COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Statistical Evaluation of Irregularities reported for 2011 Own Resources, Natural Resources, Cohesion Policy, Pre-Accession and Direct Expenditure Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND TO THE COUNCIL Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud Annual Report 2011
Date: 2012-07-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU statistics, European Anti-fraud Office, activity report, common agricultural policy, data recording, economic and social cohesion, fraud against the EU, fund (EU), prevention of delinquency

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 19.7.2012  
SWD(2012) 229 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Statistical Evaluation of Irregularities reported for 2011 
Own Resources, Natural Resources, Cohesion Policy, Pre-Accession and Direct 
Expenditure 

Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
TO THE COUNCIL 

Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 
Annual Report 2011 

{COM(2012) 408 final} 
{SWD(2012) 227 final} 
{SWD(2012) 228 final} 
{SWD(2012) 230 final} 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................... 7 

PART I – INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9 

1. 

1.1. 

1.2. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 9 

Scope of the document ................................................................................................. 9 

Structure of the document ............................................................................................ 9 

THE EUROPEAN UNION BUDGET (Annexes 1-2)................................................. 9 

Revenues .................................................................................................................... 10 

Expenditure ................................................................................................................ 11 

Management of the Budget ........................................................................................ 12 

PART II - REVENUES............................................................................................................ 13 

3. 

TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (Annexes 3-16) ............................................ 13 

3.1. 

Management of Traditional Own Resources (TOR).................................................. 13 

3.1.1.  Monitoring of establishment and recovery of TOR ................................................... 13 

3.1.2.  Procedure for managing Member States’ reports for write-off.................................. 13 

3.1.3.  Particular cases of Member State failure to recover TOR ......................................... 15 

3.2. 

General trends ............................................................................................................ 15 

3.2.1.  Types of irregularity and fraud .................................................................................. 16 

3.2.2.  TOR and cigarettes..................................................................................................... 17 

3.2.3.  Data main sectors TOR .............................................................................................. 18 

3.3. 

Detection of fraud and irregularity............................................................................. 18 

3.3.1.  Member States' control systems – Method of detection expressed in cases .............. 18 

3.3.1.1.  Method of detection of fraud cases ............................................................................ 19 

3.3.2.  Member States' control systems – Method of detection expressed in monetary terms

.................................................................................................................................... 20 

3.3.2.1.  Method of detection expressed in monetary terms - for fraud cases.......................... 21 

3.3.3.  Customs procedures affected to fraud and irregularity in 2011- in amounts............. 22 

3.3.3.1.  Customs procedures affected to fraud in 2011- in amounts....................................... 22 

3.3.4.  Percentage of established or estimated amounts in OWNRES to collected TOR ..... 22 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
3.4. 

Recovery and Follow-up ............................................................................................ 24 

3.4.1.  Recovery rate ............................................................................................................. 24 

3.4.2.  Recovered amounts .................................................................................................... 25 

3.4.3.  Administrative stage - from 1998 to 2011 ................................................................. 25 

3.5. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 26 

PART III - EXPENDITURE.................................................................................................... 28 

4. 

4.1. 

4.2. 

PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 
(AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES) ...................................................................... 28 

Agricultural expenditure (Annexes 17-22) ................................................................ 28 

Reporting Year 2011 .................................................................................................. 30 

4.2.1.  Reporting Year 2011: cases reported ......................................................................... 30 

4.2.2.  Reporting Year 2011: reporting discipline................................................................. 31 

4.2.3.  Reporting Year 2011: financial follow up of irregularity cases................................. 32 

4.3. 

General trends ............................................................................................................ 34 

4.3.1.  Reporting Years 2004-2011: expenditure .................................................................. 35 

4.3.2.  Reporting Years 2004-2011: cases of irregularities................................................... 35 

4.3.3.  Reporting Years 2004-2011: cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent............... 37 

4.4. 

Specific analysis......................................................................................................... 41 

4.4.1.  Financial Years 2004-2006: cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent................ 42 

4.5. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 43 

4.5.1.  Reporting Year 2011 .................................................................................................. 43 

4.5.2.  Reporting Years 2004-2011 ....................................................................................... 43 

4.5.3.  Financial Years 2004-2006 ........................................................................................ 43 

4.6. 

Fisheries (Annex 23) .................................................................................................. 43 

4.6.1.  Financial framework .................................................................................................. 43 

4.6.2.  Management, monitoring and control ........................................................................ 43 

4.6.3. 

Irregularities affecting the EFF reported in 2011....................................................... 43 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

COHESION FOR GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT (Annexes 24-28).................. 43 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 43 

Irregularities reporting ............................................................................................... 43 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
5.3. 

5.4. 

5.5. 

Reporting Discipline .................................................................................................. 43 

General trends ............................................................................................................ 43 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent ........................................................................... 43 

5.5.1.  Types of fraud by Fund .............................................................................................. 43 

5.5.1.1.  ERDF.......................................................................................................................... 43 

5.5.1.2.  ESF............................................................................................................................. 43 

5.5.1.3.  Other funds................................................................................................................. 43 

5.5.2. 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent – Year 2011 ................................................ 43 

5.6. 

Analysis of the 2000-2006 Programming Period– cumulative data .......................... 43 

5.6.1. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent - programming period 2000-2006 .................... 43 

5.6.1.1.  General overview ....................................................................................................... 43 

5.6.1.2.  Irregularities reported as fraudulent –established fraud............................................. 43 

5.6.2. 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent – programming period 2000-2006.............. 43 

5.7. 

Analysis of the 2007-2013 programming period - cumulative data .......................... 43 

5.7.1. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent – 2007-2013 programming  period................... 43 

5.7.2. 

Irregularities reported as non-fraudulent – programming  period 2007-2013 ........... 43 

5.7.3.  Recovery .................................................................................................................... 43 

5.8. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 43 

5.8.1.  Analysis of irregularities reported in 2011................................................................. 43 

5.8.2.  Programming Period 2000-2006 ................................................................................ 43 

5.8.3.  Programming Period 2007-2013 ................................................................................ 43 

6. 

6.1. 

6.2. 

