(5)  (O.G.  147/25  June  2008), 
converted into Act No 133 of 6 August 2008 (O.G. 195/21 August 2008) on the 
fight against VAT fraud damaging national and Community interests.  

Improves  the  coordination  of  operations  conducted  by  the  Guardia  di  Finanza,  the 
Revenue  Service  and  the  Customs  Service,  to  guarantee  more  effective  prevention 
and prosecution of fraud and to enable investigation reports to be produced and any 
preventive measures taken in good time.  

Regional  Order  (Determinazione  Dirigenziale)  No.  5813  issued  by  the  Emilia 
Romagna  regional  authorities  on  22  May  2008,  approving  a  Manual  on 
Procedures for the Managing Authority.  

The procedures covered by the Manual include "Procedure No 9 – Management of 
irregularities and recovery," the main objective of which is to rationalize measures 
for  preventing,  identifying  and  correcting  irregularities  and  recovering  amounts 
unduly  transferred.  Moreover,  the  procedure  should  guarantee  that  irregularities 
discovered  during  checks  on  measures  co-financed  under  the  ROP  2007-2013  for 
Emilia-Romagna are recorded, reported and notified. 

Decision of the Calabria Regional Government D.G.R. No 171 of 3 March 2008, 
amending DGR No. 493/2003  

Transfers the administrative responsibility regarding irregularities falling under the 
remit  of  the  Department  for  National  and  Community  Programming.  The  Act 
transfers  administrative  responsibility  for  notifying  irregularities  under  Regulation 
(EC) No 1681/94, as amended, from the Second Level Control Body to the Sector 
for  Monitoring,  Controlling  and  Inspecting  Programmes  and  Projects  at  the 
Department for National and Community Programming. The Decision provides for a 
system of management and supervision to codify procedures regarding information 
and  the  monitoring  of  irregularities  and  for  recovering  amounts  unduly  paid  out, 
thereby  ensuring  that  the  appropriate  national  and  EU  authorities  are  informed  of 
any irregularities correctly and in good time.  

CY 

Law 188(1)2007 on the prevention of and Fight against Money Laundering Act  

Entered  into  force  on  8  January  2008,  replacing  all  the  previous  laws  from  1996-
2004. The main purpose of the Act is to establish and criminalize the laundering of 
money originating from all serious criminal offences and to provide for the seizure 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
and  confiscation  of  said  money,  depriving  criminals  of  their  income.  The  legal 
framework in this field generally provides a comprehensive and effective basis for 
the fight against money laundering, as it contains provisions not just to preventing 
and  combating  money  laundering  but  also  for  locating,  freezing  and  confiscating 
assets. 

LV 

Cabinet  Regulation  No  65  of  5  February  2008  on  the  procurement  procedure 
and  its  implementation  with  regard  to  projects  financed  by  the  contracting 
authority 

Lays  down  rules  for  the  implementation  of  the  procurement  procedure,  if 
implementation  of  the  contract,  which  is  not  referred  to  in  Article  6  of  the  Public 
Procurement  Law,  is  financed  by  a  person  who  is  the  contracting  authority  within 
the meaning of the Public Procurement Law from his/her own resources, resources 
provided  for  under an EU policy  instruments, or  from co-financing  resources.  The 
Regulation  applies  to  any  person  who,  in  accordance  with  a  decision  taken  by  the 
competent authority, receives financing, under an EU policy instrument or from the 
central  or  a  local  government  budget  for  the  purpose  of  implementing  a  contract, 
with the exception of financing granted as compensation.  

Amendments to the Criminal Law  

Supplement  the  Law  with  Article  194(1)  -  the  dissemination  of  false  data  or 
information  on  the  state  of  the  Latvian  financial  system  -  entered  into  force  on  12 
January, 2008. This Article establishes liability for the dissemination in oral, written 
or  other  form  of  intentionally  false  data  or  information  on  the  state  of  the  Latvian 
financial  system.  Article  194(2) establishes liability for the activities referred to in 
Article 194(1), if these activities have been performed repeatedly or by a group of 
persons on the basis of prior agreement, or if in doing so substantial harm is done to 
the  State  or  to  a  person's  legitimately  protected  rights  or  interests.  Article  194(3) 
establishes liability for the activities referred to in Article 194(1) in cases where they 
have been performed for material gain. The amendments were drawn up in response 
to systematic attempts to destabilize the Latvian financial system by spreading false 
and distorted information.  

Four sets of guidelines  

Adopted in order to establish a common understanding among institutions managing 
EU  Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  in  Latvia  with  regard  to  eligibility 
issues,  the  performance  of  on-the-spot  checks  and  the  surveillance  of  monitoring 
indicators,  the  following  guidelines  were  drawn  up  for  the  2004-06  and  2007-13 
programming periods:  

Set of guidelines  

on  for  the  performance  by  the  Cohesion  Fund  Managing  Authority  of  on-the-spot 
checks in respect of the 2004-06 programming period approved on 16/01/2008; 

Set of guidelines  

for  the  Cohesion  Fund  Managing  Authority  in  relation  to  the  eligibility  of 
expenditure  in  respect  of  Cohesion  Fund  projects  for  the  2004-06  programming 
period, approved on 14 January 2008;  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Set of guidelines  

laying  down  the  fundamental  working  principles  of  the  monitoring  system, 
procedures  for  implementing  changes  to  monitoring  indicators  and  procedures  for 
the  surveillance  of  monitoring  indicators  during  the  2007-13  programming  period, 
approved on 15 July 2008  

Set of guidelines  

on  determining  eligible  and  ineligible  costs  for  the  2007-13  programming  period, 
approved on 14/08/2008; 

The method to be used for implementing Cabinet Regulation No 440 of 26 June 
2007  „Procedures  by  which  the  Managing  Authority,  the  Certifying  Authority,  the 
Co-operation  Authority  or  the  Responsible  Authority  Conducts  On-the-Spot 
Verifications  of  Projects  Financed  by  European  Union  Structural  Funds  and  the 
Cohesion Fund”, approved on 30/09/2008. 

LT 

Government Resolution No 439 of 29 April 2008 

Improves the rules on the repayment into the Lithuanian national budget of financial 
assistance disbursed and/or used in contravention of legislation. 

Government Resolution No 1225 of 12 November 2008 

Approves the rules for the administration and financing of action plans, laying down 
procedures  for  the  administration  of  2007–2013  EU  structural  aid  and  the 
identification and investigation of infringements. 

LU 

INTERREG programme: Clarification of responsibilities for the 1st level control. 

The Directorate-General for Financial Control, the body responsible for monitoring 
the commitment and authorisation of expenses in all Ministries and for monitoring 
the liquidation of non-tax revenue (created by the Act of 8 June 1999 on the State 
Budget, Accounting and Treasury) will be responsible for all the programmes from 
now on.  

INTERREG  programme:  Clarification  and  formalisation  of  procedures  (Support 
Committees for Interreg A projects) 

HU 

Act CXXVII of 2007 on VAT  

Entered into force on 1 January 2008 and was amended on 1 May 2008; sets stricter 
requirements  for  goods  imported  for  resale  to  qualify  for  VAT  exemption,  and 
therefore  provide  more  guarantees  in  the  fight  against  VAT-avoidance  and  VAT-
fraud. Goods resold free of VAT which were brought into the European Community 
must  be  dispatched  from  the  country  within  a  set  period  of  time,  and  evidence  of 
shipping  must  be  produced  together  with  the  customs  (export/import)  clearance 
declaration, and must be proved by presenting the appropriate documents within 15 
days of shipping. During the procedure the Customs Authorities establish the Value 
Added  Tax  and  suspend  payment  of  this. Importers are  exempted from paying tax 
only  if,  in  addition  to  the  above,  they  prove  within  15  days  of  shipping  that  the 
declaration  obligation  in  respect  of  intra-Community  sales  has  been  met.  The 
reverse  charge  procedure  defined  in  Article  142  of  Act  CXXVII  of  2007  on  VAT 
aims  to  provide  simplicity  and  transparency,  because  in  this  case  the  person  who 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
sells  or  provides  the  services  is  not  taxable;  the  customer  is  responsible  for 
calculating and paying the tax. The reverse charge procedure is applied in two types 
of  transaction:  when  the  party  required  to  meet  the  obligations  has  no  commercial 
establishment in Hungary and in transactions between taxable persons in Hungary. 
The act broadened the range of the domestic transactions with the aim of preventing 
undue VAT recovery. Under the reverse charge procedure it is no longer possible to 
apply for undue tax deductions for transactions on the basis of accounts of unclear 
origin.  The  provisions  implemented  increase  Hungarian  VAT  revenue,  so  they 
indirectly contribute to the fight against the violation of EU financial interests.  

Act CLXXXI of 2007 on the transparency of assistance from public funds 

Came  into  force  on  1  April  2008;  aims  to  provide  for  transparent  operation  of  the 
institutional  system  for  deciding  on  the  granting  and  use  of  development  funds.  It 
regulates  questions  of  conflict  of  interest  in  respect  of  Hungarian  and  EU-funds 
through  stricter  rules  and  in  a  clearer,  more  transparent  manner.  The  Act  and  the 
Government Decree on its implementation regulate the rules on conflicts of interest 
in connection with the evaluation of assistance from public funds, the corresponding 
reporting obligation and the rules governing the disclosure of data of public interest 
in connection with assistance. They also include widespread exclusion criteria and 
lay  down  reporting  and  disclosure  rules  for  compliance.  The  law  provides  strict 
sanctions against anyone who obtains subsidies despite a conflict of interest. 

MT 

National Anti Fraud and Corruption Strategy, presented on 19 November 2008 

Aims  at  setting  up  a  normative,  institutional  and  operational  framework  for  the 
effective  and  efficient  fight  against  fraud  and  corruption  in  Malta,  reflecting  both 
local  requirements  and  international  obligations.  It  enables  the  fight  against  fraud 
and corruption to be more pervasive and organised, and allows joint efforts by the 
actors  involved.  The  main  thrusts  of  the  Strategy  are  prevention,  deterrence, 
detection, investigation and prosecution of fraud and corruption.  

The Strategy will enable the national actors to work as a group and co-ordinate their 
initiatives in a strategic manner, thus enabling the mitigation of the highest risks in 
an  effective  manner.  It  has  four  main  objectives,  namely:  Capacity  Building; 
Communication Strategy; Maximisation of National Co-operation; Maximisation of 
International Co-operation.  

Act  No.  XXI  of  2007  (Constitution  of  Malta  (Amendment)  (No.  2)  Act,  2007), 
entered into force on 15 January 2008 

A  number  of  investigative  and  coercive  measures  were  introduced  when  the 
underlying  offence  was  that  carrying  a  punishment  of  a  maximum  of  one  year 
imprisonment  or  more.  This  legislative  instrument  introduced,  inter  alia,  the  said 
measures  in  the  Criminal  Code  (Cap.  9)  and  the  Prevention  of  Money  Laundering 
Act.  Moreover,  various  measures  to  enhance  mutual  legal  assistance  were  also 
catered for through the same legislation. These measures have general application, 
therefore, covering also fraud affecting the Communities' financial interests.  

With regard to the Attorney General's power to collect evidence under the Criminal 
Code, where the Attorney General has reasonable cause to suspect that a person is 
guilty  of  a  relevant  offence,  he/she  may  apply  to  the  Criminal  Court  for  a 
'monitoring order' under Article 435AA of the Criminal Code (Cap. 9), requiring a 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
bank  to  monitor  for  a  specific  period  the  banking  operations  being  carried  out 
through one or more accounts of the suspected person.  

Customs Department – Risk management of Import/Export Declarations 

A  review  of  the  Risk  Management  structure  was  carried  out  to  ensure  better 
exchange of information between customs staff dealing with the scrutiny of import / 
export declarations and officers effecting physical controls.  

Up  to  mid-2008,  Risk  Management  regarding  import/export  declarations  was 
managed  by  one  officer  who  oversaw  the  monitoring  of  declarations  in  the 
electronic systems, affected documentary checks and also updated risk profiles.  

Work in the Risk Management office has since been split in two separate areas. A 
leader  was  appointed  to  take  care  solely  of  updating  risk  profiles  while  another 
leader  is  now  responsible  for  business  operations.  These  improvements  aim  to 
ensure  more  effective  targeting  of  customs  declarations  and  thus  enhanced 
protection of the EU's financial interests. 

/ 

/ 

A  document  ("Guidelines")  for  the  calculation  of  financial  corrections  for 
infringements of public procurement law relating to projects co-financed from 
EU funds  

Was drawn up at the Ministry of Regional Development. The document was sent, in 
the  form  of  recommendations,  to  the  managing  authorities  and  intermediary 
institutions  involved  in  implementing  operational  programmes.  The  schedule  is 
applicable to operational programmes implemented with structural funds under the 
2004-2006  financial  perspective  and  operational  programmes  implemented  with 
structural funds and the Cohesion Fund under the 2007-2013 perspective. Its aim is 
to harmonise the procedure in the event of infringements of public procurement law 
and  to  improve  the  process  of  making  financial  corrections  in  respect  of  such 
infringements. 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

Decree-Law No 60/2008 of 27 March 2008 

Lays  down  the  organisational  arrangements,  the  powers  of  the  scrutinising  and 
monitoring  bodies  and  the  procedures  to  be  complied  with  by  the  national  entities 
when  implementing  Regulation  (EC)  No 485/08  and  which  sets  out  administrative 
offences  in  the  event  of  failure  to  comply  with  the  obligations  relating  to  the 
registration, keeping and availability of information specified in the Regulation with 
a view to making them more effective and binding.  

Council of Ministers Resolution No 2/2008 of 7 January 2008  

Created the operational structure for the  Mainland  Rural Development Programme 
(PRODER)  and  provides  that  this  management  authority  is  responsible  for 
managing  and  implementing  the  PRODER  in  an  efficient  and  effective  manner  in 
accordance with the principles of good financial management. To this end, it states 
that  the  regional  agricultural  and  fisheries  directors  have  the  technical  and 
administrative  support  of  the  respective  regional  directorates  and  perform  the 
monitoring and control functions for operations financed by PRODER.  

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
Council of Ministers Resolution No 79/2008 of 16 May 2008  

Set  up  the  Management  Authority  for  the  Fisheries  Operational  Programme 
(PROMAR)  and  provides  that  it  is  responsible  for  managing  and  implementing 
PROMAR  in  an  efficient  manner,  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of  good 
financial management. 

RO 

Own resources sector 

Law  99/29  April  2008  approving  Emergency  Government  Ordinance  No 
25/2007 
laying  down  certain  measures  for  the  reorganisation  of  the 
Government working apparatus (O.J. No. 340/2 May 2008, part 1) 

Extends the operational powers of the Fight Against Fraud Department (DLAF) to 
cover the revenue part of the EU budget. As a result, as ascertaining body within the 
meaning  of  art  214  of  the  Code  of  Criminal  Procedure,  DLAF  carries  out 
administrative investigations to detect irregularities and suspected fraud that damage 
the financial interests of the European Union in Romania by illegally reducing the 
own resources of the EU budget.  

National  Strategy  for  the  fight  against  Intra-Community  Organised  VAT 
Fraud 

Was drawn up under the coordination of the Directorate-General for Tax Inspection 
of  the  National  Tax  Administration  Agency  (ANAF).  The  Strategy  was  deemed 
necessary in order to strengthen the fight against tax fraud taking into account that, 
although  the  Community  legal  framework  has  been  improved,  it  is  not  being 
sufficiently exploited, and administrative cooperation is insufficient given the scale 
of  intra-Community  trade.  The  strategy  has  the  following  objectives:  Prevention  - 
checks on access to the Register of Intra-Community Operators, checks on high-risk 
taxpayers  who  access  the  Register  of  Intra-Community  Operators,  detection  and 
checks  on  economic  operators  "in  waiting",  that  is  registered  operators  with  no 
visible  activity  or  with  very  low  activity,  waiting  for  an  opportunity  to  commit 
carousel  fraud;  Detection  (rapid  detection  of  fraud  and  immediate  action)  - 
establishing  the  information  available  to  ANAF  and  further  information  needed  to 
eliminate  the  fraud,  development  of  data-processing  instruments,  collection  of 
specific  information  for  the  detection  of  fraud,  concluding  agreements  with 
taxpayers  who  operate  in  sectors  with  a  high  risk  of  fraud;  Monitoring  and 
inactivating persons who commit fraud - establishing a protocol of combat activities, 
initiation of legislative proposals, changes to the processing of VAT reimbursement 
applications;  Debt  recovery  -  applying  safeguard  measures,  developing  conditions 
for the application of joint liability, consolidating administrative cooperation in the 
recovery of taxes. 

SI 

Criminal  Code  (Official  Gazette  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  No  66/08, 
published on 1.7.2008, entered into force on 1.11.2008) 

Scope: horizontal 

Why  measure  was  needed:  Fraud  against  the  European  Community  financial 
interests was not specifically defined as a criminal offence 

Improvements:  Inclusion  of  a  specific  article  –  Article  229  (Fraud  against  the 
European Community): 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
Act Amending the Criminal Liability of Legal Entities Act (Official Gazette of 
the Republic of Slovenia No 65/08, published on 30.6.2008, entered into force on 
1.11.2008) 

Scope: horizontal 

Why measure was needed: more effective penalties 

Improvements: introduction of two additional penalties, as follows: 

According to Article 15a- Ban on participation in public invitations for tender: 

(1) As an additional penalty for criminal offences under Chapter 24 and for criminal 
offences under Articles 260, 262, 263 and 264 of Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code, 
the court may prohibit legal entities from taking part in public invitations to tender 
for a period of three to ten years. 

(2)  Contracting  authorities  must  exclude  from  public  invitations  to  tender  any 
candidate or bidder which as a legal entity has received an additional penalty under 
this Article. 

Article  15b:  Ban  on  trading  in  the  legal  entity's  financial  instruments  on  the 
regulated  market:  as  an  additional  penalty  for  criminal  offences  under  Chapter  24 
and for criminal offences under Articles 260, 262, 263 and 264 of Chapter 26 of the 
Criminal  Code,  the  court  may  prohibit  trading  in  the  legal  entity's  shares,  other 
securities or financial instruments on the regulated market for a period of between 
one and eight years. 

SK 

Act No 528/2008 on aid and support granted under EC funds (in force as from 
1 January 2009) 

Prior to the adoption of the Act, this area was governed by legal instruments ranked 
lower than acts. The Act governs the systems for the management and control of EC 
funds  and  lays  down  the  rights  and  obligations  of  the  entities  involved  in  the 
implementation  of  the  funds.  It  also  defines  the  status  of  the  Authority  for  the 
Protection  of  the  EC's  Financial  Interests,  the  obligations  of  other  entities  in  the 
context of the protection of the EC's financial interests and the arrangements for the 
settlement of financial relations. 

Guideline No 16/2008-U concerning irregularities in the financial management 
of  the  Structural  Funds  and  the  Cohesion  Fund  for  the  programming  period 
2004-2006 and 2007-2013 

Provides  instructions  for  assessment,  classification,  recording  and  notification  of 
irregularities,  addresses  the  updating  of  the  related  methodological  guidelines  and 
procedures  for  the  programming  period  2004  –  2006  and  lays  down  the 
methodology  to  be  applied  to  irregularities  in  financial  management  in  the 
programming period 2007–2013. 

3. Act No 10/1996 on controls in public administration was amended by Act No 
164/2008 (entered into force on 1 June 2008) 

It lays down detailed provisions on the powers of the OLAF contact point. 

4.  Act  No  502/2001  on  financial  controls  and  internal  audits  and  amending 
certain  acts  was  amended  by  Act  No  165/2008  (entered  into  force  on  1  June 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
2008) 

Covers  controls  to  be  performed  at  first-instance  and  second-instance  level.  The 
amendment  primarily  aimed  to  harmonise  procedures,  perform  controls  in  a  more 
efficient  way  and  improve  the  overall  quality  of  independent  verification  and 
assessment.  