Pre-accession funds (Annexes 29-30)........................................................................ 43 

Reporting discipline ................................................................................................... 43 

General Trends ........................................................................................................... 43 

6.2.1.  Overall trend............................................................................................................... 43 

6.2.2. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent ........................................................................... 43 

6.2.2.1.  Irregularities reported as fraudulent in relation to Pre-Accession Assistance (2000-

2006) .......................................................................................................................... 43 

6.2.2.2.  Irregularities reported as fraudulent in relation to the Instrument for Pre-Accession 

(2007-2013)................................................................................................................ 43 

6.2.3. 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent..................................................................... 43 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
6.2.3.1.  Irregularities not reported as fraudulent in relation to Pre-Accession Assistance 

(2000-2006)................................................................................................................ 43 

6.2.3.2.  Irregularities reported as non-fraudulent in relation to the Instrument for Pre-

Accession (2007-2013) .............................................................................................. 43 

6.2.4.  Recovery for the Pre-Accession Assistance – Cumulative results 2002-2011 .......... 43 

6.3. 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 43 

7. 

7.1. 

7.2. 

DIRECT EXPENDITURE – CENTRALISED DIRECT MANAGEMENT ............ 43 

Introduction ................................................................................................................ 43 

Analysis of irregularities reported as fraudulent........................................................ 43 

7.2.1.  Financial amounts involved ....................................................................................... 43 

7.2.2.  Recoveries by geographic area and Member State .................................................... 43 

7.2.3.  Method of detection ................................................................................................... 43 

7.2.4.  Types of error............................................................................................................. 43 

7.2.5.  Time delay.................................................................................................................. 43 

7.3. 

7.4. 

Recovery .................................................................................................................... 43 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 43 

ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 1 – SUMMARY OF FINANCING OF THE GENERAL BUDGET BY CLASS OF 

OWN RESOURCE AND BY MEMBER STATE, IN MILLION EUR ................... 43 

ANNEX 2 - EVOLUTION OF BUDGET PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS BY HEADING 

IN 2011 (IN MILLION EUR).................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 3 – NUMBER OF CASES OWNRES AND AMOUNTS – PERIOD 2008-2011 PER 
MEMBER STATE ..................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 4 – OWNRES CASES PER MEMBER STATE ...................................................... 43 

ANNEX 5 – IMPACT ON CUSTOM PROCEDURE FREE CIRCULATION...................... 43 

ANNEX 6 – TOP 10 CHAPTER HEADINGS........................................................................ 43 

ANNEX 7 – GOOD AFFECTED BY FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY – PERIOD 2009-

2011............................................................................................................................ 43 

ANNEX 8 – FRAUD AND IRREGULARITIES: BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF GOODS

.................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 9 – SEIZED AND CONFISCATED GOODS (cigarette CN 2402 2090) ................ 43 

ANNEX 10 – PERCENTAGE CLASSIFICATION OF FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE 

2009-2011 .................................................................................................................. 43 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 11 – AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE PERIOD 2009-

2011............................................................................................................................ 43 

ANNEX 12 - METHODS OF DETECTION OF OWNRES CASES – YEAR 2011 ............. 43 

ANNEX 13 – CUSTOMS PROCEDURES AFFECTED TO FRAUD AND 

IRREGULARITY IN 2011 – BASED ON ESTABLISHED AMOUNTS ............... 43 

ANNEX 14 ............................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 15 – RECOVERY RATE TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (RR) .................. 43 

Annex 16 – Administrative stage of all closed cases from 1989 to 2011 ................................ 43 

ANNEX 17: AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-2011 .......... 43 

ANNEX 18: REPORTING YEARS 2004–2011 – cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent
.................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 19 FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 – detailed figures on cases, amounts, rates and levels

.................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 20: FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 – detailed figures on cases, amounts, rates and levels

.................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 21: FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 – detailed figures on cases, amounts, rates and levels

.................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 22: FINANCIAL YEARS 2004–2006 – beneficiaries and cases of irregularities 

reported as fraudulent................................................................................................. 43 

ANNEX 23 – EUROPEAN FISHERY FUND ........................................................................ 43 

ANNEX 24 – COHESION FOR GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT POLICY* - GENERAL 

TRENDS .................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 25 - REGULATION No 1681/94: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011 ....... 43 

ANNEX 26 - REGULATION No 1828/2006: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011 ... 43 

ANNEX 27 - REGULATION No 1828/2006: RECOVERIES IN 2011................................. 43 

ANNEX 28 - REGULATION N. 1831/94: IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY 

MEMBER STATES UNDER IN 2011...................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 29 - PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011

.................................................................................................................................... 43 

ANNEX 30 - INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 
2011............................................................................................................................ 43 

ANNEX 31 - IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES IN 2011 .............. 43 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 

Statistical Evaluation of Irregularities reported for 2011 
Own Resources, Natural Resources, Cohesion Policy, Pre-Accession and Direct 
Expenditure 

Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
TO THE COUNCIL 

Protection of the European Union's financial interests - Fight against fraud 
Annual Report 2011 

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

ABAC  
AFIS  
CN  
COCOLAF  
CSWD 
DG AGRI  

Accrual Based Accounting 
Anti-Fraud Information System 
Combined Nomenclature 
Advisory Committee for the Coordination of Fraud Prevention 
Commission Staff Working DocumentDocument 
Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development 
Directorate General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal 
Opportunities 
Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries 
Directorate General for Regional Policy 

DG EMPL  
DG MARE  
DG REGIO  
DG TAXUD   Directorate General for Taxation and Customs Union 
EAFRD 
EAGF 
EAGGF  
EC  
EFF  
EP  
ERDF  
ESF  
EU  
EU-10  
EU-15  
EU-2  
EU-25 
EU-27  
EUR  
EURATOM  

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund 
European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund 
European Commission 
European Fishery Fund 
European Parliament 
European Regional Development Fund 
European Social Fund 
European Union 
The 10 Member States joining the EU in 2004 
The 15 Member States before the enlargement of 2004 
The 2 Member States joining the EU in 2007 
The 25 Member States before the enlargement of 2007 
The 27 Member States of the European Union 
Euro 
European Atomic Energy Community 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
FAL  
FFL  
FIFG  
FinR  
FrR  
FY 
GNI  
IMS  
IPA  
IrR  
OLAF  
OWNRES  
PAA  
PIF 
PIF Report 
TFEU 
TOR  
VAT  
WOMIS  

Fraud Amount Level 
Fraud Frequency Level 
Financial Instrument for Fishery Guidance 
Financial Regulation 
Fraud Rate 
Financial Year 
Gross National Income 
Irregularity Management System 
Instrument for Pre-Accession 
Irregularity Rate 
European Anti-Fraud Office 
Own Resources 
Pre-Accession Assistance 
Protection of Financial Interests (European Convention on the) 
Annual Report on the Protection of the EU financial interests 
Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 
Traditional Own Resources 
Value Added Tax 
Write-Off Management and Information System 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
PART I – INTRODUCTION 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1. 