FI 

Financial crime prevention development plan (Document No 28/850/2008)  

Drawn up at the National Board of Customs' crime prevention unit. The basis for the 
development plan for the prevention of trade-related financial crime is the National 
Board  of  Customs'  crime  prevention  action  plan  for  the  years  2009-2012.  This 
details  the  main  changes  to  the  (internal  and  external)  operating  environment  as 
regards  crime  prevention.  As  stated  in  the  action  plan,  serious  crime  targeting 
Finland  is  becoming  increasingly  professionalised.  For  the  activities  of  the 
authorities,  this  entails  the  need  to  broaden  and  deepen  professional  skill,  develop 
stringent  crime  prevention  methods,  build  up  the  resources  required  for  individual 
crime  prevention  operations  and  extend  the  time  frame.  The  vigorous  growth  in 
Russian trade has meant that, for certain aspects, the logistics chain of Russian trade 
is  controlled  by  the  type  of  parties  which  the  Customs  cannot  be  sure  in  advance 
present  no  risk.  In  addition,  recent  phenomena  linked  to  financial  crime,  such  as 
criminal activity via e-commerce and large-scale criminal activity linked to (transit) 
transport  companies,  have  made  its  prevention  more  challenging  then  before.  In 
addition to the main changes to the external operating environment described above, 
the action plan also describes the strategic guidelines for crime prevention for future 
years  as  regards  the  prevention  of  trade-related  criminal  activity  and  serious  and 
organised  crime.  It  attaches  priority  to  improving  the  prevention  of  trade-related 
criminal activity in cooperation with the customs inspectors and to cooperating with 
the police and the tax administration in accordance with the decision in principle on 
reduction  of  the  grey  economy  and  financial  crime  (financial  crime  prevention 
programme).  

The objective under the plan is for the Board of Customs to be, in its own area of 
activity,  a  leading  player  in  financial  crime  prevention,  and  particularly  in  the 
prevention  of  trade-related  crime.  According  to  the  Board  of  Customs'  crime 
prevention  action  plan,  the  Board  of  Customs  will  prepare,  in  particular,  a 
development plan for the prevention of trade-related financial crime, which will be 
put into effect during the period of results planning. With the aid of the development 
plan, the aim will be to organise the financial crime prevention to be carried out at 
the customs authorities at operational level into as well-defined a whole as possible 
and,  at  the  same  time,  to  commit  all  customs  districts  to  long-term,  planned 
development work.  

SE 

1.  For  the  2008  budget  year,  the  Swedish  Government  will  for  the  first  time 
supply national certification regarding the management of EU funds.  

This  national  certification  process  will  take  place  on  an  annual  basis  and  will  be 
submitted  by  the  Government  to  the  Riksdag  (Parliament),  with  a  copy  to  the 
European  Commission  and  the  European  Court  of  Auditors.  Certification  will  be 
part  of  the  Central  Government  Annual  Report  and  will  be  submitted  for  the  first 
time  in  April  2009  (for  the  2008  budget  year).  The  certification  will  contain  an 
assessment  of  whether  the  compilation  of  EU  accounts,  including  profit/loss 
statements, balance sheets and cash-based accounting, gives a correct picture in all 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
important  respects,  and  will  ensure  that  the  Government  has  a  system  (internal 
control framework) in place to secure satisfactory internal control of EU funds. 

The Government's certification will be based on the certifications and assessments 
of  the  authorities  responsible,  and  the  opinions  and  observations  of  the  auditors. 
Responsibility  for  ensuring  satisfactory  internal  controls  and  sound  economic 
management  lies  with  the  authority  responsible  for  managing  each  respective 
programme. 

The EU funds covered by the certification are those managed in partnership between 
Sweden  and  the  Commission  and  reported  under  the  appropriations  and  revenue 
headings of the central government budget. The funds concerned are the European 
the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund, 
Development, the European Fisheries Fund, European Regional Development Fund 
(including  European  territorial  programmes),  the  European  Social  Fund  and  the 
funds managed within the framework programme on Solidarity and the Management 
of Migration Flows. 

National  certification  is  expected  to  have  a  positive  impact  on  the  financial 
protection of EU funds in Sweden. 

2.  The  mandate  of  the  EU  Anti-Fraud  Council  has  been  extended  at  the 
Economic  Crime  Authority,  which  is  the  national  contact  point  for  OLAF  in 
Sweden.  

The composition of the Council has also been changed to ensure that the authorities 
responsible for the current programme period are represented. On 1 March 2008, the 
Council  changed  its  name  to  the  'Council  for  the  Protection  of  EU  Financial 
Interests'  (the  SEFI  Council).  The  Council  is  tasked  with  promoting  efficient  and 
correct  use  of  EU-related  funds  and  with  combating  fraud,  misuse  and  other 
irregular  use  of  such  funds  in  Sweden.  The  new  Council  replaces  the  earlier  EU 
Anti-Fraud Council. 

UK 

National Fraud Strategic Authority (NFSA) 

Established on 1 October 2008; it is a non statutory body. 

Key priorities are: 

•  A  Criminal  Justice  system  that  focuses  on  the  needs  of  victims  by  bringing 

fraudsters to swifter justice, efficiently and effectively; 

•  Stronger deterrence to fraudsters through a tough, multi agency law enforcement 

and regulatory response and 

•  Greater  public  confidence  in  the  response  to  fraud,  and  greater  capability  of 

individuals and organisations to protect themselves. 

Its  role  includes  working  with  private,  public  and  third  sector  organisations  to 
initiate coordinate and communicate counter fraud activity across the UK. 

The NFSA is also undertaking a research on victim support for fraud victims. 

Newly  established  National  Lead  Police  Force  on  Fraud  supports  the  delivery  of 
NFSA  strategy  as  well  as  to  reinforce  the  police  response  to  fraud  through  the 
provision of essential counter fraud specialist training, best practice and support the 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
43  Police  forces  in  England  and  Wales  through  the  recruitment  of  50  additional 
officers  and  specialists.  The  lead  force  will  conduct  some  serious  fraud 
investigations on behalf of other police forces. The intention is not to replace other 
police forces  fraud investigatory unit. The objective will be to persuade/encourage 
other police forces to bolster their counter fraud investigatory capacity. 

National Fraud Reporting Centre (NFRC) 

Anticipated to be in operation from late 2009. It is being managed and developed by 
City  Of  London  Police  (COLP).  It  will  inform  the  NFSA  assessment  of  the  fraud 
threat to UK. 

It  will  provide  a  telephone  and  web  base  reporting  service,  which  will  enable 
individuals and companies to make confirmed reports on fraud and attempted fraud 
and  receive  advice  and  information  to  protect  themselves  from  future  attacks  by 
fraudsters. 

They  will  mainly  deal  with  high  volume  fraud  and  attempted  fraud  confirmed 
reports. Frauds/attempted frauds requiring an urgent response should still be directed 
to the local police force. 

Crimes  reported  to  NFRC  will  not  automatically  be  allocated  for  investigation. 
Confirmed reports on fraud/attempted fraud will be used for intelligence purposes. 

Civil recovery (pursuant to Proceeds of Crime Act 2002) 

In  cases  where  it  is  not  possible  to  initiate  criminal  proceedings  against  corporate 
bodies,  steps  may  be  taken  in  the  civil  courts  against  them  to  recover  property 
resulting  from  unlawful  criminal  conduct  as  well  as  introduce  compliance  system 
conditions which are subject to external monitoring so to avoid a repetition of such 
conduct again  

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
2. 

COMPETENT NATIONAL AUTHORITIES 

Article 4 of Regulation 2185/961 establishes that “on-the-spot checks and inspections shall be 
prepared  and  conducted  by  the  Commission  in  close  cooperation  with  the  competent 
authorities of the Member State concerned”. The notion of “national authority” is defined by 
national  law.  Member  States  may  have  a  central  authority  and/or  a  multitude  of  authorities 
dealing with on-the-spot checks. In order to allow OLAF to organise on-the-spot checks in a 
more efficient way and to update OLAF contact list, this questionnaire asks Member States to 
provide some information about their national authorities and their areas of competence. The 
answers  will  also  allow  the  Commission  to  compare  the  powers  and  organisation  of 
competent national authorities. Since the field of direct expenditures has proven to be rather 
complex, the questionnaire contains some specific questions related to this field.  

1 

OJ L292/15.11.1996. 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  

2.1. 

CENTRAL COORDINATING AUTHORITY 

Member 
State 

2.1.1. Does your Member State have a central coordinating 
authority responsible for providing operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 

BE 

Yes: 

WALLOON REGION: External Affairs Public Service 
(concerning the European Structural Funds) – Permanent 
Representation of Belgium to the EU 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): External Affairs Public Service 
(concerning the European Structural Funds), Permanent 
Representation of Belgium to the EU 

FPS ECONOMY: FPS Economy is unofficially the central 
coordinating authority and the authority with administrative 
competences extending to include direct expenditure. 

No: 

FPS FINANCE: There is no central coordinating authority for 
own resources and expenditure. Where, however, own resources 
are concerned; the Standing Committee to Combat Tax Fraud 
(CAF) is designated to provide any operational support required 
by OLAF. This committee is placed under the authority of the 
General Administrator of Taxes and Tax Collection. 

FLEMISH COMMUNITY:  

•  Leader+ 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
  
 
2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  

Member 
State 

2.1.1. Does your Member State have a central coordinating 
authority responsible for providing operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 

•  EFRO Vlaanderen 
•  (BEVLGECO) (Flemish Community – Economy, Science and 

Industry - EFRO) 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: / 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: / 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) - Public Prosecutor for 
Special Economic Crime 

Bundesministerium der Finanzen, Referat E A 6 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

No (there is no central coordinating authority, but several 
authorities can be contacted depending on the type of financial 
resources being investigated: Office of the Revenue 
Commissioners, Dept. of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Dept. 
of Finance) 

No (In accordance with the opinion of the Greek Court of 
Auditors (which we adopt), there is indeed no central 
coordination authority, as responsibility is shared equally between 
the Court of Auditors, the competent Public Prosecutor, the 
Financial Control Committee, the Special Audit Office (formerly 
the Financial Crime Unit), financial inspectors and inspectors 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.1. Does your Member State have a central coordinating 
authority responsible for providing operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 

from other ministries (e.g. the Ministry of Health).) 

2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

COMITATO PER LA LOTTA CONTRO LE FRODI 
COMUNITARIE (C. O. L. A.F.) at the Prime Minister’s Office, 
Community Policies Department, Community Fraud Office, Guardia 
di Finanza 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

The Financial Crime Investigation Service under the Ministry of 
Internal Affairs 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) - Internal Audit and 
Investigations Division 

NL 

Yes (Not a central coordinating authority, but a central 

Douane Informatiecentrum – DIC (Customs Information Centre): 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.1. Does your Member State have a central coordinating 
authority responsible for providing operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 

2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  

coordinating contact point) 

Only for funds in shared management 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

No2  

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

SI 

Yes 

SK 

Yes 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) - Department for 
Protection of EU Financial Interests within the Ministry of Finance 

Inspecção Geral de Finanças 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

Fight Against Fraud Department (DLAF) 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) - Budget Supervision 
Office of the Republic of Slovenia 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

2 

The  Anti-fraud  department  in  the  Ministry  of  Finance  is  the  central  coordinating  authority  for  own  resources  inspections  under  mutual  assistance  on  customs  and 
agricultural levies under the EAGF. The Austrian Ministry of Finance does not, however, have any cross-departmental powers.); NB (Austrian Ministry of Justice): BGBL I 
109/2007 set up the Anti-corruption Office (KSTA), which is responsible throughout Austria, in accordance with Article 20a(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (STPO), 
for prosecuting the following criminal offences which do not fall within the jurisdiction of the regional courts: 1.Criminal abuse of office and related criminal activities 
under Section 22 of the Criminal Code (STGB). 2. Abuse of trust in carrying out official duties (Article 313 of the Criminal Code), acceptance of gifts by authorities or 
misuse of aid under Articles 153 to 153b of the Criminal Code. 3. Anti-competitive agreements in contract award procedures under Article 168b of the Criminal Code. 4. 
Acceptance of gifts by officials under Article 168c (2) of the Criminal Code. 5. Money laundering under Article 165 of the Criminal Code where the proceeds originate 
from a criminal act or activity described in point 1, 2 or 4, a criminal association or organisation under Articles 278 and 278a of the Criminal Code or an association or 
organisation with a view of committing the crimes or omissions described in points 1, 2 and 4. Under Article 20a (3) of the stop, the KSTA is also responsible for mutual 
assistance in administrative and criminal matters with the relevant EU institutions and Member State judicial authorities in such cases, and it is the national coordinating 
authority along with OLAF and Eurojust in the case of proceedings undertaken as a result of crimes under Article 20a(1) of the STOP as well. KSTA carries out the central 
duties of judicial assistance and cooperation with the relevant EU institutions in such cases. 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
  
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

2.1.1. Does your Member State have a central coordinating 
authority responsible for providing operational support to 
OLAF, that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot 
checks? 

2.1.2. What is the name of the central coordinating authority?  

FI 

SE 

UK 

Member 
State 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

No 

Yes 

Yes: Rural Payments Agency (RPA), HM Revenue & Customs 
(HMRC), Department for Transport (DFT), Wales & Northern 
Ireland (NI) 

No: (Scotland) 

AFCOS (Anti-Fraud Coordination Service) 

DFT for TENS Programme only 

2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central authority to take action / provide assistance to OLAF? 

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

Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: 

References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official 
Gazette): 

Circulars issued by the Director of 
Public Prosecutions who is the 
highest prosecuting authority in 
Denmark. 

Notice concerning the inspection scheme for EU 
fraud cases. A copy of the Notice is enclosed for 
information. 

Director of Public Prosecutions – Notice No 4 
of 8 April 1998. 

DE 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central authority to take action / provide assistance to OLAF? 

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

Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: 

References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official 
Gazette): 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Act No 142 of 19 February 1992 
and Presidential Order No 91 of 14 
May 2007 

Presidential Order No. 91/2007 renewed the 
mandate of COLAF, assigning to it new 
consultancy and steering functions in connection 
with the coordination of the fight against fraud 
and other irregularities involving tax, the CAP 
and the Structural Funds. 

Official Gazette No 42 of 20 February 1992- 
Official Gazette No 159 of 11 July 2007 

1. Resolution 

2. Law 

1. Government Resolution No 747 of 24 May 
2002 on designation of the body responsible for 
cooperation with the European Anti-Fraud 
Office (OLAF) 

2. Law No IX-816 of 28 March 2002 on the 
Financial Crime Investigation Service. 

1. Valstybės žinios (Official Gazette) 2002, No 
33-1250; 

2. Valstybės žinios 2002, No 53-2092 

LU 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central authority to take action / provide assistance to OLAF? 

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

Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: 

References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official 
Gazette): 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

N/A 

N/A 

Regulation No 2185/1996 
transposed in national legislation in 
the Douanewet (Customs Act), as 
far as customs investigations are 
concerned. 

Algemene Douanewet (General Customs Act) 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

DL No 79/2007 of 29 March 2007 

Organic Law of the Inspectorate-General of 
Finance 

Official Gazette, Series 1.a, No 63, 29 March 
2007 

Government Decision 

The Slovenian Government has designated as 
the responsible authority (AFCOS – Anti Fraud 
Coordination Service) the Budget Supervision 
Office attached to the Ministry of Finance. 

The Slovenian Government has set up an 
interdepartmental working party for cooperation 
with OLAF comprising representatives of the 
following institutions: State Prosecutor's Office, 
Ministry of Justice, Ministry of the Interior 

Government Decision No 245-24/2002-1 of 
4.7.2002 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central authority to take action / provide assistance to OLAF? 

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

Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: 

References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official 
Gazette): 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

(Criminal Police Directorate), Office for Money 
Laundering Prevention, Customs Administration 
of the Republic of Slovenia, Tax Administration 
of the Republic of Slovenia, Corruption 
Prevention Commission 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

DFT: Official Journal L 162, 22/06/2007 P. 
0001 – 0010 

RPA & Wales: OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, P1 

DFT: Regulation (EC) No 680/2007of the 
European Parliament and of the Council of 20 
June 2007 laying down general rules for the 
granting of Community financial aid in the field 
of the Trans-European transport and energy 
networks. 

RPA & Wales: The general power under the law 
of England and Wales is in the Police and 
Criminal Evidence Act of 1984. Under Section 
8, a Justice of the Peace may grant a police 
constable power to enter and search any 
premises in connection with the commission of a 
serious arrestable offence. Where a person is 
under arrest for an arrestable offence, a 
constable may enter and search premise 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central authority to take action / provide assistance to OLAF? 

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

Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: 

References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official 
Gazette): 

occupied or controlled by the person under arrest 
in order to obtain evidence relating to that 
offence. Theft and Fraud are arrestable offences 
– see Sections 1 and 15A of the Theft Act 1968, 
for example. 

The sectoral powers giving domestic force to EU 
Regulations are in various Statutory Instruments. 
For the Single Payment Scheme, the powers of 
entry and search are in the Common Agricultural 
Policy Single Payment and Support Schemes 
(Integrated Administration and Control Scheme) 
Regulations 2005 [SI 218/2005]. In England and 
Wales, an authorised person may at any 
reasonable time, on producing the necessary 
authorisation, enter land other than any building 
used only as a dwelling, for example, in order to 
establish whether an offence has been committed 
under these Regulations. One of the offences 
specified in these Regulations is the obtaining of 
a payment by furnishing information known to 
be false or misleading or recklessly furnishing 
such information. An authorised person, when 
entering premises under these powers may take 
any representative of the European Commission 
acting for the purpose of Article 27 of the 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

2.1.3. What is the legal basis which empowers the central authority to take action / provide assistance to OLAF? 

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

Title of the legal instrument or brief 
description: 

References of the legal instrument 
(number/date of publication in Official 
Gazette): 

Council Regulation. 

HMRC: EU Council Regulation 515/97.  

Northern Ireland: as per England 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations 

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations 

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

3 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X3 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

The Committee gives advice and guidance on the coordination of the fight and fraud and other irregularities involving tax, the CAP and the Structural Funds. Notification of 
the irregularities in their particular sectors is given by the Prime Minister’s Office, Community Policies Department, Community Fraud Office, the Guardia di Finanza, the 
Ministry  of  Agricultural,  Food  and  Forestry,  and  by  the  Customs  Service,  all  of  which  are  represented  on  the  Committee.  It  should  be  pointed  out  that  Italy’s  Court  of 
Auditors assists OLAF under a memorandum of understanding signed in July 2006. 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations 

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X4  

The Budget Supervision Office has the power to perform many tasks, divided among separate internal units. Coordination and harmonisation of public internal financial 
control (PIFC), in the context of which AFCOS tasks are also carried out, in particular: directing the preparation of a national anti-fraud strategy in connection with the 
protection of the European Community's financial interests and coordination of the strategy's implementation; detecting possible weaknesses in the system of management 
and control of Community funds; initiating the necessary legislative or organisational changes to protect the European Community's financial interests more effectively, 
including  proposals  for  networking  with  other  bodies  or  institutions  involved  in  protecting  the  European  Community's  financial  interests,  and  the  establishment  of  joint 
structures and mechanisms; informing the bodies and organisations responsible for managing Community funds (both revenue and expenditure) of their obligations and of 
the  procedures  they  must  follow  for  the  purposes  of  protecting  the  Community's  financial  interests;  coordinating  the  assessment  of  the  training  needs  of  bodies  and 
organisations involved in protecting the Community's financial interests; cooperating with OLAF in running special training programmes, including temporary training in 
other Member States; providing organisational support for training; providing support and advice for other bodies and organisations involved in protecting the Community's 
financial interests. 
Performance  of  the  tasks  of  an  independent  audit  body  for  the  use  of  EU  funds,  which  means  it  has  unrestricted  access  to  premises,  persons  and  documents  in  the 
performance of its tasks. 

EN 

31 

EN 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

4 

a. 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

2.1.4. Which powers / duties does the central authority have? 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations 

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

Member 
State 

2.1.5. Does the central 
coordinating authority 
operate on a basis of annual 
programming? 

2.1.6. Is the Central coordinating 
authority obliged to draw up a report 
on the objectives to be pursued in its 
monitoring activity? 

2.1.7. How many people work in the central competent 
authority full time? (Staff that is effectively in charge of 
relations with OLAF, excluding supporting personnel 
(secretariat, archives); figures based on an estimate of 
manpower in full-time equivalent.) 

b. 

Budget inspection: the budget inspector carries out his allotted task of independently inspecting the legality of the use of budget funds (funds from the Community budget 
are an integral part of the national budget), issues reports and decisions under the administrative procedure and decrees other measures for which he is authorised; the budget 
inspector also examines notifications, appeals, reports and other applications submitted in matters falling under his remit and, on request, informs the applicant of the action 
taken;  to  support  the  Budget  Supervision  Office  in  performing  AFCOS  tasks  the  Slovenian  Government  has  set  up  an  interdepartmental  working  party  comprising 
representatives  of  the  following  institutions:  State  Prosecutor's  Office,  Ministry  of  Justice,  Ministry  of  the  Interior  (Criminal  Police  Directorate),  Office  for  Money 
Laundering Prevention, Customs Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Tax Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, Corruption Prevention Commission. 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Member 
State 

2.1.5. Does the central 
coordinating authority 
operate on a basis of annual 
programming? 

2.1.6. Is the Central coordinating 
authority obliged to draw up a report 
on the objectives to be pursued in its 
monitoring activity? 