Scope of the document 

The  present  document1  is  based  on  the  analysis  of  the  notifications  provided  by 
national authorities of cases of irregularities and suspected or established fraud. The 
reporting  is  performed  in  fulfilment  of  a  legal  obligation  enshrined  in  sectoral 
European legislation. 

The  document  is  accompanying  the  Annual  Report  adopted  on  the  basis  of  article 
325 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), according to 
which “The Commission, in cooperation with Member States, shall each year submit 
to the European Parliament and to the Council a report on the measures taken for the 
implementation of this article”. 

For  this  reason,  this  document  should  be  regarded  more  as  an  analysis  of  the 
achievements of Member States rather than of their failures. 

The  methodology,  the  data  sources  and  the  data  capture  systems  are  explained  in 
detail in the Commission Staff Working Document – Methodology for the Statistical 
Evaluation of Irregularities. 

1.2. 

Structure of the document 

The present document is divided in three parts.  

The first introductory part is composed of two chapters which contain, respectively: 
the  structure  and  scope  of  the  document  and  a  short  description  of  the  European 
Budget and its different “management” modes. 

The  second  is  dedicated  to  the  analysis  of  irregularities  reported  in  the  area  of  the 
Traditional Own Resources (Revenues).  

The  third  is  composed  of  5  chapters  dedicated,  respectively,  to  Agricultural 
expenditure, European Fisheries Fund, Structural measures, Pre-accession Assistance 
and Direct expenditure. 

2. 

THE EUROPEAN UNION BUDGET (ANNEXES 1-2) 

Taxpayers'  money  is  used  by  the  European  Union  (EU)  to  fund  activities  that  all 
Member States and parliaments have agreed upon in the Treaties. The overall budget 
for  2010  is  about  EUR  141.5  billion  and  it  represents  around  1%  of  the  Union's 
wealth. 

1 

This document cannot be considered as an official position of the Commission. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2.1. 

Revenues 

The  EU  has  its  'own  resources'  to  finance  its  expenditure.  Legally,  these  resources 
belong to the Union. Member States collect them on its behalf and transfer them to 
its budget. Own resources are of three kinds: 

–  Traditional  own  resources  (TOR)  —  these  consist  of  customs  duties  that  are 
charged on imports of products coming from a non-EU state. In addition a small 
part of the revenue comes from sugar levies collected from EU sugar producers. 

–  The resource based on value added tax (VAT) is a uniform percentage rate that is 

applied to each Member State’s harmonised VAT revenue. 

–  The resource based on gross national income (GNI) is a uniform percentage rate 

applied to the GNI of each Member State. 

The  budget  also  receives  other  revenue,  such  as  taxes  paid  by  EU  staff  on  their 
salaries,  contributions  from  third  countries  to  certain  EU  programmes  and  fines  on 
companies that breach competition or other laws. 

Revenue flows into the budget in a way which is roughly proportionate to the wealth 
of the Member States. The United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria and 
Sweden,  however,  benefit  from  some  adjustments  when  calculating 
their 
contributions. 

The  total  EU  revenue  for  2011  amounts  to  about  EUR  126.5  billion.  Annex  1 
provides  a  summary  of  financing  by  type  of  own  resource  and  by  Member  State; 
Chart 2-1 shows how the four elements indicated above contribute to the EU budget. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
Chart Error! No text of specified style in document.-1: Source of financial resource to the 
European Budget 

Gross national 
income (GNI)
75%

Value-added tax 
(VAT) 
11%

Customs duties 
and sugar levies
13%

Other
1%

2.2. 

Expenditure 

The EU Budget for 2011 includes 5 headings of expenditure: 

–  Sustainable Growth represents the largest share of the EU budget, which will go 

to research, innovation, employment and regional development programmes; 

–  Natural Resources cover the second largest portion of the expenditure supporting 
the  agricultural  expenditure  and  direct  aids,  rural  development,  fisheries  and 
environment;  it  is  divided  between  ‘Modernising  farming  and  producing  high-
quality food’ and ‘Rural development’; 

–  Citizenship,  Freedom,  Security  and  Justice  supports  initiatives  aiming  at 
strengthening  active  citizenship  or  addressing  issues  like  terrorism,  crime  and 
immigration; 

–  The  EU  as  a  Global  Player  sets  the  resources  for  the  Common  Foreign  and 
Security  Policy,  the  EU  Neighbourhood  Policy,  Pre-Accession  Assistance, 
Humanitarian Aid and Development Cooperation; 

–  The  administrative  expenditure  includes  the  running  costs  for  the  European 

Institutions. 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
Chart  2-2  shows  the  distribution  of  the  EU  financial  resources  among  the  six 
different  headings  in  commitment  appropriations,  while  Annex  2  provides  a  more 
detailed overview of the 2011 budget (in commitment and payment appropriations). 

Chart  Error!  No  text  of  specified  style  in  document.-2:  Distribution  of  the  expenditure 
financial resource by Budget Heading 

The total payment appropriations for 2011 amount to EUR 126.5 billion. 

2.3.  Management of the Budget 

According to article 317 of the TFUE, the Commission shall implement the budget. 
Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/20022 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial 
Regulation  (FinR)3  applicable  to  the  general  budget  of  the  EU  indicates  that  the 
Commission implements the budget: 

(1) 

(2) 

indirectly  by  executive  agencies  created  by 

on a centralised basis: implementation tasks are performed either directly by 
its  departments  or 
the 
Commission, bodies set up by the EU - provided that this is compatible with 
the tasks set out in the basic act - and, subject to certain conditions, national 
public-sector bodies or bodies governed by private law with a public-service 
mission; 

on a shared or decentralised basis: implementation tasks are delegated to the 
Member  States  (shared  management)  or  third  countries  (decentralised 
management);  the  Commission  applies  clearance-of-accounts  procedures  or 
financial correction mechanisms enabling it to assume final responsibility for 
the implementation of the budget; 

(3) 

by joint management with international organisations: certain implementation 
tasks are entrusted to international organisations. 

2 
3 

Official Journal L 248 of 16.09.2002. 
Amended  by  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1995/2006  of  13  December  2006  (OJ  L  390  of 
30.12.2006) and by Regulation (EC) No 1525/2007 of 17 December 2007 (OJ L 343 of 27.12.2007). 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
PART II - REVENUES 

3. 

TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (ANNEXES 3-16) 

3.1.  Management of Traditional Own Resources (TOR) 

3.1.1.  Monitoring of establishment and recovery of TOR 

In  order  to  get  the  right  picture  of  Member  States’  TOR  recovery  activity,  it  is 
important  to  keep  in  mind  that  98%  of  established  TOR  is  subsequently  recovered 
without  any  particular  problem.  These  amounts  are  entered  in  the  A-account  and 
made  available  to  the  EU  budget.  This  covers  most  of  the  ‘normal’  import  flows 
where  release  for  free  circulation  gives  rise  to  a  customs  debt.  The  remaining 
exceptional items are entered in the B-account. This should be borne in mind, when 
evaluating Member States’ recovery activity.  

In return for their collection task, and to support sound and efficient management of 
public  finances,  Member  States  may  keep  25%  of  the  amounts  recovered.  In  its 
capacity  as  Authorising  Officer  responsible  for  executing  the  EU  budget,  the 
Commission (DG Budget as delegated Authorising Officer) monitors Member State 
activity concerning establishing and recovering TOR.  

The following three methods are used: 

(1)  Overall monitoring of recovery of TOR via the write-off procedure as provided 

for in Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1150/2000; 

(2)  Regular  inspection  in  Member  States  of  the  establishment  and  recovery  of 
TOR  and  B-account  entries  as  provided  for  in  Article  18  of  Regulation  No 
1150/2000; 

(3)  Specific  monitoring  (in  close  cooperation  with  European  Anti-Fraud  Office 
(OLAF),  the  Directorate-General  for  Taxation  and  Customs  Union  (TAXUD) 
and  the  Directorate-General  for  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (AGRI)) 
of  Member  States’  follow-up  of  recovery  in  individual  cases,  which  have  a 
significant  financial  impact  and  which  may  involve  Mutual  Administrative 
Assistance.  

These three methods allow the Commission to monitor Member States’ performance 
without interfering too much in their day-to-day operations. 

3.1.2.  Procedure for managing Member States’ reports for write-off  

Member States must take all requisite measures to ensure that established amounts of 
TOR are made available to the Commission. This requirement, mentioned in Article 
17(1) of Regulation No 1150/2000, also implies that a Member State is only released 
from  its  obligation  to  make  available  TOR  if  it  can  prove  that  the  debt  is 
irrecoverable either: 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
(a) 

for reasons of force majeure; or 

(b) 

for other reasons, which cannot be attributed to that Member State. 

There  are  two  ways  to  conclude  that  amounts  of  TOR  have  become  irrecoverable. 
The first is by a decision of a Member State declaring that they cannot be recovered 
—  this  declaration  may  be  made  at  any  time.  However,  TOR  must  be  deemed 
irrecoverable by a Member State at the latest five years from the date on which the 
debt was established, or in the event of an administrative or judicial appeal, the final 
decision was given, or the last part-payment to the debt was made, whichever is the 
later. If the amount of the written-off debt is less than EUR 50 000, Member States 
do  not  have  to  communicate  the  case  to  the  Commission,  unless  the  Commission 
makes  a  specific  request.  However,  if  the  irrecoverable  amount  of  TOR  exceeds 
EUR 50 000, the write-off must be reported to the Commission which has to decide 
whether  the  necessary  conditions  are  fulfilled  in  order  to  release  the  Member  State 
from the obligation to make the TOR available. 

Member States submit their requests to be released from the obligation to make the 
TOR  available  directly  via  an  IT  application  called  WOMIS4.  In  2011  a  WOMIS 
version 2.0 was released.  

In  2011  218  write-off  reports  amounting  to  EUR  61.5  million  were  communicated 
via WOMIS to the Commission by 17 Member States. The table below shows those 
cases have been processed by the Commission in 2011 with the following results: 

Table OR1: Write-off reports treated in 2011 

MS 

AT 
BE 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
ES 
FI 
FR 
UK 
HU 
IT 
LT 
LV 
NL 
PT 
SE 
SK 
Total 

4 
5 

Cases5 

N 
22 
16 
4 
91 
1 
16 
3 
11 
8 
3 
12 
2 
7 
1 
17 
1 
3 
218 

Total 
amount 
EUR 
7.518.020 
6.008.748 
306.216 
15.605.657 
196.860 
4.844.534 
295.411 
5.014.018 
8.429.677 
658.034 
2.562.676 
165.825 
911.958 
1.114.350 
6.595.785 
360.003 
916.044 
61.503.816 

Acceptance 

Refusal 

Additional information 
request 

N 
11 

4 
31 

5 

6 
5 
3 
2 
1 
3 

2 

EUR 
2.819.216 

306.216 
6.287.550 

1.563.508 

601.312 
1.221.983 
658.034 
181.374 
64.634 
320.782 

N 
2 
1 

6 

7 

5 
1 

9 

2 

EUR 
232.478 
120.840 

866.125 

1.452.123 

4.412.707 
6.999.492 

2.255.704 

323.868 

118.044 

11 

5.103.092 

73 

14.142.653 

44 

21.766.429 

N 
 9 
10 

46 
1 
4 
1 

1 

1 
1 
2 
1 
4 
1 
3 
85 

EUR 
4.466.325 
5.079.355 

7.704.085 
196.860 
1.828.903 
111.641 

66.750 

125.598 
101.191 
267.308 
1.114.350 
1.374.649 
360.003 
916.044 
23.713.062 

WOMIS: Write-Off Management and Information System.  
Thereof,  16  cases  were  non-admissible  as  write-off  cases:  5  cases  from  Belgium  (EUR  808  553),  8 
cases  from  Germany  (EUR  747  897),  2  cases  from  Finland  (EUR  183  770)  and  1  case  from  the  UK 
(EUR 141 453).  