2.1.7. How many people work in the central competent 
authority full time? (Staff that is effectively in charge of 
relations with OLAF, excluding supporting personnel 
(secretariat, archives); figures based on an estimate of 
manpower in full-time equivalent.) 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

No 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

No 

No 

N/A 

No 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

Approx. 2 annual work units 

ca. 1800 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

4 

N/A 

EN 

33 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.1.5. Does the central 
coordinating authority 
operate on a basis of annual 
programming? 

2.1.6. Is the Central coordinating 
authority obliged to draw up a report 
on the objectives to be pursued in its 
monitoring activity? 

2.1.7. How many people work in the central competent 
authority full time? (Staff that is effectively in charge of 
relations with OLAF, excluding supporting personnel 
(secretariat, archives); figures based on an estimate of 
manpower in full-time equivalent.) 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

N/A 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

4 

N/A 

20 

1 

N/A 

Yes: DFT 

DFT – TEN-T team / 2 people. 

No: HMRC, RPA, NI 

HMRC & RPA – 3 each 

NI - 1 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2. 

NATIONAL  AUTHORITY  WITH  ADMINISTRATIVE  ATTRIBUTIONS 
EXTENDED TO THE FIELD OF DIRECT EXPENDITURE 

"Direct  expenditure"  means  any  Community  expenditure  from  funds  managed  by  the 
Community institutions (e.g. administrative expenditures of the institutions, programmes like 
Leonardo,  Erasmus,  the  7th  Framework  Programme  for  research  and  technological 
development,  European  Development  Fund,  etc).  According  to  article  53  of  the  Financial 
Regulation5, this part of the budget can be implemented on a centralised basis, directly by the 
Commission  services,  or  by  delegating  implementing  tasks  to  third  countries  (decentralised 
management) or to international organisations (joint management). 

The forth type of management for European funds is shared management with Member States 
(for structural actions funds, for the agricultural funds), which is not included in sections 2.2., 
2.3. and 2.4. 

It must be underlined that, through this set of questions, it is not intended to identify national 
authorities responsible for the management of direct expenditure, which is a competence of 
the  Commission;  instead,  it  is  intended  to  clarify  whether  Member  States  have  a  single 
authority that  OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot checks and whether Member 
States have an investigation service, as well as a judicial authority (prosecutor's office) with 
responsibilities extended to the field of direct expenditure. 

5 

Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605  of  25.06.2002  (OJ  L  248,  16.9.2002),  as  amended  by 
Regulation EC, Euratom) No 1995 of 13.12.2003 (OJ L 390, 30.12.2006). 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

BE 

No: German-speaking community 

Yes: where EFRO [ERDF] in Flanders is 
concerned 

2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Flemish community: 
EFRO Vlaanderen 

Flemish community: 
EFRO Vlaanderen 

Flemish community: 
EFRO Vlaanderen 

Decision of the Flemish 
Government 

Decision of the Flemish 
Government of 16 May 
2007 

Decision of the Flemish 
Government approving 
Operational Programme 
Objective 2 EFRD 
Flanders and designating 
the Europe Economy 
department as the 
managing authority 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

No 

No 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

EN 

Yes: Public Prosecutor for Special Economic 

Circulars issued by the 

Notice concerning the 

Director of Public 

36 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

Crime 

No 

Yes: The Prosecutor's Office 

DE 

EE 

Director of Public 
Prosecutions who is the 
highest prosecuting 
authority in Denmark.  

N/A 

Act 

inspection scheme for EU 
fraud cases.  

Prosecutions – Notice No 
4 of 8 April 1998. 

N/A 

N/A 

01.07.2004. RT I 2003, 83, 
558, RT I 2008, 35, 212 

Section 30 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure. The 
Prosecutor's Office in 
criminal proceedings: "(1) 
The Prosecutor's Office 
shall direct pre-trial 
proceedings, ensure the 
legality and efficiency 
thereof and represent the 
public prosecution in 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
  
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

No 

No 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

court." 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes: COMITATO PER LA LOTTA CONTRO 
LE FRODI COMUNITARIE (C. O. L. A.F.) at 
the Prime Minister’s Office, Community Policies 
Department, Community Fraud Office, Guardia 
di Finanza; 

Act No 142 of 19 February 
1992 and Presidential 
Order No 91 of 14 May 
2007 

Official Gazette No 42 of 
20 February 1992- Official 
Gazette No 159 of 11 July 
2007 

Presidential Order No 
91/2007 renewed the 
mandate of COLAF, 
assigning to it new 
consultancy and steering 
functions in connection 
with the coordination of 
the fight against fraud and 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

No 

No 

Yes: The Financial Crime Investigation Service 
under the Ministry of Internal Affairs 

N/A 

N/A 

Law 

Yes: The National Authority for the 
implementation of the community action 
programme Jeunesse en Action [Youth in 
Action]; Nico Meisch, Senior civil servant, 

Ministerial Directive 

other irregularities 
involving tax, the CAP and 
the Structural Funds. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Valstybės žinios 2002, No 
53-2092 

Law No IX-816 of 28 
March 2002 on the 
Financial Crime 
Investigation Service 

Ministerial Directive of 15 
December 2006 
concerning the national 
implementation of the 

39 

EN 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

EN 

 
  
  
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

adviser to the Minister 

HU 

MT 

NL 

No 

N/A 

No 

EN 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

40 

community action 
programme Jeunesse en 
action [Youth in action]. 
The Directive governs the 
respective rights and duties 
of the national authority 
and the national agency in 
terms of the 
implementation of the 
programme. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

 
  
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

No (However, if OLAF makes such a request to 
the Anti-corruption Office at the Austrian 
Ministry of Finance, it will forward this request 
to the relevant department. It should be noted that 
the Anti-corruption office is not a coordinating 
authority in the same way as AFCOS as it does 
not have cross-departmental powers, simply 
acting as the single point of contact at OLAF's 
request.) 

AT 

PL 

PT 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes: Inspecção Geral de Finanças 

DL No 79/2007 of 29 
March 2007 

Organic Law of the 
Inspectorate-General of 
Finance 

Official Gazette of the 
Republic, Series 1.a, No 
63, 29 March 2007 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
  
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

RO 

Yes: DEPARTAMENTUL PENTRU LUPTA 
ANTIFRAUDĂ (FIGHT AGAINST FRAUD 
DEPARTMENT) 

Emergency Government 
Ordinance 

SI 

Yes: Budget Supervision Office 

Government Decision 

Emergency Government 
Ordinance No 3/2009 
amending and 
supplementing certain 
legislative acts relating to 
the organisation and 
functioning of certain 
structures in the working 
apparatus of the 
Government. 

The Slovenian 
Government has 
designated as the 
responsible authority 
(AFCOS – Anti-Fraud 

Official Journal of 
Romania, Part I, No 84 of 
11 February 2009 

Government Decision No 
245-24/2002-1 of 4.7.2002 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
  
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

SK 

Yes: Government Office department of 
protection of the EC's financial interests and fight 
against corruption (Odbor ochrany finančných 
záujmov Európskej únie a boja proti korupcii 
Úradu vlády SR) 

Act of the Slovak National 
Council; Resolution of the 
Slovak Government 

Coordination Service) the 
Budget Supervision Office 
attached to the Ministry of 
Finance 

Act No 10/1996 on 
controls in public 
administration; Resolution 
of the Slovak Government 
No 1133/2001 on the 
proposal to establish the 
OLAF Central Contact 
Point for the Slovak 
Republic. Note: The name 
of the department has been 
changed to "Department of 

10/1996 (published on 11 
January 1996), 1133/2001 
(adopted on 28 November 
2001) 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
  
2.2.2. What is the legal basis of the single authority that OLAF can contact when 
conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? 

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

Title of the legal 
instrument or brief 
description 

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

Member 
State 

2.2.1. Do you have a single authority that 
OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-
spot checks in the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

E.g. Case 1: OLAF has opened an 
investigation in a case in which an NGO is 
suspected of having committed a fraud when 
implementing a humanitarian aid project in a 
third country. OLAF would like to make an 
on-the-spot check in the headquarters of the 
NGO in your Member State.  

Case 2: OLAF is investigating an European 
official working at the EU representation in 
your Member State. 

FI 

SE 

UK 

No 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

protection of the EC's 
financial interests and fight 
against corruption“. 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.2.3. Which powers/duties does the single authority that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE have? 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations  

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

6 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X6 

Code  of  Criminal  Procedure  §  213.  Prosecutor’s  Office  in  pre-trial  proceedings:  (1)  Prosecutors’  Offices  shall  direct  pre-trial  procedure  and  ensure  the  legality  and 
efficiency thereof and are competent to: 1) Perform procedural acts when necessary; 2) Be present at the performance of procedural acts and intervene in the course thereof; 
3) Terminate criminal proceedings; 4) Demand that the materials of a criminal file and other materials be submitted for examination and verification; 5) Issue orders to 
investigative  bodies;  6)  Annul  and  amend  orders  of  investigative  bodies;  7)  Remove  an  official  of  an  investigative  body  from  a  criminal  proceeding;  8)  Alter  the 
investigative jurisdiction over a criminal matter; 9) Declare a pre-trial proceeding completed; 10) Demand that an official of an investigative body submit oral or written 
explanations  concerning  the  circumstances  relating  to  a  proceeding;  11)  Assign  the  head  of  the  probation  supervision  department  with  the  duty  to  appoint  a  probation 
officer; 12) Perform other duties arising from this Code in pre-trial proceedings. 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

2.2.3. Which powers/duties does the single authority that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE have? 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations  

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

46 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.2.3. Which powers/duties does the single authority that OLAF can contact when conducting on-the-spot checks in the field of 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE have? 

Investigative Powers (according to national procedural rules) 

Other 

Interviewing 
economic 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
with their 
consent 

Interviewing 
economics 
operators 
and 
witnesses 
under 
caution 

Accessing 
documents 
/ premises 

Searching 
and 
seizing 

Accessing 
information 
about ongoing 
criminal / 
administrative 
investigations  

Tracing 
people, 
telephones 
and mail 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

X7 

X8 

Communicating 
irregularities to 
the Commission 

Linking 
OLAF to 
the 
competent 
investigative 
authorities 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

X 

X 

N/A 

N/A 

X 

X 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

7 

8 

EN 

Coordination of the fight against fraud in Romania: collection, analysis and processing of information needed to produce the relevant analyses; preparation and coordination 
of advanced training programmes, traineeships and training in the field. 
Ibidem 3.  

47 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.3. 

INVESTIGATION SERVICE WITH 
RESPONSIBILITIES EXTENDED TO THE 
FIELD OF DIRECT EXPENDITURE 

2.4. 

JUDICIAL AUTHORITY IN THE FIELD OF 
DIRECT EXPENDITURE 

Member 
State 

2.3. Which is the investigation service most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation 
authority, etc.) Please indicate at maximum three authorities. 

2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecution and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

BE 

Belgian Auditor General's office  

European Criminal Court 

Belgian Ministry of Finance 

BG 

Ministry  of  the  Interior:  Directorate  for  combating  organized  and 
heavy  crime  (Министерство  на  вътрешните  работи,  Дирекция 
“Противодействие на организираната и тежка престъпност”)  

Ministry  of  the  interior:  Directorate  for  combating  common  crime 
(Министерство 
Дирекция 
вътрешните 
“Противодействие на общата престъпност”) 

работи, 

на 

Supreme Prosecutor's Office: Specialized Unit for Investigations of 
to  Misuse  of  European  Funds  (Върховна 
Frauds  Related 
за 
-  Специализирано 
касационна  прокуратура 
разследване на злоупотреби с Евр. Фондове) 

звено 

State  Agency  "  National  Security":  Department  of  Economics  and 
Financial Security (Държавна агенция “Национална сигурност”, 
Главна дирекция “Икономическа и финансова сигурност”) 

CZ 

Police Force of the Czech Republic 

Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office 

Corruption  and  Financial  Criminality  Detection  Department; 
Criminal Policing and Investigation Service (PČR ÚOKFK SKPV) 

EN 

48 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

2.3. Which is the investigation service most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation 
authority, etc.) Please indicate at maximum three authorities. 

2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecution and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

Public Prosecutor for Special Economic Crime 

Public Prosecutor for Special Economic Crime 

N/A 

The Central Criminal Police;  

N/A 

The Prosecutor's Office 

The Tax and Customs Board; The Police Board 

Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation (Depends on the Programme/ 
Garda  Bureau  of  Fraud  Investigation).  In  regards  to  investigations 
in  the  area  of  direct  expenditure,  the  Garda  Síochána  (Ireland’s 
National  Police  Service)  is  responsible  for  the  detection  and 
investigation of crime in Ireland. 

While  cases  of  financial  crimes  are  an  extremely  rare  occurrence 
they may be brought to the attention of the Garda Síochána by those 
affected  and  subsequently  investigated  by  the  Garda  Bureau  of 
Fraud  Investigation  and  prosecuted  by  the  Director  of  Public 
Prosecutions  

SPECIAL  AUDIT  OFFICE  –  CENTRAL  DEPARTMENT  – 
DIRECTORATE 3, SECTION A; Directorate for Auditing EAGGF 
Expenditure – Guarantee Section 

Ministère de l'Intérieur / Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire / 
Office  Central  pour  la  Répression  de  la  Grande  Délinquance 
Financière  (Ministry  of  the  Interior/Central  Headquarters  of  the 
Criminal Police/Central Office for Serious Financial Crime)  

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (As stated above when 
it  comes  to  investigating  indictable  offences  it  is  the  Garda 
Síochána  which  investigates.  It  is  then  the  Director  of  Public 
Prosecutions who prosecutes.) 

The competent prosecuting authority 

EN 

49 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Member 
State 

2.3. Which is the investigation service most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation 
authority, etc.) Please indicate at maximum three authorities. 

2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecution and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

Ministère de l'Intérieur / Direction Centrale de la Police Judiciaire / 
Division  Nationale  d'Investigations  Financières  (Ministry  of  the 
Interior/Central  Headquarters  of  the  Criminal  Police/National 
Financial Investigations Division)  

IT 

GUARDIA DI FINANZA - COMANDO GENERALE 

COMANDO  CARABINIERI  POLITICHE  AGRICOLE  E 
ALIMENTARI 

THE  PUBLIC  PROSECUTOR’S  OFFICE  WITH  TERRITORIAL 
JURISDICTION 

CY 

LEGAL  SERVICE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  CYPRUS 
(PROSECUTOR-GENERAL) 

LEGAL  SERVICE  OF  THE  REPUBLIC  OF  CYPRUS 
(PROSECUTOR-GENERAL) 

Police 

Customs Division 

Financial  Police  Department  of  the  State  Revenue  Service;  The 
Corruption Prevention and Combating Bureau;  

International  Cooperation  Division  of  the  Prosecutor-General's 
Office, Public Prosecutor's Office of Latvia 

Economic Police Department, Central Criminal Police Department, 
State Police 

The  Financial  Crime  Investigation  Service  under  the  Ministry  of 
Internal Affairs  

Office of the Lithuanian Prosecutor-General 

Lithuanian Criminal Police Bureau 

Criminal 
Financial Offences Unit 

Investigation  Department,  Current  Economic  and 

Economic Section of the Department of Public Prosecution 

50 

EN 

LV 

LT 

LU 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

2.3. Which is the investigation service most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation 
authority, etc.) Please indicate at maximum three authorities. 

2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecution and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

HU 

National Customs and Finance Guard, Criminal Directorate  

National Customs and Finance Guard, Criminal Directorate 

General Prosecutor's Office, Department of Special Cases  

General  Prosecutor's  Office,  Department  of 
Supervision and Prosecution File Preparation 

Investigation 

MT 

Internal Audit and Investigations Division (AFCOS Malta)  

Economic Crimes Unit, Malta Police Force 

Economic Crimes Unit, Malta Police Force 

NL 

Sociale  Inlichtingen-  en  Opsporingsdienst  (Social  Information  and 
Investigation Service) 

Openbaar Ministerie (Public Prosecution Service ) 

Fiscale  Inlichtingen-  en  Opsporingsdienst  (Fiscal  Intelligence  and 
Investigation Service)  

Algemene Inspectiedienst (General Inspection Service) 

Bundeskriminalamt,  Büro  für  Wirtschafts-  und  Finanzermittlungen 
(Austrian Criminal Office, Department for Economic and Financial 
Crime Investigations) 

Prokuratura Krajowa (the National Public Prosecutor's Office) 

Prokuratura Krajowa (the National Public Prosecutor's Office) 

Procuradoria-Geral da República 

Procuradoria-Geral da República 

DEPARTAMENTUL  PENTRU  LUPTA  ANTIFRAUDĂ  (FIGHT 
AGAINST FRAUD DEPARTMENT) 

NATIONAL ANTICORRUPTION DIRECTORATE 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

Budget Supervision Office 

Office of the State Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia  

EN 

51 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

2.3. Which is the investigation service most frequently involved 
in the field of DIRECT EXPENDITURE? (E.g. Police 
Department responsible for financial crimes, fiscal investigation 
authority, etc.) Please indicate at maximum three authorities. 

2.4. Which is the judicial authority (responsible for conducting 
the criminal investigation/prosecution and bringing the case to 
court) with competences extended to the field of DIRECT 
EXPENDITURE? 

SK 

Police  Presidium  (Prezídium  Policajného  zboru),  Office  for  the 
Fight Against Corruption (Úrad boja proti korupcii) 

FI 

National Bureau of Investigation (Keskusrikospoliisi); 

National  Board  of  Customs/Crime  Prevention  Department 
(Tullihallitus/Rikostorjuntaosasto); 

In  Åland  Province  only:  National  Bureau  of  Investigation 
(Centralkriminalpolisen) 

Special Prosecutor’s Office of the Office of the Prosecutor-General 
of  the  Slovak  Republic  (Úrad  špeciálnej  prokuratúry  Generálnej 
prokuratúry Slovenskej republiky) 

In  Åland  Province  only:  Åland  Public  Prosecutor's  Office 
(Landskapsåklagarämbetet i landskapet Åland) 

SE 

UK 

Ekobrottsmyndigheten (Swedish Economic Crime Authority) 

Ekobrottsmyndigheten (Swedish Economic Crime Authority) 

Serious  Fraud  Office  (both  investigate  and  prosecute  and  bring 
cases to court) 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
  
 
3. 

THE REPORTING OF IRREGULARITIES  

In  the  fields  where  the  Member  States  implement  the  budget  (agricultural  policy,  structural 
actions  funds9  and  pre-accession  funds,  approximately  80%  of  the  budget)  and  for  the 
collection  of  the  Community's  own  resources,  Community  legislation  requires  the  Member 
States  to  report  suspicions  of  fraud  and  other  irregularities.  Despite  the  fact  that  sectoral 
legislation contains definition on the notion of irregularity, fraud and suspected fraud, as well 
as  all  the  information  to  be  included  in  each  irregularity  report,  reporting  discipline  is  still 
very different from one Member State to another. 

3.1. 

REPORTING DISCIPLINE 

Under  Community  legislation10,  at  the  latest  two  months  following  the  end  of  each  quarter, 
Member  States  shall  report  to  the  Commission  all  the  irregularities  which  have  been  the 
subject  of  a  primary  administrative  or  judicial  finding.  Though  timely  reporting  has  been 
improving in recent years, the time gap between the moment when the irregularity has been 
discovered and the moment when the irregularity has been communicated to the Commission 
remains significant. 

9 
10 

The structural actions funds also include the Cohesion Fund 
Commission  Regulation  (EC)  1848/2006  of  14.12.2006  (OJ  L355,  15.12.2006);  Commission 
Regulation  (EC)  no.  2035/2005  of  12.12.2005  (OJ  L328  of  15.12.2005),  amending  Regulation  no. 
1681/94  of  11.07.1994  (OJ  L178  of  12.7.1994);  Commission  Regulation  (EC)  no.  2168/2005  of 
23.12.2005  (OJ  L345  of  28.12.2005)  amending  Regulation  no.  1831/94  of  26.07.1994  (OJ  L  191, 
27.7.1994); Commission Regulation (EC) 1828/2006 of 8.12.2006. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

BE 

BIRB: The irregularity is reported in the quarter following its 
discovery. Delays occur only occasionally. A delay in reporting 
was to be noted in the first three quarters of 2008, due in 
particular to problems in connecting the new European 
communication module (PRE-IMS). 