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
In addition, 245 cases which had been communicated before 2011 to the Commission 
have been processed in 2011 with the results showed in Table OR2. 

Table OR2: Results of cases communicated before 2011 processed in 2011 

Cases6 

Total 
amount 

Acceptance  Acceptance  Refusal 

Refusal 

MS 

BE 
DE 
DK 
ES 
FI 
FR 
IT 
LV 
NL 
UK 
Total 

N 

 8 
 144 
 2 
 45  
 3 
 4 
 20 
 1 
 17 
 1 
 245 

EUR 
 1.443.109 
83.972.636 
 782.594 
 15.185.139 
 346.823 
 5.401.098 
20.593.145 
109.969 
24.320.060 
 181.222 
152.335.795 

N 

 5 
 85 

 8 
3 
 3 

1 
 17 
 1 
 123 

EUR 
 770.820 
 62.938.798 

 5.110.026 
346.823 
 5.166.948 

109.969 
 24.320.060 
 181.222 
98.944.666 

Additional 
information 
request 
N 

Additional 
information 
request 
EUR 

 36 

 20 

1 

 16.772.522 

 6.744.215 

234.150 

N 

 3 
 20 
 2 
 17 

EUR 
 672.290 
 2.486.292 
 782.594 
3.330.898 

 20 

20.593.145 

 62 

 27.865.219 

 57 

 23.750.887 

Examination of Member States’ diligence in these cases constitutes a very effective 
mechanism for gauging their activity in the field of recovery. It encourages national 
administrations  to  step  up  the  regularity,  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  their 
recovery activity, since any lack of diligence leading to failure to recover, results in 
individual Member States having to foot the bill.  

3.1.3.  Particular cases of Member State failure to recover TOR  

If TOR are not established because of an administrative error by a Member State, the 
Commission applies the principle of financial liability7. In 2011 Member States have 
been  held  financially  liable  for  over  €26  million  and  new  cases  are  being  given 
appropriate follow-up.  

The main objective of these procedures is to encourage individual Member States to 
improve  their  administrative  performance  and  to  address  weaknesses  leading  to  a 
loss of TOR. Payments for these cases are made available via the A-account and they 
reduce  in  effect  the  contribution  of  the  Member  States  via  the  GNI  resource  in 
proportion to their contribution to the EU budget.  

3.2. 

General trends  

The number of cases communicated to OWNRES for 2011 is currently 15% lower in 
comparison with 2010 (from 5 544 to 4 696). The amount of TOR involved is 27% 
lower (from EUR 439 million to EUR 321 million)8. All data and comparisons in this 
report  are  drawn  up  from  queries  made  in  OWNRES  on  12  March  2012  (cut-off 
date). A comparison between data from this year's report to data from the previous 

6 
7 

8 

Thereof, 3 cases have been considered as non-admissible from Germany involving EUR 1 775 024.  
Case  C-392/02  of  15  November  2005.  These  cases  are  identified  on  the  basis  of  Articles  220(2)(b) 
(administrative errors which could not reasonably have been detected by the person liable for payment) 
and  221(3)  (time-barring  resulting  from  Customs’  inactivity)  )  and  239  (special  situation)  of  the 
Community Customs Code, Articles 869 and 889 of Regulation No 2454/93.. 
See annex 3 (table) and annex 4 (chart). 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
year report where the cut-off data was on 4 March 2011 shows that the differences 
between 2011 and 2010 are smaller: The number of cases in 2010 was at that time 4 
744  while  the  number  of  cases  for  2011  is  4  696.  This  is  a  decrease  of  1%.  The 
amount of TOR is 18% lower (from EUR 393 million in 2010 to € EUR 321 million 
in 2011). 

The number of communications from the ten new Member States showed continued 
growth  since  their  accession  in  2004  until  2007.  From  2007  to  2009  the 
communicated  cases  remained  stable.  In  2010  and  2011  the  communicated  cases 
declined, although the amount of TOR increased. 

The number of communications from Bulgaria and Romania peaked in 2010 at 152 
cases.  However,  in  2011  the  number  of  communications  fell  to  83  cases  for  both 
countries.  

The OWNRES database now contains 68 510 cases in total (1989-2011) and shows 
an increase of 9% during 2011. Significant changes in the number of registrations in 
2011  compared  with  2010  can  be  seen  for  Latvia  (+  89%),  Finland  (+  72%), 
Denmark  (+  52%),  Cyprus  (-  64%),  Austria  (-  54%),  Slovenia  (-  52%),  Malta  (- 
50%) and Romania (- 48%). Significant changes of amounts can be seen in Lithuania 
(+ 714%), Finland (+ 184%), Poland (+ 179%), Belgium (-76%), Denmark (-85 %), 
Czech Republic (- 69%) and Slovakia (-69 %)9.  

With  the  exception  of  the  year  2010,  the  number  of  belatedly  discharged  transit 
operations  decreased  continually  in  the  previous  years.10  In  the  case  of  transit, 
practice shows that 60-90% of the initially established debts are ultimately cancelled, 
because of proof of regular discharge after all. 

3.2.1.  Types of irregularity and fraud 

A  breakdown  of  frauds  and  irregularities  by  customs  procedure  and  by  mechanism 
type  confirms  that  most  cases  of  irregularity  or  fraud  relate  to  the  procedure  of 
release  for  free  circulation  (80%  of  established  amounts11).  False  declarations 
(incorrect classification, incorrect value, incorrect country of origin and incorrect use 
of preferential arrangements) and formal shortcomings (failure to fulfil obligations or 
commitments) are the mechanisms most frequently mentioned, but also smuggling is 
highly placed. 

The goods (defined by the first two numbers of the CN code12) the most affected by 
fraud and irregularities in 2011, as in previous years, are TVs/monitors etc. (CN 85) 
and  Tobacco  / cigarettes (CN  24). Furthermore, Articles of  Iron and Steel  (CN 73) 

9 

10 

11 
12 

Significant  changes  in  amounts  involved  generally  relate  to  one  or  a  few  (very)  big  cases,  e.g. 
Lithuania: case totalling to €15 mi llion involving Tobacco products. 
In 2007 the number of cases of belatedly discharged transit was 1 399, being 22% of the total number of 
cases registered and 16% of the total amount initially established. In 2008 there were 1 147 cases (18% 
of cases and 13% of the amount), in 2009 there were 758 (14% of cases and 12% of the amount). In 
2010  the  figures  are  respectively  974  (18%  of  cases  and  16%  of  the  amount  initially  established).  In 
2011 there were 693 cases (15% of cases and amount). 
See annex 5.  
Combined nomenclature or CN — nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
and  Oil  (CN  15)  increased  in  importance  when  compared  to  2010.  Sugar  (CN  17) 
decreased in importance and was not listed anymore in 2011 in the TOP 10 Chapter 
Heading list.13 

Chart OR1: Fraud and irregularities breakdown by good in 2009 (in million EUR)14 

Fraud and Irregularities breakdown by goods in 2011 in Mio. €

Other 51 (16%)

 TV's, (computer) monitors 
etc. 72 (22%) 

Vegetables 10 (3%)

Animal and products thereof 
12 (4%)

Shoes 16 (5%)

Textile 17 (5%)

Vehicles etc. 21 (6%)

Metals 25 (8%)

Food/Drinks//Tobacco 55 (17%)

Chemical products 42 (13%)

Evaluation of the origin of goods subject to fraud and irregularity15 reveals that, just 
as in 2010, goods originating from China and the USA remain very much affected. 
The number of cases originating from Indonesia, Taiwan and Malaysia has increased. 
Zimbabwe  is  listed  as  top  4  country  of  origin  which  results  from  one  big  case 
involving  EUR  15  million  detected  in  Lithuania.  Ecuador  has  decreased  in 
importance as country of origin in comparison with the last year.  

3.2.2.  TOR and cigarettes 

In  2011  there  were  145  cases  registered  of  seized  and  confiscated  cigarettes  (CN 
code 24 02 20 90) involving estimated TOR of around EUR 26 million. In 2010 the 
number  of  registered  cases  concerning  seized  and  confiscated  goods  was  212, 
totalling around EUR 25 million. Greece has reported the highest amount of seized 
and  confiscated  cigarettes  (EUR  10,6  million).  No  cases  have  been  indicated  by 
Austria,  Germany,  Denmark,  Spain,  Luxembourg,  Portugal,  Cyprus,  the  Czech 
Republic, Estonia, Malta and Romania16.  

13 
14 

15 
16 

See annexes 6 and 7. 
The product description in the chart is a generic description of the goods involved. See Annexes 4 and 5 
for detailed analysis.  
See annex 8. 
See annex 9. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
3.2.3.  Data main sectors TOR 

See Annexes 3-10. 

3.3. 

Detection of fraud and irregularity17 

Of  all  the  cases  registered  in  OWNRES  in  2011  15%  (723  out  of  4  696  registered 
cases)  are  categorised  as  fraud,  which  is  less  than  in  201018.  However,  like  in 
previous years, the differences between Member States are relatively large. In 2011 
most  of  the  Member  States  categorised  between  10-50%  of  all  cases  as  fraud. 
However,  four  Member  States  categorised  zero  cases  as  fraud.19  Seven  Member 
States categorised between 1% and 10% of the cases as fraud.20 Five Member States 
registered more than 50%21 of the cases as fraud. These figures demonstrate that the 
distinction  in  OWNRES  between  fraud  and  irregularity  might  not  be  fully 
comparable between different Member States. In their reports Member States make 
this distinction usually on subjective grounds and before any court judgment is given. 
Such  subjective  grounds  vary  between  national  administrations  depending  on  their 
national practises and legislation. It should also be noted that for open cases such a 
classification is not static in OWNRES but can be changed by the Member State at 
any time in the course of the national process. According to OWNRES the moment 
of discovery is an indicator for classifying a case as fraud, since primary inspections 
more often result in classifying cases as fraud than post-clearance inspections. 

3.3.1.  Member States' control systems – Method of detection expressed in cases 

The  methods  of  detection  of  irregularities  or  fraud  cases  registered  vary  between 
Member  States.  There  are  several  possible  explanations  for  these  differences,  for 
instance  the  customs  control  strategies  applied,  the  administrative  structure  in  the 
Member State, the way of classifying a method, the reporting authorities involved or 
the relative presence or absence of type of customs procedures.  

A range of detection methods can reveal irregularity or fraud. Judging from the 2011 
data,  most  cases  have  been  revealed  by  national  post-clearance  inspections  and 
primary national inspections (either physical inspections or inspections of documents 
—  the  latter  category  featuring  most  frequently).  Post-clearance  inspections  feature 
in 46% of the cases discovered, whereas primary national inspections cover 24%. All 
in  all,  the  vast  majority  of  cases  (70%)  were  detected  in  2011  by  means  of  either 
primary national inspections or post-clearance inspections. 

It  is  clear  that  the  shift  from  primary  to  post-clearance  inspections,  which  could 
already  be  seen  in  previous  years,  continued  in  2011.  The  relative  importance  of 
inspections by anti-fraud services was stable with 8% in 2010 and also in 2011. Since 
the final results of such inspections take more time than regular inspections, a (slight) 
increase in the percentage for 2011 may be expected in future registrations. 