WALLOON REGION: Between discovering the irregularity and 
reporting it to OLAF, the observations made in the inspection 
report are analysed by the services responsible for dealing with 
the case, and the final decision on recovering or refusing the aid 
has to be taken by the person in charge at the paying agency. The 
delay is caused by the administering of the cases. 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: Similar situation as in the case of 
the Wallonia paying body. 

An inspection report simply establishes the facts and does not 
fully evaluate them. Only when a recalculation is carried out and 
the file, inspection reports and amounts etc are then analysed by 
the competent person at the paying agency's head office can it 
finally be considered that an irregularity has been detected. At 
that moment the recovery procedure is immediately begun, and 
OLAF is updated on the matter at the end of each quarter. The 
various consecutive stages are necessary, but are no doubt 
sometimes the cause of somewhat longer handling periods. 

BERBC03 (Actiris – Emploi Région Bruxelles-Capitale): There 
has been no late reporting to date, given our preventative 
approach. Because of the first-level checks carried out on 100% 
of expenditure and because of the prudential principle, whereby 
no item of expenditure about which there might be the slightest 
doubt as to its complying with Community rules is brought 
before the Commission, the Actiris ESF Department (managing 
authority) has not yet needed to have recourse to the reporting 
procedure, as laid down by EU regulations. 

WALLOON REGION: In general, it remains difficult to convey 
the message that irregularities that have nothing to do with fraud 
and that arouse no suspicion of fraud have to be communicated 
to a body set up to combat fraud. 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE [ESF AGENCY]: As far as possible, the Agency 
complies with the timescales laid down. However, it reports on 
the cases in question after identifying the amount withdrawn, this 
amount being obtained from the certification communicated to 
the European Commission. This practice ensures that there is no 
debt towards the Commission, and the ESF Agency then takes 
action against the operator. 

Two factors therefore influence the time taken by the procedure: 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

BEVLG (agriculture – sea fisheries): Bankrupt companies are 
listed in the Moniteur Belge. The Moniteur Belge is not checked 
on a daily and systematic basis for reports of bankrupt 
enterprises in the fisheries sector. 

FLEMISH COMMUNITY: Leader+. No irregularities have yet 
been shown within Leader+ Vlaanderen. 

the operator's right of reply and the work of the certifying 
department.  

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: The time spent on collecting 
relevant information from the various bodies to be consulted and 
the burden of administrative work.. 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: No cases as yet 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: N/A 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: No cases as yet 

BG 

The deadlines for reporting irregularities are strictly observed. 

No late reporting of irregularities at present. Irregularities were 
reported on time in accordance with the requirements in the 
regulatory documents. 

CZ 

Ministry of Agriculture: For the Rural Development and 
Multifunctional Agriculture Operational Programme (“OP 
RDMA”) programming period 2000 and 2004-2006 and the, 
Fisheries Operational Programme programming period 2007-
2013: there has not been any late reporting of irregularities. The 
financial flows and control methodology for programmes co-
financed from Structural Funds, the Cohesion Fund and the 
European Fisheries Fund has been followed and the deadlines for 
the management authority to forward the reports to the Ministry 
of Agriculture AFCOS contact point (and the Paying and 

Ministry of Transport: If the irregularity is confirmed in the 
administrative proceedings by the authority responsible, no delay 
occurs. Later reporting would happen if the time is counted from 
the first suspicion of irregularity and if the period runs until the 
investigation by the administrative body of whether the 
suspicions are founded. 

Ministry of Industry and Commerce: The section dealing with 
irregularities must also perform other urgent operational tasks for 
the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, report to certification 

EN 

55 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

Certifying Authority [PCO MF-NF]) and for the AFCOS contact 
point to forward them to OLAF have always been complied with. 

For funds of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) (guarantee 
section of the EAGGF and EAGF, EAFRD), late reporting to the 
Ministry of Agriculture AFCOS contact point is not subject to 
internal reporting by the State Agricultural Intervention Fund 
(SZIF) and the AFCOS contact point complies with the deadlines 
for reporting irregularities to OLAF. Any "late" reports may be 
caused by appeal proceedings (in particular by documents being 
held up when transferred between the SZIF and the Ministry of 
Agriculture appeal body in refund proceedings) or by an 
irregularity being assessed in respect of the original subsidy paid. 

Ministry for Regional Development: In the case of operational 
programmes for the programming period 2007 – 2013 managed 
by the Ministry for Regional Development, this point is 
irrelevant since at the time of the 2008 Questionnaire no 
irregularities (or suspected irregularities) had been reported to 
the AFCOS contact point by any of the management or national 
authorities of the relevant operational programmes. 

processes, react to operational "information requests" by law-
enforcement authorities, participate in working groups and 
evaluation processes, prepare "winding up" conclusions, 
cooperate with auditors from the European Commission and the 
European Court of Auditors, including responding to their 
findings.  

Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs: Completing the 
investigation of cases, processing times 

Ministry of Agriculture: To date there has been no delay in 
reporting irregularities internally by the management authority to 
the Ministry of Agriculture AFCOS contact point or subsequent 
reporting externally to OLAF 

Ministry for Regional Development: Delays most often occur 
due to late reporting of suspected irregularities by intermediate 
bodies (IB). The IB normally does not report the case until some 
action has been taken (decision has been issued, withdrawal from 
contract, recovery process underway, or similar), rather than at 
the point at which the suspected irregularity arose. This does not 
mean, however, that the investigation of the suspected fraud has 
not been started promptly and competently. 

DK 

Late reporting may be the result of uncertainty regarding the 
moment at which the irregularity is initially detected. That 

Late reporting may be the result of uncertainty regarding the 
moment at which the irregularity is initially detected. That 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

moment, according to our interpretation, hinges on the 
independent detection of an irregularity.  

moment, according to our interpretation, hinges on the 
independent detection of an irregularity.  

DE 

EE 

IE 

Several different authorities are therefore involved in a single 
irregularity case, which can lead to late reporting to OLAF.  

National administrative provisions 

N/A 

There is an insufficient flow of information between different 
bodies; differing interpretations of the concepts of 'irregularity' 
and 'preliminary notification'. 

There is an insufficient flow of information between different 
bodies; differing interpretations of the concepts of 'irregularity' 
and 'preliminary notification'. 

For the Agricultural sector: The process of irregularity reporting 
is completed as swiftly as possible, between the First 
Administrative Finding of Fact, central evaluation (possibly 
requiring clarifications) and subsequent entry and transmission. 
OLAF’s statistics for 2008 demonstrate the efficiency of this 
process, showing Ireland with a high compliance rate for 
timeliness of reporting.  

For the Structural Actions funds:The vast majority of errors are 
discovered as a consequence of the operation of the financial 
management and control systems. As such these errors are not 
included in claims made to Brussels. It has been the long held 
view of the Irish Authorities that these errors do not represent 
irregularities in the sense of the definitions contained in the 
regulation as these errors, by virtue of the fact that they do not 
make their way into claims to the Commission, can never 
prejudice the Community Budget.  

Further irregularities arise as a consequence of findings, on audit, 
either by the Financial Control Unit or the Commission’s audit 
services. Several months often pass between the carrying out of 
these audits and the notification of the result to the member state. 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

EL 

ES 

As regards guarantees, once an audit finding has been made the 
recipient is asked for clarification and where an irregularity is 
established, the audit report is sent to the competent payment 
authority for further action. There have been some cases of the 
date of the first correspondence with the recipient being 
incorrectly recorded as the date the irregularity was established 
and the frequent involvement of many decentralised departments 
slows down the exchange of information and data. 

Under Community legislation the moment of reporting the 
irregularity is not the moment of its discovery but rather that of 
the primary administrative finding. For the purposes of debt 
recovery procedures, the time-limits laid down in the relevant 
national legislation are complied with.  

The member state is given the opportunity to comment on the 
audit findings before they are finalised and this process can often 
take several years. Irregularity reports are not prepared on foot of 
audit findings until such time as the audit findings are finalised. 

There have been no reported delays in FCC irregularity 
notifications via AFIS. 

The complexity of the administrative structures, with 19 
Auditors-General of the Autonomous Communities which, in 
addition to the Management and Payment Units, report 
irregularities, causes a certain delay. The IGAE, the body 
responsible for reporting irregularities, revises the reports of 
irregularities that it receives, which may involve returning the 
document concerned so that the requisite corrections can be 
made. In this process, the delay is caused by receiving the 
correction outside the two months, and it is therefore sent in the 
following quarter.  

EN 

58 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

Reports of irregularities detected by the audit services of the 
paying agencies (simultaneous controls) are usually produced 
within the deadlines prescribed, except in special cases where it 
is difficult to establish the figures at the time of the primary 
administrative finding because of the complexity of managing 
certain Community measures. 

In the case of notifications relating to ex post controls 
(Regulation No 4045/89 (now 485/2008)), late reporting was 
usually connected with delays in implementing control 
programmes. All of these delays had been made up by the end of 
2008. 

France does not communicate reports relating to the Structural 
Funds via AFIS but by post. The management authorities draw 
up the notification and send it, via the ministry responsible for 
management, to the CICC, which, after analysing the 
notifications it receives and requesting any corrections that might 
be required, forwards them to OLAF. As a result of this system it 
takes longer to transmit the reports. In addition, the time taken to 
transmit reports has increased since the fourth quarter of 2007, 
when both the managing authorities and the CICC began 
focusing on producing outlines of the management and control 
systems and audit strategies for the 2007-2013 programming.  

Investigations into the nature of the irregularities; obtaining 
approval from the judicial authorities, where necessary; the lack 
of refresher training for staff employed by the managing 
authority responsible for reporting the irregularities; the 
complexity and number of levels within the managing authority 

Investigations into the nature of the irregularities; obtaining 
approval from the judicial authorities, where necessary; the lack 
of refresher training for staff employed by the managing 
authority responsible for reporting the irregularities; the 
complexity and number of levels within the managing authority 

This does not apply to Cyprus as the established domestic 
procedure means that irregularities are always reported within 
three months of their being discovered. 

The Managing Authority notifies the Commission of the 
irregularities detected in the previous quarter within two months 
of the end of the quarter, so the time limit for reporting is no 

N/A. All involved bodies have been instructed to report 
irregularities within three months of their being discovered. 

Time-consuming nature of research and analysis.  

EN 

59 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

longer than five months from the time that the irregularity was 
discovered. Additional information on developments in the case 
is provided in subsequent reports.  

This happens occasionally as a result of accidental information 
system errors, where applicable sanctions are indicated 
incorrectly. Errors are subsequently rectified. 

Luxembourg did not report any irregularity in 2007; therefore 
this question does not apply. 

The main reason for late reporting of irregularities is the fact that 
most irregularities are revealed in ex post controls. A second 
reason is that the parties involved, almost without exception, 
apply for review, and the organisations responsible wait for the 
decision of the authorities/courts. 

Information on irregularities has been provided on time. 

(Feder) Rules difficult to interpret  

(Interreg) procedure not clear, no respondent from OLAF 

(European Social Fund) Luxembourg is not affected by this 
question. The required notifications are made on a quarterly 
basis. 

As regards EU subsidies the irregularities are often revealed 
during on-the-spot checks on projects implemented. The 
organisations carry out checks on the basis of risk analysis in 
accordance with the relevant Community legislation. Another 
problem is posed by the fact that the persons who handle 
irregularities are overburdened and there is rapid turnover. 

To date, Malta has reported irregularities in the agricultural 
sector on time. Late reporting could very well occur because the 
relevant authority would want to be ascertained that the 
circumstances in question really tantamount to an irregularity 

Later reporting of irregularities takes place mostly because the 
relevant authority would want to be ascertained that the 
circumstances in question really tantamount to an irregularity 
and because it would feel more comfortable to report an 

EN 

60 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

and because it would feel more comfortable to report an 
irregularity when the related recovery procedures have 
commenced.  

irregularity only when the related recovery procedures have 
commenced. 

NL 

In certain cases of late reporting of irregularities it can take some 
time to check the most important data. Because of the need to 
coordinate the inspection services, paying agency and the 
delegated bodies involved, and in some case the Public 
Prosecution Service too, this can sometimes take a long time. 

See 3.1.1.1. 

AT 

Late reporting is due to a number of individual or combined 
factors, e.g.: 

ERDF: late reporting by administrative authorities and 
intermediaries 

•  time required to carry out and document inspections 
•  calculation and recording of claims 
•  forwarding files. 
Export refunds: irregularities are reported after notification by 
paying agency, i.e. after the first administrative finding in 
accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006.  

PL 

EN 

•  Over-general  definition  of 

terms  "irregularity"  and 
"primary  finding":  difficulties  with  and  differences  in  their 
interpretation. 

the 

•  The  lack  of  an  IT  system  to  facilitate  reporting.  This  means 
that  considerable  time  and  money  have  to  be  spent  on 
collecting the information and submitting it to the EC.  

•  Lengthy  process  of  clarifying  irregularities  (  e.g.  inviting 

•  The  implementing  institutions  do  not  have  any  added  value 

beneficiaries to provide clarifications).  

from the information submitted.  

61 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

•  Lack of IT support in the paying agencies' reporting structure. 

•  A large number of irregularities which should be analysed in 

terms of the EUR 10 000 threshold.  

The "first administrative or legal act" corresponds to a "final 
decision" issued after it has been concluded that the irregularity 
initially detected still exists and that it requires the repayment of 
a specific, net and due amount and after the principle that both 
parties should be heard has been verified. The same applies to 
judicial decisions relating to criminal offences. 

•  Lack  of  risk  assessment  by  the  Commission.  Ambiguous 
"primary 

definition  of 
administrative or judicial finding" in the EU Regulations. 

"irregularity"  and 

terms 

the 

The national authorities reported the cases on time. 

N/A 

N/A 

Irregularities are reported promptly. 

Irregularities are reported promptly. 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

Irregularities reported shortly before the notification deadline; 
slow administrative processing; late notification by the entities 
involved. 

Insufficient identification of irregularities and unclear 
procedures; the intermediate bodies reporting to the managing 
authorities are not able to identify the various types of 
irregularities because they have not yet encountered them; 
examination of the extensive supporting documentation is 
demanding and time-consuming. 

The main reason is project sponsors' desire to report only cases 
that have been definitively proven to be irregularities, i.e. the 
report is not sent until after an administrative decision has been 

FI 

There are no problems, as reporting times are already rather 
short. 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

SE 

Individual case officers may be unsure and ignorant of 
procedures 

UK 

RPA & Wales – The majority of irregularities are reported on 
time and in accordance with the agreed procedure. If the 
irregularity is discovered by an inspection visit, this will be 
reported the following month but if discovered by an alternative 
method then there may be a slight delay to allow appropriate 
follow-up work to confirm and quantify the irregularity. 

Scotland – Every case is different, however, late reporting could 
be as a result of the difficulties in collating the information. Re-
inspection of claims, IT system upgrades and associated testing 
and formal Appeals process can cause late reporting. 

taken in relation to the case. 

Difficulties in establishing erroneous amounts can cause long 
delays between discovery and reporting. A large workload and 
mistakes can lead to delays in reporting. 

Lack of resources, and to some extent lack of knowledge and 
procedures. 

BERR: Sometimes the decision to report is not taken 
immediately, as applicants can be asked to substantiate 
expenditure before an irregularity is declared. Reporting cases 
requires resources and these can be stretched at busy periods 
such as during closure of programmes. 

JIU: This most frequently arises where an applicant confirms the 
existence of, but is unable to provide the appropriate 
documentary evidence to support the expenditure during the first 
visit. In such cases, a reasonable period of time is stipulated 
within which the evidence must be supplied. If this is not 
forthcoming, the administrative report is formally written and the 
recording/reporting of the irregularity is actioned.  

Wales: Most irregularities are reported on time however, slight 
delay may occur while the irregularity is being quantified and 
thereafter reported. 

EN 

63 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, only 33% 
of irregularities in the agricultural sector were reported on 
time. The average time between the discovered and reported 
irregularity is 1.2 years. 

3.1.2. According to the Article 280 Report for 2007, 75% of 
irregularities in the structural actions funds were reported 
on time. The average time between the discovered and 
reported irregularity is 0.9 years. 

3.1.1.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

3.1.2.1. What in your case causes later reporting of 
irregularities? 

Northern Ireland: The main cause is the delay in receiving 
information concerning irregularities from the Implementing 
Bodies. 

Scotland: Every case is different, however, late reporting could 
be as a result of the difficulties in collating the information. 

Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

BE 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: Once a recalculation has been 
made, a check is made to see whether there are cases likely to 
have a significant financial impact. These are preferably analysed 
first as part of the process of dealing with them. 

BEVLG (agriculture – sea fisheries): There is closer contact with 
the various professional associations in the sector for the purpose 
of detecting bankrupt enterprises early. 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: N/A 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 

WALLOON REGION: Reminders sent out about the importance 
of the regulations on reporting irregularities, particularly at 
meetings of the OLAF working party for the Walloon Region. 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE [ESF Agency]: The number of certifications will 
be increased from two to three for the period 2007-2013, a 
development that will shorten the period for reporting to the 
European Commission and, therefore, for reporting to OLAF. 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: No specific measures are 
being implemented at present. 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

BG 

N/A 

CZ 

Ministry of Agriculture: Internal rules have been adopted 
(Ministry of Agriculture AFCOS contact point procedural 
guidelines); ad hoc working meetings between the representative 
of the Ministry of Agriculture AFCOS contact point and 
representatives of the Ministry of Agriculture management 
authority are organised. 

Internal rules have been adopted (Ministry of Agriculture 
AFCOS contact point procedural guidelines); a Public Service 
Agreement has also been adopted (Agreement on the transfer of 
data within AFCOS agreed by the Ministry of Agriculture and 
SZIF) and on the basis of this Agreement working meetings are 
arranged between the representative of the Ministry of 
Agriculture AFCOS contact point and representatives of SZIF. 

Communication with intermediary units has been improved, an 
e-mail address for reporting has been created, there is now direct 
contact with the officials who deal with irregularities. Ex-post 
control of signed contracts.  

Ministry of Transport: Where there are grounds for suspecting an 
irregularity, an entry is made in the monitoring system and the 
suspicion is then investigated by the authorities. The irregularity 
is then either confirmed or cancelled as unsubstantiated. 

Ministry of Industry and Commerce: After completing winding 
up operations related to the accounting of funds disbursed from 
the Structural Funds for the Operational Programme Industry and 
Enterprise (OPIE) 2004-2006+2 years (funds drawn down as at 
31 December 2008) in the first half-year of 2009 there will be a 
capacity assessment of staffing assigned to irregularities and 
subsequently any necessary measures will be taken to fulfil the 
tasks assigned, also for the new period of the Operational 
Programme Enterprise and Innovation (OPEI) 2007-2013+3 
years. 

Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs: Accelerated 
investigation. 

Ministry of Agriculture: They would be taken ad hoc. 

Ministry for Regional Development: Increasing intermediate 
bodies' awareness of their duty to follow procedures according to 
the methodology in force governing the investigation and 
reporting of irregularities. During the project maintenance 
period, focusing management authority checks at intermediate 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

Internal procedures have been tightened up and this is expected 
to reduce the period between detection and reporting of 
irregularities. 

bodies on reporting and investigation of irregularities. When a 
suspected irregularity is discovered the management authority 
tries to carry out an on-the spot check, ascertain the actual state 
of implementation of the project and either stipulate corrective 
measures or withdraw from the project implementation contract. 

Denmark complies with the current rules on reporting. 

N/A 

N/A 

Regular training; continual advice, and making cooperation and 
the exchange of information between different bodies more 
effective. 

All staff involved in the irregularity identification and reporting 
process is made aware of the Regulatory requirements and are 
advised to process/report cases as swiftly as possible.  

Regular training; better cooperation and exchange of information 
between different bodies. 

Please see answer above; Also an example taken from the ESF 
Certifying Authority which has since January 2006 reminded 
Managing Authorities of their obligations to submit all reportable 
ESF irregularities/disconformities. In addition since that time 
they also seek information about earlier irregularities when 
interim claims are being processed. 

The administration has acted in a coordinated way to establish 
and confer powers to shorten this period greatly. The results will 
show in notifications from 2008 onwards. 

N/A 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

Timely handling of follow-up of the irregularities detected 

The Community Funds Department is devising a new system to 
replace the current one, with the emphasis on the speed and 
accuracy of reporting. The IGAE is taking measures designed to 
improve communications at the first level by clarifying doubts 

EN 

66 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

FR 

The body responsible for centralising and forwarding reports of 
irregularities sends a letter to the organisations concerned 
reminding them of the regulations, so that the information can be 
transmitted as quickly as possible. 