17 
18 
19 
20 

21 

For the definition of irregularity and fraud, see the CSWD "Methodology". 
See annexes 10 and 11. 
Cyprus, Estonia, Latvia and Slovakia. Luxembourg did not communicate any OWNRES case.  
Germany  (6%),  France  (7%),  Netherlands  (2%),  Sweden  (4%),  UK  (3%),  Czech  Republic  (2%)  and 
Hungary (2%). 
Spain (64%), Greece (96%), Slovenia (52%), Bulgaria (80%) and Malta (100%). 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
CHART OR 2: Method of detection 2009-2011 

Method of detection 2009-2011

S
E
S
A
C
F
O
R
E
B
M
U
N

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0

Aud it  o f  the
acco unt s

Unio n  
ins pect io ns

Inspec tio n b y anti-
fraud ser vic es

Inspe ctio n visit

N at io nal po st-
c learance
inspect io ns

P rim ary nat io n al
inspec tio ns

T ax audit

Vo luntary
ad missio n

METHOD OF DETECTION

 2009

 2010

 2011

3.3.1.1.  Method of detection of fraud cases 

In 2011, most fraud cases (38%) were revealed during a primary national inspection 
(either  physical  inspections  or  inspections  of  documents).  Other  methods  of 
frequently  featured  methods  of  detection  for  fraud  discovery  were  inspections  by 
anti-fraud services (21%), national post-clearance inspections (19%) followed by tax 
audits (17%). 

CHART OR 3: Method of detection of fraud cases 2009-2011 

Method of detection 2009-2011 - fra ud cases

S
E
S
A
C
F
O
R
E
B
M
U
N

500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0

A udit o f the
account s

Union    
inspect io ns

Inspectio n by anti-
fr aud services

Inspection visit

N atio nal po st-
clearance
inspectio ns

Prim ary national
inspectio ns

Tax audit

Voluntary
adm ission

METHOD OF DETECTION

 2009

 2010

 2011

3.3.2.  Member States' control systems – Method of detection expressed in monetary terms 

The  map  below  illustrates  by  which  methods  OWNRES  cases  -  in  established 
amounts  -  have  been  discovered  by  the  Member  States22  in  2011.  For  reasons  of 
presentation the following methods are included in the term "ex-post controls": audit 
of  the  accounts,  Union  inspections,  inspections  by  anti-fraud  services,  inspection 
visits, national post-clearance audits and tax audits. In EUR – 27 around 14% of all 
cases  –  in  established  amounts  –  have  been  discovered  by  primary  inspections, 

22 

For details see annex 12. Luxemburg did not register any OWNRES case in 2011. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
whereas 81% of all cases – in amounts – have been detected via "ex-post controls". 
In the following four Member States more than 40 % of all cases – in amounts – have 
been detected by primary inspections: Finland (79%), Italy (48%), Cyprus (48%) and 
Bulgaria (59%). More than 90% of all cases – in amounts – have been detected by 
"ex-post  controls"  in  Greece  (99%),  Ireland  (100%),  Netherlands  (93%),  Portugal 
(92%),  Sweden  (100%),  United  Kingdom  (93%),  Lithuania  (97%),  Malta  (100%), 
Poland  (92%),  Slovenia  (99%)  and  Romania  (99%).  In  three  Member  States  more 
than 10 % of all cases – in amounts- have been detected by voluntary admission.23 

MAP OR 1: Visualising the method of detection24 

23 
24 

Germany (14%), Cyprus (11%) and the Czech Republic (21%).  
See Annex 12. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
3.3.2.1.  Method of detection expressed in monetary terms - for fraud cases 

Of all fraud cases registered in OWNRES in 2011, around 20% of all fraud cases – in 
established amounts – have been discovered by primary inspections, whereas 79% of 
all cases – in amounts – have been detected via "ex-post controls". In the following 
four  Member  States  more  than  50%  of  all  fraud  cases  –  in  established  amounts  – 
have  been  detected  by  primary  inspections:  Finland,  the  United  Kingdom,  the 
Netherlands, and Poland. For 18 Member States, more than 50% of all fraud cases – 
in  amounts  –  have  been  detected  by  "ex-post  controls".  Three  Member  States 
reported fraud cases which were admitted voluntarily.25  

3.3.3.  Customs procedures affected to fraud and irregularity in 2011- in amounts 

In  2011,  the  majority  of  established  amounts  in  OWNRES  (80%)  in  EU-27  are 
related to the customs procedure "release for free circulation".26 7% of all established 
amounts  of  OWNRES  cases  in  2011  involve  the  transit  procedures  whereas  it  was 
only 3% in 2010. Furthermore, 6% of all established amount of OWNRES relate to 
the  customs  warehousing  and  5%  to  the  inward  processing.  Between  the  Member 
States there are however significant differences. In Lithuania 93% of all established 
amounts of OWNRES cases relate to the transit procedure, whereas 3 % relate to the 
release  for  free  circulation.  Moreover,  customs  warehousing  was  much  affected,  in 
amounts,  in  Finland  (54%)  and  Belgium  (38%).  Finally,  3%  of  all  established 
amounts in EUR-27 fall under the category "Other". This category combines, among 
others,  the  following  procedures  or  treatments:  Processing  under  customs  control, 
temporary  admission,  outward  processing  and  standard  exchange  system, 
exportation,  free  zone  or  free  warehousing,  re-exportation,  destruction  and 
abandonment to the Exchequer. In Malta 100% of the established amounts concerned 
the  "destruction",  in  Greece  56%  of  the  established  amounts  are  related  to  "re-
exportation" and in Romania 69% relate to the "processing under customs control".  

3.3.3.1.  Customs procedures affected to fraud in 2011- in amounts 

In  2011,  the  majority  of  established  amounts  (71%)  for  fraud  cases  in  EU-27  are 
related to the customs procedure "release for free circulation". 20% of all established 
amounts of OWNRES fraud cases in 2011 involve the transit procedures27. 5% of all 
established  amounts  where  fraud  was  at  stake  affect  the  customs  warehouse 
procedure.  Fraud  cases  related  to  customs  warehousing  procedure  concerned 
especially  Finland,  Germany  and  Romania.  Fraud  in  inward  processing  procedure 
was only detected in Spain.  