In connection with the funding of the CAP, governed by 
Regulations (EC) No 1290/2005 and No 885/2006, the paying 
agencies have had to revise their procedures for following up 
claims. In particular, they have had to introduce a procedure 
using a specific computer tool so that they receive the list of 
cases where there has been a primary administrative finding at 
regular intervals and are better able, as a result, to control 
compliance with the statutory time limit for notification. This 
results in the amount of aid wrongly paid being calculated as 
soon as the primary administrative finding is made. 

and detecting frequent errors, in order to reduce the time taken to 
process and correct the cases that arise.  

The first measure has been to issue reminders about the statutory 
time limits when audits of management and control systems for 
the Structural Funds are carried out among those in charge of 
producing notifications and to review the notifications made, 
ongoing or pending. The second measure has been to give the 
ministries responsible for managing the various funds a 
monitoring role (PM Circular of 13 April 2007). The new 
application for communicating notifications, currently being 
introduced by OLAF, will not only make it possible to cut the 
time it takes to transmit notifications but should also be an 
opportunity for re-examining the internal procedure for checking 
irregularities. 

IT 

CY 

LV 

EN 

An “initial administrative or judicial document” has been drawn 
up giving rise to the reporting obligation (CO L A F No 
13/2008); a national conference on training for the personnel 
concerned has been organised; ad hoc IT systems has been set up 

An “initial administrative or judicial document” has been drawn 
up giving rise to the reporting obligation (CO L A F No 
13/2008); a national conference on training for the personnel 
concerned has been organised; ad hoc IT systems has been set up 

N/A 

See answer to question 3.1.1.1.  

N/A 

The irregularity reported as soon as there is any suspicion of an 
irregularity having occurred and research and analysis has been 
initiated. Additional information on further developments in the 
case is included in subsequent reports.  

67 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

LT 

Staff training 

The information in question will be submitted as soon as 
possible. 

Strict compliance with the internal procedures laid down for 
sending reports and with reporting deadlines is expected. 
Procedures were laid down for the treatment of the reporting 
requirements concerning intervention losses regarded as 
irregularities, and their implementation is under way. 

All information relating to irregularities is entered in the EU 
structural aid computerised management and control information 
system, by means of which data on irregularities can be selected 
and saved, information can be transferred efficiently to the 
appropriate authorities, and the identification and investigation of 
irregularities can be controlled. 

(Interreg) The deadlines do not pose a problem. 

Capacity has been increased at the organisations in question and 
the rules for reporting revised. The new provisions will probably 
shorten and facilitate the current procedures. In addition 
standardised instructions have been drawn up pursuant to the 
AFIS-system, and training and conferences on treating 
irregularities have also been organised. 

Reminders are sent to the relevant stakeholders to submit their 
irregularity reports to AFCOS (Malta) by the deadline, 
emphasising that risk analyses on information contained in the 
irregularity reports provides added value only if such information 
is submitted immediately after the discovery of the irregularity. 

Reminders are sent to the relevant stakeholders to submit their 
irregularity reports to AFCOS (Malta) by the deadline, 
emphasising that risk analyses on information contained in the 
irregularity reports provides added value only if such information 
is submitted immediately after the discovery of the irregularity 

The paying agencies, Dienst Regelingen (National Service for 
the Implementation of Regulations) and Dienst Landelijk Gebied 
(Government Service for Land and Water Management), make 
sure that no time is wasted calculating the exact level of the 
irregularity. Consequently the exact amount is adjusted later. 

Better coordination between the inspection services, paying 
agency and delegated bodies involved. 

AT 

Analysis of reporting procedure 

ERDF: administrative authorities and intermediaries are 

EN 

68 

EN 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

Export refunds: it is planned to reduce the time taken by the 
paying agency to process cases.  

The point at which the obligation arises to submit information on 
the detection of irregularities has been defined in the procedures. 
Efforts are being made to obtain information directly from the 
computerised management and control systems. More people are 
being hired in the Irregularities Departments in paying agencies. 
The Ministry of Finance is carrying out an analysis of the 
irregularities and sending it to the institutions. Training is being 
organised.  

Internal measures to shorten the period between the discovery of 
an irregularity, its analysis by the competent departments, the 
duration of the contradictory procedure (the opportunity given to 
the beneficiary to state why he/she should not reimburse the 
fund) and the issue of the subsequent final decision determining 
the reimbursement of the amount relative to the irregularity 
discovered and hence the relevant communication to OLAF. 

regularly reminded of their duty to report on time. 

Documents have been identified which may be considered 
primary administrative findings, training has been carried out, 
procedures have been updated with the introduction of the 
appropriate check lists. The Ministry of Finance draws up a risk 
analysis every six months, identifying the most serious dangers 
and describing the most frequent irregularities. This is then sent 
to all managing institutions. 

See reply to point 3.1.2.1. 

N/A 

N/A 

Direct contacts with the entities that have notified irregularities 
belatedly; drafting of reports in advance and their subsequent 
reconciliation with the irregularities logbook; "four-eye checks". 

Intensification of contacts with and guidance provided to the 
entities concerned; a methodological guideline has been adopted 
for the use of irregularity codes in line with the OLAF code 
table, specifying how findings are to be classified according to 
the OLAF code table; detailed procedures have been laid down 
for addressing irregularities in internal manuals of the 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

FI 

SE 

It is not possible to shorten it much, as reports are already sent 
directly after the control/recovery decision. 

The Swedish Board of Agriculture, which is the coordinating 
authority for reporting irregularities in agricultural expenditure, 
held 6 training courses in the late autumn focusing on those who 
report irregularities, i.e. specialist units, County Administrative 
Boards and other authorities. New manuals have been produced 
to help case officers with reporting. 

UK 

DfT - The EC request Action Status Reports on an annual basis 
where progress is checked on a regular basis. Any discrepancies 
on costs or timetables are immediately reported to the EC. 

RPA & Wales – It should be possible to enhance our 
performance with greater familiarity and experience of the 
reporting mechanism envisaged by R 1848/2006 (Pre-IMS/IMS) 
and wider application of the concept of ‘PACA’ (premier acte de 
constatation administrative). 

Scotland – An 8-month independent review of the Appeals 
process has just been completed. A more automated recovery 
system that will reduce the time taken to report irregularities is 
also being introduced. 

operational programmes. 

The course followed is to further emphasise that reports should 
be sent as soon as an irregularity is first discovered. It is also 
emphasised that reports should specifically notify the discovery 
of suspected irregularities, which can however later prove to be 
incorrect. 

The managing authority and paying authority are working 
constantly to improve administrative processes and reduce case 
processing times. Guidelines/procedures have been established to 
ensure that irregularities are reported in accordance with current 
regulations. The reporting of irregularities is coordinated by a 
civil servant in a key position who has good insight into whether 
irregularities are reported in time or not. This boosts the chances 
of rapid initiation of the necessary remedial action. 

BERR: The guidance and advice is always that irregularities 
should be reported as soon as possible, following the first written 
statement on the issues, bearing in mind that the details can be 
updated at any time. For ERDF, each Government Office (GO) 
has an irregularity coordinator who is responsible for overseeing 
the recording, reporting and closure of the region’s cases. 

JIU: Messages concerning the requirements are included in 
communications with GO inspection and monitoring teams - 
Action notes, emails, training, presentations and telephone 
conference call meetings. Meetings with individual GOs where 
there are concerns about compliance. 

Wales: Once a potential irregularity is identified, action is taken 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.2. What measures do you take in order to shorten this 
period? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

as quickly as possible with the beneficiary to obtain all the 
information needed to quantify it. 

Northern Ireland: A commissioning letter is issued ahead of the 
2-month period and reminders are also issued. 

Scotland: As above, no two cases are the same and there is no 
generic means to speed up the reporting process. 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.1.1.3. In your case, if you do not/can not take any measures, 
why not? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.3. In your case, if you do not /can not take any 
measures, why not? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

BE 

BIRB: Communications take place on time; no measures to be 
taken. 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: / 

WALLOON REGION: no measures to be taken 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: N/A 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 

BG 

N/A 

CZ 

Ministry of Agriculture: Measures would be taken at the 
operational level (setting of deadlines, discussion of further 
action, etc.) 

DK 

DE 

EE 

N/A 

WALLOON REGION: N/A 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: Because there are a variety of 
players involved and because the Brussels-Capital Region 
Ministry is faced with a difficult budgetary framework.  

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 

There have been no cases to date in which no corrective 
measures could be taken or sanctions imposed. 

Ministry of Transport: Investigation of irregularities is carried 
out by administrative bodies over which the Ministry has no 
influence (Czech Competition Authority (ÚOHS), Financial 
offices). 

Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs: Processing times 

Ministry of Agriculture: Measures would be taken at the 
operational level (setting of deadlines, discussion of further 
action, etc.) 

Reporting is satisfactory. 

N/A 

EN 

72 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.1.1.3. In your case, if you do not/can not take any measures, 
why not? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.3. In your case, if you do not /can not take any 
measures, why not? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

N/A 

N/A 

See answer to question 3.1.1.1.  

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

See question 3.1.2.2 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

(Interreg) We suggest a representation for OLAF in Luxembourg 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

See reply to point 3.1.1.2 

See reply to point 3.1.2.1. 

N/A 

N/A 

Measures are taken. The amendment of the directive on dealing  Measures are taken in the form of internal orders or managing 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.1.1.3. In your case, if you do not/can not take any measures, 
why not? (AGRICULTURE) 

3.1.2.3. In your case, if you do not /can not take any 
measures, why not? (STRUCTURAL ACTIONS) 

with the irregularities at the Agricultural Payment Agency 

authority letters, not through a system measure. 

FI 

SE 

UK 

See previous answer. 

See previous answer. 

Lack of resources or lack of knowledge. 

BERR as coordinating body for irregularity reporting can only 
advise Authorities about the requirements of the regulations. 
However, government departments do take measures with 
government offices in the regions, on the management of 
irregularities through regular reconciliation of records and for 
example, day-to-day discussions and audit findings. 

Wales: All appropriate and reasonable measures are taken. 

Scotland: The Division has its own Desk Instructions which are 
followed in each case. 

EN 

74 

EN 

 
  
 
 
3.2. 

THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF IRREGULARITIES 

Sectoral  regulations  concerning  irregularity  reporting  to  the  Commission  provide  that 
Member States also need to evaluate and report the financial impact of the irregularities. 

The financial impact is in many cases difficult to evaluate because of the multitude of factors 
to be taken into account. Among these can be included the lack of complete information at the 
moment when the evaluation is being undertaken, or the non-existence of a pre-defined set of 
criteria which would help the evaluator in establishing the financial impact of an irregularity. 

The replies from the Member States will contribute to a more homogenous, in-depth analysis 
of the financial impact of irregularities communicated to the Commission. This information is 
essential  because  the  budgetary  authorities,  as  well  as  the  public,  always  pay  particular 
attention to this aspect. 

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
Member 
State 

3.2.1. Do your Member State's guidelines on irregularity reporting include rules for defining/establishing the financial impact 
of an irregularity taken individually?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

No (BIRB, WALLOON REGION: The 
financial impact is the value of the 
established entitlement. This value is 
determined by the penalty coefficients 
defined in the sectoral regulations. 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY, GERMAN-
SPEAKING COMMUNITY) 

Yes (BERBC03, WALLOON REGION, 
FRENCH COMMUNITY, AGENCE FSE 
(ESF Agency), FLEMISH 
COMMUNITY, ESF VL) 

No 

No (BEVLGECO, BEVLG (agriculture 
and sea fisheries), FLEMISH 
COMMUNITY, EFRO Vlaanderen 
(EFRD Flanders), BRUSSELS-CAPITAL 
REGION, GERMAN-SPEAKING 
COMMUNITY) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.1. Do your Member State's guidelines on irregularity reporting include rules for defining/establishing the financial impact 
of an irregularity taken individually?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No (for the export refunds) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

77 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

BE 

BERBC03:  

•  correctness of the amount 

•  possession  of  complete  and  reliable 

information guaranteed 

•  account  taken  of  events,  such  as  legal 
proceedings under way against the final 
recipient, that might have an impact on 
the final recipient's activities continuing 
as normal, since the latter's expenditure 
is  no  longer  likely  in  future  to  be  put 
forward for ESF co-financing. 

WALLOON REGION: It does not seem 
necessary to provide additional rules or 
criteria for determining the amount of the 
irregularity, as there is in general no 
problem in determining this amount. It 
does happen that, in order to determine the 
exact amount of the irregularity, 
significant research and monitoring work 
and, therefore, considerable human 
resources are required, these being 
justified in terms of a concern for fairness 
and objectivity (with the penalty imposed 
being proportionate to the error), but it is 

EN 

78 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

not the rules or criteria that are deficient. 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): The first 
criterion is eligibility of the expenditure. 
In the case of irregularities linked, rather, 
to the system put in place, systemic 
withdrawals may be established in 
accordance with the European directive 
that sets the percentages. 

FLEMISH COMMUNITY: / 

ESF VL: Application of the general 
financial criteria calls for specific financial 
criteria that are used for both allocation 
and settlement. These criteria ultimately 
lay down the various sources of funding 
for the implementation of each project 
(EU, Public Co-financing, Private Co-
financing and Revenue). 

BG 

The financial impact equals the amount of 
the subsidy/amount of the revenue to the 
Community budget. 

There is no general regulatory act that 
governs the establishment of the financial 
impact. However, there are internal rules. 
The impact equals the amount of the 
payment to the Community budget. The 
mechanism follows the logic indicated for 

There is no general regulatory act that 
governs establishing the financial impact. 
However, there are internal rules. Criterion 
is the value of the irregularity, as 
compared with the funds that were 
implemented; it is usually the amount of 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

the pre-accession instruments. 

the ineligible costs/the damage.  

CZ 

Ministry of Agriculture: Generally the 
SZIF internal rules (governing the 
procedure for recovering sums outstanding 
– refunds, accounting for debts); no 
specific provision setting "criteria" has 
been approved and we work on the basis 
of best practice and COCOLAF working 
documents.  

Ministry of Finance – Section 55 – 
National Fund 

Ministry of Industry and Commerce: This 
involves defining eligibility of costs for 
individual OPIE and OPIE programmes. 
In this context the OPPP and OPPI 
management body of the Ministry of 
Trade and Commerce uses the financial 
flows and control methodology for 
Structural Funds. The requirements of this 
document are monitored on an ongoing 
basis and systematically incorporated into 
the next updated version of the 
implementation manuals, which are the 
binding rules governing the activities of 
officials of the management authority and 
the intermediate body (CzechInves-CI 
agency), including regional offices 
(RKCI). Instructions on how to proceed in 
individual programmes is given either in 
the tender notices or on the website of 
CzechInvest. The decision granting the 
subsidy and the terms include the 
framework specification of the eligible 
costs that are mandatory for the financing 
of the subsidy pledged. A material check 
of these expenses is generally carried out 
at the location of the project and 

EN 

80 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

documentary checks on invoices are done 
at the payment authorisation stage before 
the money is refunded to the beneficiary's 
account. 

Ministry of Employment and Social 
Affairs: The report covers the following 
criteria: the type and estimated amount of 
funds wrongly used the amount already 
disbursed and ascertainment of whether 
payments have been provisionally halted 
and, if so, the amount involved. 

In the case of the ERDF and ESF, the 
provisions on irregularities in the 
Commission's regulations are applied.  

As for the FIFG, the individual agencies in 
the Directorate for Food, Fisheries and 
Agri-Business have the final decision on 
the extent of the irregularity and on how 
much should be recovered in a given case. 
If the amount cannot be accurately 
determined, an estimate is made in 
accordance with the internal guidelines on 
irregularity reporting. 

DK 

The individual agencies in the Directorate 
for Food, Fisheries and Agri-Business 
have the final decision on the extent of the 
irregularity and on how much should be 
recovered in a given case. If the amount 
cannot be accurately determined, an 
estimate is made in accordance with the 
internal guidelines on irregularity 
reporting. 

DE 

Financial loss for the Community 

Financial loss for the Community and for 
the national budget 

N/A 

EN 

81 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

The precise financial impact of an 
irregularity is established in line with the 
size/severity of the irregularity and on the 
basis of the penalties applicable in the 
event of failure to meet the requirements 
laid down in legal acts.  

The precise financial impact of an 
irregularity is established in line with the 
size/severity of the irregularity and on the 
basis of the penalties applicable in the 
event of failure to meet the requirements 
laid down in legal acts.  

The financial impact of irregularities 
relating to SAPARD is assessed on a case-
by-case basis, having regard to the 
requirements laid down in the Multi-
annual Financing Agreement and the 
particular circumstances of the 
irregularity. No general instructions have 
been drawn up for establishing the 
financial impact of each individual 
irregularity. 

All staff involved in the irregularity 
identification and reporting process have 
been provided with a document outlining 
the financial data required on the AFIS 
system and the financial impact is 
established by them on the basis of the 
Community rules applicable. 

In the case of a grant – the criteria would 
be the amount of grant provided.  

In the case of direct assistance – the 
criteria would be the potential loss to 
National and European funds. 

Establishment of the amount wrongly paid 
plus interest, in accordance with the 
Community legislation directly applicable 
and Article 40 of the General Subsidies 
Law 38/2003 of 17 November.  

Generally speaking the financial impact is 
quantified. If it is not possible, 
Commission guidelines are used and also 
manuals of procedure and computer 
applications.  

FR 

The paying agencies quantify the 
irregularities. For ex post controls the 

The auditors have to establish, for each 
operation audited, the amount of ineligible 

EN 

82 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

inspection bodies are asked to carry out a 
preliminary assessment as soon as the 
primary administrative finding is made. 
This is then confirmed by the paying 
organisation. 

The assessment and the estimation of the 
financial impact of an irregularity result 
from a strict application of Community 
regulations. 

In the case of the EAFRD the impact is 
assessed on the basis of “Infringement 
verification indices” which measure the 
scale of the incident, its seriousness and 
duration; each of these indicators is 
subdivided into three types of 
infringement. (Order of the Agriculture 
Ministry of 20/03/08) 

(a) before payment: the amount to be paid 
to the applicant if the irregularities has not 
been located, and (b) after payment: the 
amount unduly paid. There is an urgent 
need for the Commission to establish 
specific criteria and guidelines. 

IT 

CY 

expenditure and the corresponding amount 
of unduly paid aid. These amounts are 
calculated in relation to the expenditure 
items claimed and deemed to be eligible 
(expenditure found to be fully eligible and 
paid). 

(a) before payment: the amount to be paid 
to the applicant if the irregularities has not 
been located, and (b) after payment: the 
amount unduly paid. 

(a) before payment: the amount to be paid 
to the applicant if the irregularities has not 
been located, and (b) after payment: the 
amount unduly paid. 

LV 

The amount of irregular expenditure 
having an impact on the national and 

The nature of the irregularity is taken into 
account, i.e. whether it applies to a 

In determining the financial impact of the 
irregularity, the amount of funding that 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

Community budget, the category or nature 
of the irregularity (without taking into 
account the amount of expenditure), e.g. 
fraud, criminal activity, and other criteria 
considered as grounds for notifying OLAF 
are taken into account.  

particular project or the management and 
control system as a whole. To determine 
the financial impact of the irregularity, the 
amount of irregular expenditure and the 
materiality of the loss are also taken into 
account.  

could influence the Community budget is 
taken into account. 

LT 

LU 

The scale of the irregularity; whether the 
irregularity has occurred previously; 
whether the irregularity has been 
committed deliberately 

All irregularities are dealt with by the 
administration departments for the aid in 
question. Where a recovery procedure or a 
payment refusal is involved, the relevant 
national legislation (non-contentious 
administrative procedure) requires that the 
person liable for payment be notified 
before any administrative decision is 
taken. This notification must include all 
points of fact and of law which are causing 
it to bring action, and therefore also 
include the foreseeable sum to be 
recovered or relating to the refusal to pay. 

(European Social Fund) The OLAF sheet 
has been duly completed. The impact is 
calculated on the basis of irregularities 
noted in respect of the allocated total 
budget. 

HU 

In the event of undue subsidies being paid 
the responsible authority decides whether 

The Irregularity Committee takes into 
consideration the principle of 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

the total sum or just a part of it should be 
repaid. If the client makes a false claim the 
authority requires the total sum to be 
repaid. 

proportionality, according to which the 
grant provider has to apply discretionary 
powers in such a way that the reclaimed 
subsidies are in proportion to the 
irregularities committed.  

MT 

•  Type of irregularity 

•  The provision/procedure infringed 

•  Type of irregularity 

•  Type of Fund 

•  Type of project and expenditure  

•  Type of irregularity 

•  The 

practice 

employed 

in 

the 

commitment of the irregularity 

•  Whether the irregularity was discovered 
prior  or  after  the  execution  of  the 
expenditure 

•  Whether the irregularity was discovered 
prior  or  after  the  execution  of  the 
expenditure 

NL 

N/A 

ERDF: N/A 

N/A 

ESF: All projects are inspected. In order to 
establish the error, a full check is usually 
carried out if a partial check has revealed 
errors. For larger projects (in financial 
terms) using statistical sampling to 
establish the error is considered. 

AT 

Relevant EU legislation and implementing 
national provisions 

ERDF: the main criterion is the eligibility 
of the final beneficiary's expenditure. This 

EN 

85 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

is assessed on the basis of the relevant 
national guidelines, the relevant 
regulations and the grant contracts 
concluded. 

PL 

•  The  amount  of  undue  payment 

is 
calculated with reference to the quantity 
of goods not covered by the refund.  

N/A 

•  The  difference  between  the  amount  of 
aid applied for and the actual amount.  

•  Comparison  of  the  land  area  declared 

with the actual area. 

Always underlying the irregularities 
discovered, taken individually, are 
unlawful, specific and net amounts that are 
to be recovered from or credited to the 
respective fund(s).  

Always underlying the irregularities 
discovered, taken individually, are 
unlawful, specific and net amounts that are 
to be recovered or credited to the 
respective fund(s).  

N/A 

N/A 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

An irregularity having financial impact on 
the Community budget - an irregularity is 
the non-eligible expenditure, which has 
been approved by the paying 
authority/certifying authority in the 

The financial impact of an irregularity 
depends on the amount of the non-eligible 
expenditure identified. 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

summary payment request. 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Although there may be slight variation 
within the criteria according to individual 
Scheme, the principle of identification and 
recovery remains constant. The 
participation by a claimant in a single or a 
multiple number of Schemes (the potential 
total value) as well as the trading history 
and connected parties should also be 
established. 

The total amount of the claim would be 
compared to the amount of irregularity so 
it could be considered in context. This is 
covered in desk instructions.  

BERR: This section is unclear – the 
reports include the financial data required 
under the regulations with each case 
reported individually as required. 

N/A 

JIU: Whether the irregularity identified 
impacts on other projects funded by ESF 
for the same beneficiary.  

Wales: The Welsh European Funding 
Office guidance sets out what officers 
need to do when an irregularity has been 
identified and how to report it. 

Northern Ireland: Guidance on 
Irregularities has been issued to all 
Implementing Bodies. The criteria 
specified in order to establish the 
individual financial impact of an 
irregularity include the value of the Letter 
of Offer, the extent of the irregularity itself 
and consideration as to whether there is an 
indication that the error is systemic and if 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.2. If your Member State has such rules, what kind of criteria does it take into account in order to establish the individual 
financial impact of an irregularity?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

follow up action needs to be taken. 

Scotland: The Division has its own Desk 
Instructions which are followed in each 
case. 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.3. It may happen that several individual irregularities with a financial impact under the reporting threshold are connected 
to the same beneficiary, who is implementing one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregularities with an affected amount under the reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? 

For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) 

For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) 

For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no 
threshold for the irregularity reporting) 

BE 

Yes: 

Yes 

BIRB: In the case of multiple 
irregularities, the amounts concerned are 
added up where a fine under Article 51 of 
Regulation No 800/99 is applicable. If the 
sum of these amounts reaches the 
threshold of EUR 10 000, it is reported. 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: If, when the 
file is analysed (= when the recovery letter 
is written), the different elements 
combined (various irregularities and/or 
various systems) amount to a debt of > 
EUR 10 000, this is reported to OLAF. 

No: 

WALLOON REGION: Where direct 
forms of aid are concerned, and within one 
and the same measure, there is rarely a list 
of offences amounting in total to more 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.3. It may happen that several individual irregularities with a financial impact under the reporting threshold are connected 
to the same beneficiary, who is implementing one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregularities with an affected amount under the reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? 

For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) 

For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) 

For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no 
threshold for the irregularity reporting) 

than EUR 10 000. Moreover, the most 
severe penalty is non-payment of the aid 
and exclusion from the benefits thereof for 
three consecutive years. It is, then, 
extremely unlikely that there will be an 
accumulation of established entitlements 
relating to different files and for one and 
the same aid scheme.) 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes (CF), No (SF) 

No 

No 

No11 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

11 

EN 

The irregularity notification in Estonia is based on the project and the 10 000 euro threshold is also followed up by the project. We do not connect the different projects / 
irregularities of the same beneficiary. 

90 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

3.2.3. It may happen that several individual irregularities with a financial impact under the reporting threshold are connected 
to the same beneficiary, who is implementing one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregularities with an affected amount under the reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? 

For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) 

For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) 

For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no 
threshold for the irregularity reporting) 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

No 

No 

Yes (If the irregularities detected relate to 
the same scheme AND a particular control 
programme) 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

No 

No 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.3. It may happen that several individual irregularities with a financial impact under the reporting threshold are connected 
to the same beneficiary, who is implementing one or several projects under the same programme/measure. Please indicate 
whether, in the case of multiple irregularities with an affected amount under the reporting threshold, a communication to 
OLAF is made? 

For the agricultural funds (threshold 
10.000 Euros) 

For the structural actions funds 
(threshold 10.000 Euros) 

For the pre-accession funds (threshold 
for PHARE 10.000 Euros and threshold 
for SAPARD 4000; for ISPA there is no 
threshold for the irregularity reporting) 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Member 
State 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes / No12 

No 

Yes 

No 

No 

No 

Yes (ERDF), No (ESF) 

Yes; No (Scotland) 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

N/A 

3.2.4. Do you make use of information regarding irregularities for risk analysis purposes?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

12 

EN 

According to the guidelines concerning reporting irregularities, all cases of law infringement detected during one control proceedings or during verification of one payment 
application  are  reported  together  as  one  irregularity.  The  same  concerns  if  the  irregularity  relates  to  several  individual  projects.  Although  irregularities  caused  by  one 
beneficiary do not automatically sum up. 

92 

EN 

 
  
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

3.2.4. Do you make use of information regarding irregularities for risk analysis purposes?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

Yes (BIRB, WALLOON REGION, 
FLEMISH PAYING AGENCY) 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No (For structural funds, irregular 
expenditure notified via AFIS is not 
included in the expenditure declaration 
(they are excluded from the expenditure 
declaration by the Payment Authority). 
The FCC checks declared expenditure and 
therefore does not use this information for 
the risk assessment. 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Yes 

EN 

93 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.2.4. Do you make use of information regarding irregularities for risk analysis purposes?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes (ERDF), No (ESF) 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

N/A 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

N/A 

No 

N/A 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity which financial impact was initially estimated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 

BE 

BIRB: Within the framework of Article 5 of Regulation No 1848/06, the change to the amount is reported and the file closed. No 
such case has ever occurred yet. 

WALLOON REGION: Reporting of the correction of the file 

FLEMISH PAYING AGENCY: If the irregularity has already been reported to OLAF, an adjustment is put through (Article 5). If 
the irregularity has not yet been reported to OLAF, no form is completed. 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): Change to the OLAF form 

FLEMISH COMMUNITY: ESF VL 

Once defence rights have been exhausted, the definitive amount will be below or above the reporting threshold. The definitive 
amount (EU contribution) is directly deducted from the amount of the next request for payment, irrespective of the reporting 
threshold. 

EFRO Vlaanderen: (EFRD Flanders): Reported to OLAF, with subsequent follow-up notification because under the threshold. 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: No cases as yet. 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: New notification with corrected amounts 

It would be reported to OLAF. Following recalculation OLAF would be notified that the actual impact of the irregularity has fallen 
below the reporting threshold, as compared to the initial estimate, and that it will not be reported in the future. 

Ministry of Industry and Commerce: A suspected irregularity above the threshold would be reported to OLAF through AFIS. If 
during verification of the case it is discovered to be below the threshold, AFCOS would request through AFIS for it to be removed 
from the database. 

Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs: Reporting of irregularity with the original sum, then an updated report with the new 

95 

EN 

BG 

CZ 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity which financial impact was initially estimated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 

sum and footnote  

Ministry of Agriculture: The irregularity reported by the AFCOS contact point to OLAF is updated in a report on the reduction of 
the sum. If within two months of the end of the quarter in question, the irregularity is not reported externally by the AFCOS contact 
point in a report to OLAF, the report is recorded and transferred in AFIS only at the request of the European Commission. 

Ministry for Regional Development: Procedure corresponding to the definition of "original estimate": If this involves an estimate 
made during an investigation to determine whether the case is well-founded, i.e. when the case is reported only internally, then the 
management authority would not notify OLAF that the financial impact was now below the threshold. If the case concerned an 
estimate at the stage where a suspected irregularity had already been reported to OLAF and is then confirmed and recalculated to be 
below the threshold, the management authority would report this to OLAF as part of the updating of the report, to maintain the 
continuity of the information transmitted. 

Cohesion Fund – as the case with reporting obligation. 

DK 

In principle, irregularities are treated the same regardless of the amount involved. 

If a reported irregularity subsequently turns out to be below the 10 000 euro threshold, this is reported to OLAF. Borderline cases 
are likewise reported to OLAF. 

Does not apply to the agricultural sector. With regard to structural actions, withdrawal of funds. 

If it transpires that the financial impact of an irregularity initially estimated as being above the reporting threshold is actually below 
EUR 10 000, additional information will still be provided to the Commission in the follow-up reports in line with Article 5 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 until such time as the procedures concerning the case are terminated. 

For the agricultural funds, the case is subject to a final Article 5 report stating that on review, appeal etc., the financial amount 
involved is now below the threshold and therefore closed for the purpose of Regulation 1848/06 reporting. Any monies due will of 
course be subject to Community debt recovery provisions. 

For the structural funds, this would be an extremely rare occurrence but if it did happen the irregularity report would be withdrawn. 
(Please see also answers above) 

96 

EN 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity which financial impact was initially estimated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 

EL 

For structural funds, the FCC continues to provide proper information on developments with the irregularity until it is resolved. 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

For agricultural funds, a new notification is sent for the amount to be corrected, in accordance with Regulation No 1848/06. 

In the agricultural funds, since the entry into force of Regulation No 1848/2006, a reduction in amounts is not reported. Information 
provided by Paying Agencies is, however, kept in the FEGA coordination body. In the structural funds a change in the amount 
would be reported in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) 1681/94. 

In accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006, a report is sent to OLAF, specifying the reason for cancelling the 
irregularity 

If a report has been sent under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1681/94, and subsequent amendments, and under Article 5 of 
Regulation No 1848/06 the details of the case are updated until the administrative and/or judicial proceedings have been completed. 

Report it to the Commission (Article 3), provided that the initial estimation required the Commission to be informed, as it is not 
necessary to provide further information on the case via the Commission’s first quarterly information update (Article 5).  

In these situations the reporting on the evolution of the matter would continue until it were closed. The information would be 
referred to in an addendum to the report on irregularities, and the amount would be adjusted appropriately. 

If information about the irregularity has already been reported, this information is subsequently corrected. 

(Agricultural Fund) This has not yet happened in Luxembourg. (ERDF) Not applicable in Luxembourg (European Social Fund). A 
second corrected sheet cancelling and replacing the former sheet is submitted. 

The Hungarian authorities treat all irregularities violating EU financial interests in the same way. An update report will be sent on 
the reduction of the financial impact of irregularities reported. 

AFCOS would initially report the irregularity to the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF). However, on re-calculating the amount 
below the threshold, AFCOS would withdraw the irregularity and inform OLAF that the amount of the irregularity in question is 
below the threshold. 

NL 

ERDF: If it has already been reported, a correction will be made in the next quarter. If it has not been reported, the irregularity will 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity which financial impact was initially estimated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 

be recorded in the financial register. 

ESF: In such cases no report will be made to OLAF if it has not already been reported. 

AGRICULTURE: The report will be withdrawn. 

AT 

ERDF: the initial report is recorded via AFIS. The initially notified amounts are then corrected in accordance with Article 5(1). 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

Export refunds: if an irregularity has been reported under Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 and it subsequently transpires 
that the amount is below the reporting threshold, a follow-up report is made. 

If a report was compiled and sent to the Commission on irregularities over EUR 10 000 and in the course of further investigation the 
actual amount turned out to be below that threshold, the report would still be sent to the Commission pending completion of the 
case. 

If the notification to OLAF has not yet taken place, the irregularity is not communicated. If it has taken place, the cancellation of the 
case is communicated during the corresponding quarter (this does not mean that the recovery procedures are stopped). 

It would be first sent to OLAF; and then subsequently the updated report on the irregularities containing the new amounts that fall 
below the reporting threshold would continue to be reported until the case is closed. 

The irregularity would be reported to OLAF and the case pursued up until closure even though it is below the threshold. The 
subsequent recalculation would be reported to OLAF in the regular update of the irregularity in question. 

An updated report on the irregularity identified would be drawn up and submitted.  

Such irregularities are reported normally, since they exceed the reporting threshold when first estimated. The updated information is 
notified using the normal follow-up report. 

Structural actions funds (ESF): If a report of the first calculation had already been made, the new circumstances would be reported 
to OLAF. If the new calculation is made before a report has gone to OLAF, the case is not reported. Cases under the threshold are 
also reported where criminal activity is suspected. 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.5. How would you treat an irregularity which financial impact was initially estimated above the reporting threshold and 
is subsequently recalculated below the reporting threshold? 

Structural actions funds (ERDF): Not known whether this has occurred. If it should occur, a new corrected report will be submitted. 

Agriculture: Since SE has interpreted the time when the reporting requirement occurs as being when the authority decides to reclaim 
payments, and this claim is in our financial system, the irregularity is reported directly and thereafter make a correction or zero-
report the case to OLAF. 

UK 

BERR: The case would be the subject of a follow-up report or reports detailing the changes. As the original report would have been 
made because the estimated amount was above the threshold, it would be on the database. Follow-up reports however would 
continue until the case has been resolved.  

JIU: The irregularity is initially reported to OLAF for the amount estimated to be at risk at the time the first written assessment is 
made. Updates are then reported to notify OLAF of reductions to amounts at risk arising from follow up actions. These can be 
finalised at values either above or below the reporting threshold. 

RPA: It would be reported as an irregularity and subsequently updated by appropriate interim/final Article 5 reports. 

Wales: The initial estimate would be reported as required as it is above the reporting threshold. If subsequent actions are able to 
reduce the amount of the irregularity then revised reporting forms are issued internally to account for the reduction. The revised 
irregularity will then be recovered from the sponsor. 

Northern Ireland: the irregularity will be notified in the first instance, however, when the calculation has been established, the 
irregularity is ‘closed’ and OLAF is notified accordingly with an explanation. 

Scotland:– An annex B would be created and the irregularity report amended. It would be reported as an Irregularity with any 
revision of the amount duly notified to OLAF to amend their records via the RPA. The irregularity however would not be finally 
cleared from OLAF’s records until the revised debt was finally paid off in full or written off as irrecoverable. 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.2.6. Amounts offset (Offsetting is understood to mean clearing a claim and a debt which cancel each other): In the 
agricultural sector, do you communicate irregularities with an initial amount above the threshold (10.000€) and a net 
amount below the 10.000€ threshold further to an offset (compensation)? 

BE 

Yes: 

BIRB: Offsetting takes place after the formal notice has been issued and, therefore, after notification. 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: For the reporting to OLAF, account is taken only of the initial amount of the irregularity.) 

No: 

WALLOON REGION: The irregularities reported are those for which an established entitlement is created. This entitlement comes 
into being when the irregularity committed is notified to the interested party. Such notification takes the form of a formal notice. 
This formal notice shows the net amount of the irregularity. If the net amount is less than EUR 10 000, it is not therefore reported to 
OLAF. 

BG 

CZ 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.2.6. Amounts offset (Offsetting is understood to mean clearing a claim and a debt which cancel each other): In the 
agricultural sector, do you communicate irregularities with an initial amount above the threshold (10.000€) and a net 
amount below the 10.000€ threshold further to an offset (compensation)? 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

No 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

Yes 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
  
3.3. 

CLASSIFICATION OF IRREGULARITIES 

The  terms  "irregularity",  "suspected  fraud"  and  "fraud"  are  defined  by  the  European 
legislation. 

According to European Council Regulation 2988/95 of 18 December 199513 an "irregularity" 
means  any  infringement  of  a  provision  of  Community  law  resulting  from  an  act  or  an 
omission  by  an  economic  operator  which  has,  or  would  have,  the  effect  of  prejudicing  the 
general budget of the Communities. 

According  to  the  Convention  on  the  protection  of  the  European  Communities'  financial 
interests14  ,  fraud  is  an  irregularity  committed  intentionally  and  it  is  a  criminal  act  that  can 
only be determined by the outcome of judicial proceedings. 

Taking into account that the reporting of irregularities is done at an early stage, the sectoral 
regulations provide that Member States must identify among communicated irregularities, not 
only  cases  of  established  fraud,  but  also  cases  of  suspected  fraud.  According  to  EC 
regulations 1848/2006 for the sector of agriculture, no. 2035/2005 and no. 2168/2005, for the 
structural  and  cohesion  funds,  "suspected  fraud"  means  an  irregularity  giving  rise  to  the 
initiation  of administrative  and/or  judicial proceedings at  national level in order to establish 
the presence of intentional behaviour. 

Nonetheless, in practice, the interpretations that the Member States' authorities give to these 
terms may differ and the distinction between "suspected fraud" and other irregularities is not 
consistent  because  the  Member  States  do  not  always  have  the  same  definition  of  criminal 
behaviour. For this reason, it is important to discern the criteria employed by the competent 
authorities  to  categorize  irregularities  and  suspected  fraud  cases  and  to  find  out  where  the 
classification difficulties may occur. 

Irregularity and suspected fraud  

Correct classification into the given IRQ (IRQ2 - irregularity, IRQ3 - suspicion of fraud, IRQ 
5 - established fraud) is essential because if the cases of suspected frauds and frauds are not 
separated  from  the  other  types  of irregularities,  it  will  not  be  clear  to  the  public  that  only  a 
part of irregularities have a criminal character. 

13 

14 

OJ L312 of 23.12.1995. 
OJ C316 of 27.11.1995. 

EN 

102 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

BE 

BIRB: Irregularities are categorised as 
follows:  

IRQ 2 - all irregularities 

IRQ 3 - in the event of the application of a 
200% fine (Art 51(1b) of Regulation No 
800/99) 

IRQ 5 - in the event of a judicial decision 
being taken  

Out of a concern for confidentiality, a 
judicial inquiry could prevent the 
categorisation of a reported irregularity 
and/or an inquiry in the course of which 
the judge has to decide whether what is at 
issue is fraud or an irregularity. 

WALLOON REGION: All established 
entitlements in keeping with the definition 
of an irregularity given by Regulation No 
2988/95 are categorised as IRQ2. 
Elements in a file that reveal a glaring 
error on the part of the informant could 
lead to a file's being reclassified as IRQ3. 
An error established as IRQ5 will only be 

WALLOON REGION: There is a clear 
distinction between irregularity and fraud. 
The distinction between irregularity and 
suspicion of fraud is less clear, however. 

FLEMISH COMMUNITY: ESF VL 
Definitions IRQ2 and IRQ3 are unclear 
and difficult to apply. The ability to prove 
fraud depends on there being a time limit 
for dealing with the matter and on the 
judgment of a court. 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: No 
particular obstacle except that the 
classification may change over time, 
depending on the information collected. 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE [ESF Agency]: The 
distinction between irregularity and fraud 
is quite explicit inasmuch as fraud has to 
be decreed as such by the judgment of a 
court. It is less obvious what is to be 
understood by suspicion of fraud and 
irregularity.  

EN 

103 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: 
No incidents to date. Nor, therefore, have 
any classification problems been noted 

referred to if there is a judicial decision. 

FLEMISH PAYING AGENCY: There 
was a variety of interpretations as to how 
'suspicion of fraud' was to be defined, 
given that it was unclear which procedures 
came within 'an administrative and/or 
judicial procedure'.  

Only the judge can determine whether or 
not an irregularity is to be considered as 
fraud. 

Conclusions based on our own checks and 
without an attendant judicial procedure 
can only give rise to the suspicion of 
fraud. 

Concerning what can be considered as 
'intentional' in relation to irregularities, 
"false and/or falsified accounts or false 
and/or falsified documents” could classify 
irregularities as “suspicion of fraud”  

As a consequence, there are no more 
impediments to the correct classification 
of irregularities. 

EN 

104 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

BG 

CZ 

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

No difficulties have been encountered in 
classifying the cases where sufficient 
justification and/or evidence is available. 

No difficulties have been identified in 
classifying cases where sufficient 
justification and/or evidence is available. 

No difficulties have been identified in 
classifying cases where sufficient 
justification and/or evidence is available.  

Ministry of Agriculture: A suspected 
irregularity is classified as soon as it is 
being investigated; in the case of 
suspected fraud (e.g. irregularities 
committed through forgery of papers and 
documents) the suspected irregularity is 
transferred to the law-enforcement 
authorities, as above 

Ministry of Transport: In the initial stage 
the impact on the financial interests of the 
Community is always classified only as an 
irregularity. Not until further investigation 
can the cause be identified as deliberate 
action of a particular person, and therefore 
the possibility of fraud, in which case the 
classification then has to be changed.  

Ministry of Industry and Commerce: As 
regards the above-mentioned emphasis on 
the classification of the irregularity in 
relation to the suspicion of fraudulent 
action or of a criminal act, the Ministry of 
Trade and Commerce has only one case of 
suspected irregularity registered in the 
OPIE. This was transferred in Q1/2008 to 
the Supreme Public Prosecutor's Office 
(NSZ) and the case is being investigated 
with the help of INTERPOL. 

Ministry of Employment and Social 

EN 

105 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

Affairs: The irregularity does not meet the 
definition to qualify as fraud.  

Ministry of Agriculture: A suspected 
irregularity is classified as soon as it is 
being investigated; in the case of 
suspected fraud (e.g. irregularities 
committed through forgery of papers and 
documents) the suspected irregularity is 
transferred to the law-enforcement 
authorities, as above 

Ministry for Regional Development: 
Assessing whether the beneficiary has 
broken the law or contravened the terms of 
the agreement or contract or other rules of 
the programme documentation 
intentionally, through negligence or 
through lack of knowledge, is a matter of 
experience, although it is always very 
difficult to assess, and in particular to 
prove, intention in the individual's actions. 
If the case is transferred to the law-
enforcement authorities, the management 
authority always classifies the suspicion as 
suspected fraudulent behaviour. The 

EN 

106 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

DK 

All reported irregularity cases are 
classified by code. 

irregularity is then considered as proven 
fraud once the criminal proceedings at the 
competent court are over and a final 
judgment has been handed down (penalty 
imposed). 

All reported cases in relation to the ERDF 
and ESF are classified by code or the 
irregularity is described in text. 

In the case of the FIFG, all reported 
irregularity cases are classified by code.  

DE 

EE 

None 

None 

N/A 

Statements made by the applicant (at a 
hearing) and sometimes also by witnesses 
are taken as the starting point. When 
carrying out administrative procedures, 
administrative organs do not have the right 
to undertake surveillance. In cases of 
suspected fraud, the investigative 
authorities are consulted. 

The reasons are limited practical 
experience and the lack of an exchange of 
information with OLAF and other Member 
States. Often it is impossible to prove 
fraud. In cases of suspected fraud, the 
investigative authorities are consulted. 

Irregularities are classified in accordance 
with the categories laid down in OLAF's 
instructions for reporting irregularities. In 
cases of suspected fraud, the investigative 
authorities are consulted.  

IE 

Our figures show that all irregularities 
reported by Ireland under Regulation 
1848/06 were classified. 

Not aware of any particular difficulty in 
respect of structural actions  

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

EL 

ES 

FR 

There are no problems to report. All 
irregularities are initially classified IRQ2. 
For IRQ3, see 3.3.2. In order for an 
irregularity to be classified IRQ5, a 
definitive court ruling must have been 
passed deeming the irregularity fraud. 

The FCC classifies all notified 
irregularities properly. 

N/A 

One of the main difficulties is establishing 
the possible intention in committing the 
irregularity.  

One of the main difficulties is establishing 
the possible intention in committing the 
irregularity. 

There is nothing to prevent an irregularity 
being "classified". There is a suspicion of 
fraud whenever a dossier is sent to the 
judicial authority. Fraud is established 
when the court has delivered its judgment. 

Irregularities are systematically classified 
by type of irregularity. The procedure for 
applying the term "fraud" or "suspected 
fraud" is based on the definition given in 
the Council Act of 26 July 1995 drawing 
up the Convention on the protection of the 
financial interests of the European 
Communities (95/C 316/03). 

In practice, an irregularity is classified as 
"fraud" or "suspected fraud" if the actions 
could constitute criminal offences.  

IT 

The report shows that Italy has always 
provided details of the classification of 
irregularities. Under national law, 

The report shows that Italy has always 
provided details of the classification of 
irregularities. Under national law, 

EN 

108 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

irregularities may be classified as IRQ5 
(established fraud) only after the judicial 
authorities have reached a final decision.  

irregularities may be classified as IRQ5 
(established fraud) only after the judicial 
authorities have reached a final decision. 

No difficulties have so far been 
encountered. 

The fact that each case must be reported at 
an early stage, i.e. where there is 
insufficient information/evidence. 

The fact that each case must be reported at 
an early stage, i.e. where there is 
insufficient information/evidence. 

CY 

LV 

Classification in relation to agricultural 
funds for the 2007-13 programming period 
does not pose any problems, as the 
guidelines established by OLAF contain 
clear definitions of 'irregularities', 
'suspected fraud' and 'fraud'.  

LT 

No problems encountered in the 
classification of irregularities. 

Administrative and/or judicial proceedings 
to determine whether an irregularity has 
been committed with intent to commit a 
criminal offence or through negligence are 
usually not initiated before an irregularity 
is reported.  

No problems encountered in the 
classification of irregularities. 

Classification is hampered by the generic 
nature of the definitions of 'fraud', 
suspected fraud', 'irregularity' and 'error'. It 
is difficult to differentiate between acts 
committed through error or incompetence 
and acts of deliberate neglect, omission or 
suspected fraud.  

Problems most often arise when describing 
irregularities as suspected fraud (IRQ3). 
An individual irregularity can be 
interpreted in more than one way, since it 
is not always clear whether certain actions 
can be described as having been 
performed for personal gain or, for 
example, because of a lack of 
awareness/misinterpretation of legislation. 

LU 

All the irregularities are classified at the 

No practical experience at the Ministry of 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

time of notification. 

Economic Affairs and External Trade 
(ERDF) and at the Ministry of Labour and 
Employment (European Social Fund). 

HU 

MT 

It is not easy to draw a line between the 
three categories in practice, there are types 
of irregularities on the basis of which no 
fraud or even suspicion of it might arise. 
The organisations have no practical 
experience in recognising crime. 

There is not enough information for 
unambiguous classification when the 
report has to be submitted. Suspicion of 
fraud is not the same as the establishment 
of violation of financial interests. 
Therefore, the report mentions only those 
suspicions which lead to accusations. 

The establishment of the suspicion of 
intention makes classification difficult, as 
the organisation has no means to diagnose 
accordingly. The fact that certain 
definitions have different interpretations in 
the Community system and in the national 
legislation is a major obstacle. 

Irregularities have to be reported at an 
early stage as possible when inquiries may 
still be at an infant stage. Difficulties arise 
also in view that fraud is a criminal act 
that can only be determined by the 
outcome of judicial proceedings. 

Irregularities have to be reported at an 
early stage as possible when inquiries may 
still be at an infant stage. Difficulties arise 
also in view that fraud is a criminal act 
that can only be determined by the 
outcome of judicial proceedings. 

Irregularities have to be reported at an 
early stage as possible when inquiries may 
still be at an infant stage. Difficulties arise 
also in view that fraud is a criminal act 
that can only be determined by the 
outcome of judicial proceedings. 

NL 

The Netherlands classifies irregularities 
and does not experience any difficulties. 

ERDF: For established fraud a criminal 
procedure must be instituted. There have 
been a few cases of suspected fraud, but 
these have never reached the point of 
established fraud. 

N/A 

ESF: Nothing in practice. What is difficult 
is dealing with administrative errors. For 

EN 

110 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

example: costs are specified on an invoice 
for a period which is partly within and 
partly outside the project period. The costs 
have not been allocated. Should this be 
classified as an irregularity or as suspected 
fraud? 

AT 

Irregularities are classified as IRQ3 in 
Austria whenever they are reported as a 
crime. It usually takes a long time (court 
proceedings) before an irregularity 
becomes an IRQ5. Such reporting is only 
possible in Austria under Article 5 of 
Regulation (EC) No 1848/2006 (changing 
an existing report). 

Export refunds: the main problem faced by 
the paying/export refund agency 
responsible for reporting irregularities is 
being able to decide on the basis of the 
information and documents available at 
the time of reporting whether an 
irregularity or fraud has been committed. 

Any suspected fraud is reported by the 
paying agency to the relevant customs 
investigation department, which then 

EN 

111 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

carries out a criminal investigation. 

An irregularity is not classified as fraud 
until the findings of the investigation are 
available. 

The lack of information from the 
investigative authorities concerning the 
initiation of proceedings on a given case. 
The specific nature of some irregularities. 

As regards the classification used for IRQ, 
the procedure applied does not give rise 
for us to any doubts or problems as to 
implementation.  

PL 

PT 

Nothing hinders the classification. The 
category IRQ3 is used when the 
irregularity is communicated to the 
investigative authorities and IRQ5 is used 
in the case of a final judgment imposing a 
criminal conviction.  

In the case of the ESF: above all, in 
determining the intention underlying the 
evidence verified after data gathering, 
which is essentially document-based and 
concerns reimbursements and requests for 
payments and balances. 

N/A 

N/A 

RO 

N/A 

N/A 

The long period between the alert relating 
to suspicions of fraud and the issuing of a 
definitive and irrevocable decision by the 
court; the staff's lack of experience, the 
lack of concrete prior examples 

SI 

Proper classification is hindered by 

At present the managing authority has no 

Proper classification is hindered by 

EN 

112 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

lengthy administrative or judicial 
procedures, especially when a case is 
initially reported to OLAF on time. 
Normally in such cases the classifications 
IRQ2 or IRQ3 are used, but this can be 
changed in the report on the following 
quarter. 

problems in classifying irregularities as 
IRQ2, IRQ3 and IRQ5, as reports on 
irregularities are produced by direct 
budget users, where the contract manager 
is directly acquainted with the type of 
irregularities that arise. If it subsequently 
emerges that the irregularity was 
incorrectly classified, this would be 
corrected in the regular update of the 
irregularity in question. 

lengthy administrative or judicial 
procedures, especially when a case is 
initially reported to OLAF on time. 
Normally in such cases the classifications 
IRQ2 or IRQ3 are used, but this can be 
changed in the report on the following 
quarter. 

SK 

There is no longer any reason not to 
classify irregularities as IRQ2, IRQ3 or 
IRQ5. 

There is no longer any reason not to 
classify irregularities as IRQ2, IRQ3 or 
IRQ5. 

There is no longer any reason not to 
classify irregularities as IRQ2, IRQ3 or 
IRQ5. 

FI 

No problems. 

The main reasons are instructions on the 
definitions of the various classifications 
and, in some cases, lack of expertise on 
the part of the person handling the 
irregularity.  

SE 

Sweden classifies everything as IRQ2 
without investigating the issue of whether 
the irregularity occurred deliberately, by 
accident or through sheer lack of 
knowledge or a mistake. IRQ3 is only 

Lack of knowledge. The examiners 
however are not detectives and there is a 
risk that the examiners will destroy 
evidence if excessively deep 'criminal 
investigation' takes place when assessing 

EN 

113 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

used when a suspicion exists and when the 
case is sent for further investigation to the 
ECA, and IRQ5 is of course used after 
fraud has been established through a court 
judgment. 

these three categories. It is important that 
the criminal investigation is done by those 
with the right competence to enable house 
searches, seizures and other measures to 
secure evidence ahead of a possible trial.  

UK 

Of the 94 cases reported in 2007, 83 were 
coded IRQ2 and 11 as IRQ3. Cases are 
reported according to available 
information and there is generally no 
hindrance to the classification. 

BERR: All suspected fraud cases are 
reported in the same manner as for all 
cases of irregularity without any 
hindrance. The case is reported to internal 
auditors who carry out an investigation 

N/A 

The standard of proof applied is the civil 
standard i.e. whether, "on balance of 
probabilities", the evidence available 
points to the conclusion, that an intentional 
over-declaration has been made. This is 
more difficult to prove for land-based 
schemes compared with capital grant 
schemes. 

JIU: Not much difficulty has been 
encountered in classifying irregularities. 
However, it would be helpful if the code 
list could be revised with the number of 
entries reduced. 

Wales: There are no barriers to the 
classification of irregularities. 

Northern Ireland: Insufficient level of 
detail in returns received from the 
implementing Bodies. 

Scotland: The Division has a specific 
Action Plan, which is followed if an 

EN 

114 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.1. The Article 280 Report for 2007 shows that, in the agricultural funds, Member States were able to classify 68% of the 
reported irregularities, in the structural actions funds 67% and in the pre-accession funds 57% of irregularities 
communicated (68% in 2006). In your case, what hinders the classification of reported irregularities as irregularities (IRQ2), 
as suspicions of fraud (IRQ3), or as established frauds (IRQ5)?  

For the agricultural funds 

For the structural actions funds 

For the pre-accession funds 

incidence of suspected fraud is identified. 
The classification of Fraud will be 
dependent on the decision of the Crown 
office and the police force in charge of the 
subsequent investigation. 

EN 

115 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

BE 

X (BIRB  

Walloon Region, 

Flemish Paying 
Agency) 

BG 

CZ 

X 

X 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

German speaking 
community 

Ministry of Industry 
and Commerce: The 
management 
authority must pick 
up suspicions of 
fraudulent action 

EN 

116 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

and report them to 
the law-
enforcement 
authorities. 

Ministry of 
Agriculture: The 
law-enforcement 
authorities also 
investigate cases of 
suspected fraud at 
the instigation of 
parties outside the 
implementation 
structure, for 
example if a legal 

EN 

117 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

X 

X 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

X 

complaint is lodged 

Department of 
Agriculture, 
Fisheries and Food: 
All irregularity 
cases are reported, 
including those 
where fraud is 
suspected. However 
we do not classify 

EN 

118 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

X 

EL 

ES 

EN 

the latter as 
suspected fraud, 
since fraud has to 
be established 
through the judicial 
process. 

Agricultural funds: 
procedural 
complexity and the 
fact that suspected 
fraud is not a legal 
concept in Spain 
makes it difficult to 
establish a general 

119 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

criterion.  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

NL 

EN 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

120 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

X 

X 

X 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

X (for export 
refunds) 

X15 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

The managing 
authority sends 
regular and one-off 
(immediate) reports 
to OLAF for each 

15 

EN 

The law enforcement agencies are: Police, Border Guard and other specialized authorities conducting administrative and judicial proceedings. 

121 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

irregularity, 
irrespective of its 
classification, on 
the basis of written 
evidence, which it 
is able to obtain 
from the contract 
manager of the 
direct budget user, 
from reports on the 
spot checks and 
from regular or 
extraordinary audits 
by all national and 
European 
supervisory 

EN 

122 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE AGRICULTURAL FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

institutions. To date 
most irregularities 
have arisen as a 
result of ineligible 
expenditure or 
incorrect selection 
procedures. 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

123 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

BE 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

X (BEVLGECO, 
WALLOON 
REGION, 
FRENCH 
COMMUNITY, 
AGENCE FSE 
(ESF Agency), 
FLEMISH 
COMMUNITY, 
EFRO Vlaanderen 
(EFRD Flanders), 
BRUSSELS-
CAPITAL 
REGION, 
GERMAN-

EN 

124 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

SPEAKING 
COMMUNITY) 

BG 

CZ 

X 

X 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Ministry of Industry 
and Commerce: The 
management 
authority must pick 
up suspicions of 
fraudulent action 
and report them to 
the law-
enforcement 
authorities. 

Ministry of 

EN 

125 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

Agriculture: The 
law-enforcement 
authorities also 
investigate cases of 
suspected fraud at 
the instigation of 
parties outside the 
implementation 
structure, for 
example if a legal 
complaint is lodged 

DK 

DE 

EE 

X 

X 

EN 

X 

X 

X 

126 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X (ERDF) 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

HU 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

X 

X 

X 

X (ESF) 

127 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X (ERDF) 

X16 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

The managing 
authority sends 
regular and one-off 

16 

Suspicion on fraud may by reported both to the Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office.  

EN 

128 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

(immediate) reports 
to OLAF for each 
irregularity, 
irrespective of its 
classification, on 
the basis of written 
evidence, which it 
is able to obtain 
from the contract 
manager of the 
direct budget user, 
from reports on the 
spot checks and 
from regular or 
extraordinary audits 
by all national and 

EN 

129 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

European 
supervisory 
institutions. To date 
most irregularities 
have arisen as a 
result of ineligible 
expenditure or 
incorrect selection 
procedures. 

BERR: for the UK, 

130 

EN 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

the appropriate 
Article 4, Article 10 
or Article 15 body 
would make the 
decision on whether 
a case was 
suspected as fraud 
and refer it to the 
appropriate 
authorities. If fraud 
was still suspected 
then the matter 
would be reported 
to the police for 
further 

EN 

131 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud? 

FOR THE STRUCTURAL ACTIONS FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case  

consideration. 

EN 

132 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

N/A 

X 

BE 

BG 

CZ 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Ministry of Industry 
and Commerce: The 
management 
authority must pick 
up suspicions of 
fraudulent action 
and report them to 
the law-
enforcement 
authorities. 

EN 

133 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

DK 

DE 

EN 

X 

134 

Ministry of 
Agriculture: The 
law-enforcement 
authorities also 
investigate cases of 
suspected fraud at 
the instigation of 
parties outside the 
implementation 
structure, for 
example if a legal 
complaint is lodged 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

X 

X 

X 

X 

EE 

IE 

EL 

ES 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

LT 

LU 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

X 

X 

X 

EN 

135 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

HU 

MT 

NL 

AT 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

X 

X 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

X 

X 

The managing 
authority sends 
regular and one-off 
(immediate) reports 

EN 

136 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

to OLAF for each 
irregularity, 
irrespective of its 
classification, on 
the basis of written 
evidence, which it 
is able to obtain 
from the contract 
manager of the 
direct budget user, 
from reports on the 
spot checks and 
from regular or 
extraordinary audits 
by all national and 
European 

EN 

137 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.2. In your case, at what stage of a control procedure would you classify an irregularity as a case of suspected fraud?  

FOR THE PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS 

Conclusions of the 
national 
management and 
control system 
(e.g. internal and 
external audits, 
internal control 
procedures, on-
the- spot checks 
etc.) that lead to a 
suspicion of fraud 
case 

X 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the investigative 
authority 

The irregularity 
has been 
communicated to 
the prosecutor’s 
office 

The case has been 
brought before a 
court (judge) 

Other  

A final judicial 
decision, 
establishing the 
irregularity as a 
fraud, has been 
issued 

supervisory 
institutions. To date 
most irregularities 
have arisen as a 
result of ineligible 
expenditure or 
incorrect selection 
procedures. 

N/A 

N/A 

EN 

138 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Generic codes  

The  electronic  reporting  system  requires  that,  when  Member  States  are  reporting 
irregularities, they also need to categorize them into given typologies. Codes are attributed to 
this  end  (example:  325-noneligible  expenditure,  210  –  missing  or  incomplete  supporting 
documents). 

EN 

139 

   EN 

 
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

For agricultural funds  

For structural actions funds 

BE 

BIRB: The proposals for categorising irregularities by type do not 
correspond to the irregularity applicable to the file itself, or else 
the files forming part of the same notification involve different 
types of irregularity.  

WALLOON REGION: The irregularities are classified in 
accordance with the coding presented in the AFIS system (Anti-
Fraud Information System). 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: The 'other irregularities' code is 
seldom used by Flanders. The code most often used by Flanders is 
'1610: not dealt with in accordance with the regulations'. 

AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): Code 999 was used twice (in 69 
cases communicated since 2004) as the errors detected related to 
several categories of equal importance (in general code 325 – 
code 831 and code 210). 

BRUSSELS-CAPITAL REGION: In Brussels-Capital Region, the 
specific codes are used and not the 'other irregularities' generic 
code (999). 

GERMAN-SPEAKING COMMUNITY: N/A 

BG 

No irregularities to date have been reported as “other 
irregularities” under SAPARD or under the measures/schemes of 
the Payments Agency. 

Bulgaria had no experience in reporting irregularities under this 
code in 2008 and cannot comment on the reasons for its frequent 
use. 

CZ 

Ministry of Agriculture: Code 999 is not used 

Ministry of Industry and Commerce: For now the Ministry of 
Trade and Commerce has not has not yet received any 
classification "type of irregularity under the above-mentioned 
code 999 – other facts" for suspected irregularities reported to the 
AFCOS contact point. 

Ministry of Employment and Social Affairs: irregularities are 

EN 

140 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

For agricultural funds  

For structural actions funds 

DK 

The "other irregularities" code was not used in 2008. 

classfied in this category only in exceptional cases 

Ministry of Agriculture: Code 999 is not used 

As a rule, it should be possible to classify all reported 
irregularities under codes other than 999. 

The "other irregularities" code was not used in 2008. 

The electronic system is not used for the ERDF and ESF as 
reporting is via e-mail (paper-based), which may lead to doubts 
regarding interpretation compared with classification by code.  

DE 

EE 

IE 

EL 

N/A 

N/A 

In previous periods, irregularities were classed as 'other 
irregularities' (999) only if the list provided did not include a code 
describing the nature of the irregularity.  

The generic code 'other irregularities' is used when it is not 
possible to find a suitable description of the case from the list. 
The list of codes has become obsolete. 

Our records show that no cases reported under Regulation 
1848/06 were coded “other irregularities” (999). 

The generic “other irregularities” code is used only when the type 
of irregularity is not included in the established list of options. 

It is not really possible to give a clear indication of why 
irregularities were classified in a particular way without reviewing 
the individual reports on a case by case basis but please see 
examples at point 3.3.4 below.  

The 999 code was used in eight out of a total of 56 irregularity 
cases in the first three quarters of 2008. It was used because no 
other code corresponded to the cases in question. 

ES 

This code is used in very few cases, only if it is not possible to 

EN 

141 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

For agricultural funds  

For structural actions funds 

find a specific type of irregularity in which to classify the 
irregularity committed. Sometimes this is because the existing 
codes do not match the types of cases. 

FR 

IT 

This code has not been used for several years, in line with OLAF's 
recommendations. 

Using the list of codes supplied by OLAF, it is possible to classify 
almost all of the irregularities detected.  

This code is mainly used for the ERDF (roughly 20% of the 
notifications for the ERDF and 13% for all the other funds put 
together), when the irregularity arises from failure to comply with 
the agreement awarding the grant. 

Code 999 is used only where cases of irregularities or fraud 
cannot be classified using one of the other options provided.  

Code 999 is used only where cases of irregularities or fraud 
cannot be classified using one of the other options provided. 

CY 

N/A 

This code has not been used for structural action fund 
irregularities. 

LV 

LT 

EN 

The main reason for the large proportion of irregularities 
classified as 'other irregularities' is because the format of the 
irregularity report gives relatively little opportunity for making a 
detailed classification of the irregularities identified.  

The main reason for the large proportion of irregularities 
classified as 'other irregularities' is because the format of the 
irregularity report gives relatively little opportunity for making a 
detailed classification of the irregularities identified. 

There was no corresponding category in the classifications under 
the EU structural aid computerised management and control 
information system (the Lithuanian computerised system). 

More detailed classification of irregularities is set out in the Rules 
on the administration and financing of Lithuanian Single 
Programming Document (SPD) measures for 2004–06 and 
projects financed under those measures, regulating the 
administration of SPD funds; therefore some irregularities whose 
categories do not match those set out in the reporting system fall 

142 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

LU 

HU 

MT 

For agricultural funds  

(ERDF) The Ministry of Economic Affairs and External Trade 
does not make any distinction in the old system. (European Social 
Fund) The list of sample errors is too restricted. 

For structural actions funds 

under the category "other irregularities". 

(ERDF) The Ministry of Economic Affairs and External Trade 
does not make any distinction in the old system. (European Social 
Fund) The list of sample errors is too restricted. 

There were several similar facts in the code table, and most 
suspicions of irregularities can belong to several types. The use of 
code 999 seems the only good solution. This is applied in unclear 
cases. 

An irregularity was classified under the typology ''other 
irregularities'' in the case of agricultural funds as at the time of 
reporting one could not as yet determine the exact nature of the 
irregularity. 

Along the years, only once did Malta use the typology 'other 
irregularities' with respect to Structural Funds. This was because 
the case did not consist of an irregularity, but it was an internal 
adjustment of eligibility of VAT.  

NL 

The Netherlands classifies cases as accurately as possible and 
tries to avoid using the "other irregularities" category. 

ESF: Our method in practice is to cross out what does not apply. 
In principle, findings are classified with a specific code and the 
category "other irregularities" is used only if the case does not fit 
into any specific category. 

ERDF: The Netherlands classifies cases as accurately as possible 
and tries to avoid using the "other irregularities" category. 
However, the system for reporting irregularities affecting the 
Structural Funds offers few detailed options. This means that the 
nature and scale of the irregularity have to be explained in greater 
detail in the explanatory notes.  

EN 

143 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

For agricultural funds  

For structural actions funds 

AT 

In Austria (virtually) all irregularities have so far been classified 
on the basis of a typology. 

Export refunds: the Salzburg paying/export refund agency has not 
yet used code 999 (other irregularities) but has classified all types 
of irregularity under a different code. 

It may happen that owing to the specific nature of a given case of 
irregularity, there are difficulties with classifying the case using 
the codes proposed in the "Module 1848" manual if no term 
appropriate to the situation exists. 

ERDF: as bankruptcies sometimes have to be reported as 
irregularities to ensure that the EC shares in the financial losses 
under the 5(2) reporting procedure and bankruptcies are not 
recorded, they are often reported under code 999. 

The classification devised by OLAF is ambiguous because it leads 
to a situation in which a given irregularity may be classified under 
different types. Having a problem with selection is indicated with 
999. Moreover, the obligation to classify irregularities does not 
arise from any EU Regulation. 

This code is used only when (and only because)the irregularities 
detected and to be communicated do not correspond to the other 
existing codes. 

In 2008 the 999 typology represented 4% of the total. As a rule, 
this code is used only when a particular situation does not 
correspond to the other codes.  

Code 999 for "other irregularities" is used for cases which cannot 
be classified using the classification nomenclature in the OLAF 
manual of procedures. 

Code 999 for "other irregularities" is used for cases which cannot 
be classified using the classification nomenclature in the OLAF 
manual of procedures. 

In Slovenia's case the most commonly used typology is "incorrect 
or incomplete aid application".  

The managing authority agrees that the generic code “other 
irregularities” (999) is often used, but it is precisely defined. The 
code in question is used when the direct budget user cannot find 
an appropriate code to denote the content of the irregularities 

PL 

PT 

RO 

SI 

SK 

A number of irregularities arise from infringements related to aid 

In exceptional cases, it is difficult to specify an irregularity and 

EN 

144 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

For agricultural funds  

For structural actions funds 

to land, namely in the case of deteriorated natural conditions, for 
which no codes are available. 

For example, administrative errors are reported using code 999. 

Too little information under each respective code to enable its 
use. 'Other irregularities' is useful when things seem unclear. The 
new PRE-IMS/IMS reporting system however allows the 
possibility of using free text to explain what is involved in more 
detail. 

FI 

SE 

UK 

assign a code to it or, to be more precise, there are irregularities 
which cannot be classified unambiguously: that is why they are 
either assigned several codes (e.g. 325 and 999) or only the 999 
code. 

In Finland, use of that category is very uncommon. It is used 
when another appropriate category cannot be found.  

ERDF: Uncertainty regarding classification. Classification into 
many erroneous codes can be unfortunate. Uncertainty about what 
code to use can result in excessive use of code 999. A large 
number of codes risks making the reporting of results imprecise. 

BERR: The existing generic codes are too broadly detailed and 
refer to agriculture and own resources as well as structural actions 
– a list for just structural actions is needed. 

JIU: For ESF England, the ‘999’ - other option is used mainly as a 
supplement to another code such as 325, where other codes in the 
list seem not to be relevant and it is decided that a more in depth 
description is required. Cases where 999 ‘other’ are used alone 
are rare and usually relate to cases where the irregularity is not a 
direct result of financial control activity. 

RPA: Of the 94 cases reported, only 1 was reported as code 999 
as this was thought most appropriate. 

EN 

145 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.3. In the case of the structural actions funds, the generic code “other irregularities” (999) is still the third most used 
typology by the Member States in order to classify the different types of irregularities. For the agricultural funds, the generic 
code "other irregularities" is the second most used typology. Please indicate the main reasons why you include an important 
number of irregularities in this category? 

For agricultural funds  

For structural actions funds 

Wales: The majority of irregularities reported in Wales do not use 
the ‘999’ other irregularities code. This has not been issued as an 
option to colleagues when they identify irregularities. The 
majority of reported irregularities are classed as insufficient 
supporting documents (210) or ineligible expenditure (325). In 
2008 three irregularities were reported under the ‘999’ code 
which all related to the same sponsor. These were for a case of 
suspected fraud and should have been reported differently. 

Northern Ireland - Only 21 (less than 10%) of the 212 cases 
reported to the Commission, were given code 999 – other because 
it was adjudged the most appropriate.  

Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

Example  

Example  

BE 

BIRB: The firm received a grant higher 
than that authorised by Regulation 1433/03. 

FRENCH COMMUNITY: / 

AGENCE FSE (ESF Agency): One case 
only in 2008: Amount not determined at 

BIRB: Several distinct irregularities linked 
to the same recipient in the case of the 
application of Article 51 (Regulation No 
800/99) 

FLEMISH PAYING BODY: In 2008 the 
'other irregularities' code was not used by 
Flanders. 

EN 

146 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

Example  

Example  

this stage as the irregularity noted concerns 
a training centre dependent on an 
intermediate body. The facts complained of 
relate to staff costs, operating costs and 
allocation percentages. An exhaustive 
check on all the documents is under way in 
order to determine the possible amount 
withdrawn and, therefore, the precise code 
to be indicated. 

BG 

CZ 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Ministry for Regional Development: 
Support centre for physical and mental 
rehabilitation: in this case several 
proceedings have been and are ongoing, on 
the basis of existing suspicions of breaches 
of budget discipline by the beneficiary and 
the Joint Regional Operational Programme 
(JROP) management authority, and also 
suspicion of a criminal act. The case 
concerns the project of a beneficiary who 
did not comply with the JROP rules in the 
public tender, and this fact was not 
discovered until after the completion of the 
project: before the payment of money from 
the EU Structural Funds but after payment 

Ministry for Regional Development: 
Construction work: a case concerned the 
discovery of conflicting documentation (tax 
returns), which claimed to back up the 
business history for the previous two years 
of the applicant as part of the evaluation of 
the project application - the check of formal 
particulars and project acceptability. The 
applicant was disqualified from further 
consideration on the basis of the findings, 
on the grounds of not meeting the terms. In 
this case the irregularity arose during the 
application procedure. The case was 
reported in the first quarter of 2008, when 
the number of irregularities being 

Ministry for Regional Development: cases 
of what are known as clerical errors arising 
from unintentional mistakes in writing, 
numbering and so on. These cases have for 
the most part a negligible financial impact; 
that is, they are below the external 
reporting threshold, and therefore these are 
cases that are not reported to OLAF. 

Cases which in the report produced by the 
management authority are classified with 
this "code" because there is no other code 
to put them under on the irregularity 
reporting form. In such cases the 
management authority specifies the type of 
irregularity in words in the text, and the 

EN 

147 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

Example  

Example  

of the Member State share. Even though in 
the opinion of the management authority 
the beneficiary misled the granter, the law-
enforcement authorities did not consider 
that the beneficiary's (fraudulent) action 
was intentional, and no breach of the Public 
Procurement Act or the terms of the 
agreement on the granting of the subsidy 
was found. The breach of the public 
tendering rules occurred before the Public 
Procurement Act entered force and before 
the decision was issued. 

investigated had not yet reached the current 
volume. After gaining more experience, 
and with the benefit of hindsight, the 
management authority would classify this 
irregularity as an irregularity in supporting 
documentation, for example incorrect 
certificate/confirmation. 

local AFCOS contact point, with the 
agreement of the management authority, 
then assigns an appropriate code 
corresponding to the type of irregularity in 
its external report. 

DK 

DE 

EE 

IE 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

None of the irregularities reported in 2008 
relating to the EAGGF, EAGF or EAFRD 
were classed as 'other irregularities'. 

None of the irregularities reported in 2008 
relating to the SF were classed as 'other 
irregularities'. 

No codes were used in 2008 when 
reporting pre-accession irregularities (we 
had not been informed of the requirement 
to use codes). 

The bulk of errors discovered by the Irish 
financial management and control system 
relate to the simple inclusion of ineligible 
expenditure in certified statements of 
eligible expenditure. This arises as a 
consequence of a failure to fully understand 

Most irregularities discovered on audit 
relate to the inclusion of ineligible items in 
claims sent to the Commission. Examples 
of these include the purchase of assets not 
directly related to the implementation of 
the project in respect of which assistance is 

A further example of irregular expenditure 
is the inclusion of staff costs associated 
with a project where there is no direct 
contract showing that the person involved 
was employed solely for the purposes of 
the implementation of the project. 

EN 

148 

EN 

 
  
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

or appreciate the subtleties of the eligibility 
rules. Alternatively it also arises as a 
consequence of deciding on the basis of 
uncertainty in the eligibility rules to 
exclude certain types of expenditure in 
favour of other expenditure which falls 
more clearly within the rules. 

EL 

Unapproved recapitulative table of works  

ES 

Unauthorised change of ownership. 

Other aid not declared for the same 
investment 

Failure to comply with the requirement to 
keep the subsidised property for a 
minimum period of time (resale, cessation 
of activity, removal). 

Example  

being claimed. 

Example  

Irregular receipt of contractually 
established further fee 

There are no criteria for charging for 
overheads. 

No payment 

Revenue not deducted from declared 
expenditure 

Action funded from 2nd and 3rd CSFs 

Geographically ineligible expenditure.  

Ineligibility of the final beneficiary.  

Jobs that should have been created under 
the terms of the agreement have not 
materialised 

The request for funds was submitted by a 
credit institution approved as a company 
which already met the requirements for the 
funds to be granted. 

Subletting of property rented out to a third 
company on condition that the premises 
were not sublet and without a proper rent 
agreement. 

The beneficiary of ESF funding demanded 
repayment by some trainers of the sums 
paid out to them. 

N/A 

Irregularities which are related to the 

Irregularities related to the initiation of 

In-eligible fixed assets purchased in the 

149 

EN 

FR 

IT 

CY 

LV 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

LT 

LU 

HU 

MT 

Example  

Example  

residual value at market prices at the end of 
a project of fixed assets acquired as part of 
the project and which, pursuant to 
Commission Regulations, do not constitute 
eligible expenditure. 

insolvency proceedings against a funding 
recipient.  

Example  

project 

Primary accounting documents have not 
been drawn up or included in liability and 
expenditure accounts or in annual accounts. 

Animal welfare requirements have not been 
observed relating to cattle transportation 
and rest periods. 

Irregular commission contracts, overlap 
between accounts, concentration between 
the beneficiaries and the companies which 
were successful in public procurement 
processes, deficiencies as regards the 
documentation of training. 

A company which stored intervention 
products quit the contract claiming that the 
quality of the goods deteriorated. However, 
it was contradicted by the fact that an on-
the-spot inspection did not establish any 
quality deterioration. 

In connection with road construction the 
audit revealed a sum of EUR 1 300 180 as 
non eligible costs, since the approved 
documentation mentioned 3 km of road, 
and in fact 5.7 km were built. The 
difference of 2.7 km of road cannot be 
financed.  

(Agriculture) – The supplier (exporter) was 
issued with a certificate specifying the total 
amount that he could export. In actual fact 
the supplier's exports exceeded the amount 
on this certificate and he received a refund 
on the excess also. (Note: There were no 
further irregularities classified under the 
typology ''Other Irregularities''.) 

EN 

150 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

Example  

Example  

NL 

ERDF: Non-deductible VAT was 
incorrectly claimed as eligible expenditure. 

ESF: Mixture of ESF and non-ESF 
participants, without costs being allocated. 
This happens particularly with training 
courses. Obviously only the costs of ESF 
participants can be included in the 
declaration, but the declaration often also 
includes costs for non ESF participants. 

AT 

ERDF: bankruptcies 

ERDF: The ERDF intervention percentage 
had to be reduced because the private 
contribution was larger than originally 
budgeted. 

ESF: Costs incurred outside the project 
period were not corrected in the final 
declaration. These were costs which were 
charged over a longer period of time and 
some of which fell outside the project 
period. The invoice ought to be divided 
between costs within the project period 
(which are eligible) and costs outside the 
project period (not eligible). 

ERDF: error by implementing body 
requiring correction 

ERDF: Costs incurred outside the 
geographical area. 

ESF: Mistakes in the calculation of hourly 
wages. Mathematical errors in calculating 
hourly wages or certain cost items (such as 
contributions to save-as-you-earn schemes) 
being wrongly included in the wage 
calculation are regularly encountered. 

PL 

Adjustment of farms to EU requirements - 
the condition allowing the new owner to 
take over payment for the transfer of the 
whole farm by the previous owner was not 
fulfilled - one of the parcels was sold to a 
third party. 

During examination of an application, the 
beneficiary suppressed the fact that the 
automatic loading/unloading system, not 
installed with the machine purchased, was 
returned to the supplier and part of the 
payment due was recovered. 

Structural pensions - the beneficiary 
terminated the lease contract on the basis of 
which he had transferred his land to his 
successor, and sold his land to a developer. 
Code 1299: "Other irregularities 
concerning the subject". 

PT 

Application of the expenditure eligibility 
limits (ESF). 

Payment of expenditure after submission of 
the payment request (EAGGF- Guidance). 

No proof of registration and business with 
no activity (ERDF). 

EN 

151 

EN 

 
  
 
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

Example  

Example  

The beneficiary went into liquidation. 

An error in the document checking 
procedure. 

RO 

SI 

Materials that were reimbursed in the first 
instalment followed by withdrawal letters 
for the materials in question. 

In 2008 (fourth quarter not yet included) 
Slovenia notified only one irregularity, 
which was partially classified under "other 
irregularities". The direct budget user 
entered code 999 (detailed grounds: 
incorrect implementation of public tender 
procedure for a low value contract) and 
then added code 840 (undeclared income). 

How irregularity was committed: during 
project implementation, income was 
generated under the project (sale of 
promotional material) which the final 
beneficiary failed to report to the Ministry 
of the Economy and was therefore not 
deducted from the value of the co financing 
from the Structural Funds. 

Since the project constitutes state aid, the 
income generated during project 
implementation as a result of project 
activities up to conclusion of the project 
was defined as ineligible expenditure 

EN 

152 

EN 

 
  
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

Example  

Example  

because of non-compliance of the rules of 
point 2 of Regulation (EC) No 448/2004.  

The other part of the irregularity concerns 
ineligible expenditure resulting from the 
incorrect conduct of a tendering procedure 
for a low-value contract. 

A proposal for repayment of the amount 
disbursed has been submitted for this 
irregularity. 

Failure to draw up an internal manual or 
failure to comply with it. 

As regards the structural funds, the 
category was used in only one report in 
2008. The report concerned inadequate 
declaration of a project's income. In the 
same report, several categories were used 
to define the type of irregularity. 

See 3.3.3 

BERR: On occasion, some issues 
surrounding an irregularity such as poor 
management and leadership are not 
adequately covered by the generic code 

SK 

FI 

SE 

UK 

Remote sensing. 

Systemic irregularities. 

JIU: Applicant withdraws project after 
receiving notification that control activity 
would take place. 

NORTHERN IRELAND: A Promoter was 

Northern Ireland: In 2002, the Special EU 
Programme Body made an error in the 
calculation of their payment claim, 
meaning that an overpayment was made. 
This was however recovered in 2003 from 

EN 

153 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
 
Member 
State 

3.3.4. Please give three examples of irregularities that you classified in the year 2008 under the code "other irregularities". 
Examples could be given from the most frequent irregularities classified under this code, or the most interesting types of 
irregularities (from the point of view of the financial impact or of the investigative method applied). 

Example  

a subsequent claim. 

Example  

funded for a machine to make stainless 
steel furniture, however when a member of 
the Article 10 team made a site visit, it was 
discovered that the Promoter was making 
rails for equestrian events, and not for the 
purpose for which the funding was 
intended. 

Example  

legends. 

JIU: Cases where funding was awarded 
retrospectively but where projects were 
withdrawn because they failed to follow the 
rules of retrospection/meet the agreed 
criteria. 

RPA: In 2008, only 1 case was reported 
using code 999. This involved the Rural 
Development Scheme where a barn 
conversion was approved for tourism use 
only but it was discovered that it was being 
used for residential purposes.  

NORTHERN IRELAND: The Intermediary 
Funding Body (Community Foundation for 
NI in this instance) made a payment 
through to the wrong promoter. This was 
quickly discovered by internal checks and a 
claw back recovered the amount in 
question. 

EN 

154 

EN