3.3.4.  Percentage of established or estimated amounts in OWNRES to collected TOR 

As indicated before the biggest part of all amounts of TOR established are recovered 
without  any  particular  problem  and  made  available  to  the  Commission  via  the  A-
account. For 2011 around EUR 22.4 billion TOR (gross) have been collected by the 
Member  States  and  thereafter  made  available  to  the  EU  budget  after  deduction  of 

25 
26 
27 

Germany, Spain and Italy.  
See annex 13. 
One big case was detected in Lithuania. 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
                                                 
25% collection  costs. These amounts relate mainly  to  ‘normal’ import flows where 
goods are declared for a customs procedure (e.g. release for free circulation) giving 
rise to a customs debt. In comparison, according to the OWNRES communications, 
around EUR 388 million have been established and estimated by the Member States 
in connection to detected cases of fraud and irregularities where the amount at stake 
exceeds EUR 10 000. For EU-27 the established and estimated amounts reported in 
OWNRES represent 1.73% of the collected TOR (gross) of 2011.28 This proportion 
has decreased in comparison to the previous year where a percentage of 2.00% was 
calculated. A percentage of 1.73% reflects that out of each EUR 100 of TOR (gross) 
collected an amount of irregularity or fraud is registered in OWNRES of EUR 1.73. 
Within the Member States there are differences. In 10 Member States the percentage 
is  equal  or  above  the  average  of  1.73%.  The  highest  percentage  can  be  seen  in 
Lithuania  with  27.79%.  In  9  Member  States  the  percentage  is  below  1%.  In  14 
Member  States  the  percentage  is  between  1%  and  3%.  Luxembourg  did  not  report 
any  OWNRES  cases  in  2011.  For  EUR-15  the  established  and  estimated  amounts 
reported in OWNRES represent 1.65% of the collected TOR, whereas in EUR-12 the 
established  and  estimated  amounts  reported  in  OWNRES  represent  2.84%  of  the 
collected TOR. The percentage can significantly vary from one year to another. For 
example, Austria had a proportion of 4.37% in 2010, whereas the proportion dropped 
to 1.39% in 2011. Furthermore, the percentage in Denmark declined from 5.89 % in 
2010 (above the average) to 0.92 % in 2011 which is below the average. The biggest 
increase  can  be  seen  in  Lithuania  from  3.88%  in  2010  to  27.79%  in  2011.  The  7 
Member  States29  which  collected  most  TOR  show,  in  comparison  to  the  previous 
year,  a  relatively  stable  proportion  between  established  and  estimated  OWNRES 
amounts  to  collected  TOR.  With  the  exception  of  Italy  and  Spain  the  difference  to 
the previous year is less than 0.5 percentage points in those Member States. 

Especially  in  Member  States  with  a  smaller  share  of  TOR  collection,  individual 
bigger  fraud  cases  detected  in  a  certain  year  may  affect  importantly  the  annual 
percentage.  Several  factors  influence  this  percentage,  e.g.  the  type  of  traffic  and 
trade,  the  level  of  compliance  of  the  economic  operators,  and,  the  location  of  a 
Member  State.  Under  these  variable  factors  the  percentage  is  also  affected  on  the 
way how the Member State's customs control strategy is set up to target risky imports 
and to detect TOR related fraud and irregularity.  

In recent years the Commission has in its TOR inspections put a special emphasis on 
Member States' customs control strategies and is monitoring closely Member States' 
action in relation to the observations made during its inspections30. 

28 
29 

30 

See annex 14. 
Member  States  which  collected  most  TOR:  Germany,  United  Kingdom,  Netherlands,  Italy,  Belgium, 
France and Spain  
A  thematic  report  on  Member  States'  customs  control  strategy  synthesizing  the  results  on  the 
inspections  carried  out  in  2009  and  2010  in  all  Member  States  was  presented  in  the  Advisory 
Committee of Own Resources of July 2011.   

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
                                                 
MAP  OR  2:  visualising  the  percentage  of  established  or  estimated  amounts  in  OWNRES  to 
collected TOR 

3.4. 

Recovery and Follow-up 

3.4.1.  Recovery rate  

Member States have to recover all established amounts including those they register 
in OWNRES. For a variety of reasons an established amount may not be completely 
recovered, despite Member States’ efforts. The proportion varies from Member State 
to Member State. 

Amounts  established  may  change  because  of  additional  information  or  judicial 
procedures when, for instance, revision shows that there was no customs debt after 
all or the value or origin of the goods is different than initially thought.  

EN 

23 

   EN 

 
 
OWNRES  shows  that  in  average  43%  of  the  initially  established  amount  was 
corrected (cancelled) since 1989. For closed cases related to transit this may reach up 
to 90%. As a consequence, Belgium and the Netherlands show more corrections than 
average, because establishments related to transit occur more frequently. This is due 
to the ports of Antwerp and Rotterdam.  

Differences  in  recovery  results  arise  from  factors  such  as  the  type  of  fraud  or 
irregularity  or  the  type  of  debtor  involved.  The  recovery  rate  for  all  years  (1989-
2011) is 50%31.  

The  overall  recovery  rate  for  2010  recorded  in  the  last  year’s  report  was  46%, 
although it has since then climbed to 51%. At present the recovery rate for 2011 is 
52%32.  In  other  words,  of  every  EUR  10 000  of  duties  established  in  2011  in 
OWNRES,  approximately  EUR  5 200  has  already  been  paid.  Because  recovery  is 
ongoing, the recovery rate is constantly changing.   

There are big differences of the recovery rate within the Member States. The highest 
recovery rates are in Estonia (100%), Slovakia (90%), Denmark (81%) and Germany 
(81%). 

3.4.2.  Recovered amounts 

Irregularity and fraud cases which have been detected in 2011 show  an established 
amount of EUR 321 million. Thereof EUR 155 million were recovered for cases of 
irregularities  and  EUR  10  million  for  cases  of  fraud  in  EU-27.  In  total  EUR  166 
million  were  recovered  by  all  Member  States  for  the  cases  which  were  detected  in 
2011. In absolute numbers Germany recovered most with EUR 62 million followed 
by  the  United  Kingdom  with  EUR  32  million  in  2011.  The  lowest  recovery  rates 
were in Greece (2%) and Lithuania (4%). In addition, the Member States continued 
their  recovery  actions  related  to  detected  cases  of  previous  years.  EU-27  recovered 
EUR 305 million in 2011 which related to detected cases between 1989 and 2011.  

3.4.3.  Administrative stage - from 1998 to 2011 

68  510  cases  have  been  communicated  in  OWNRES  from  all  Member  States. 
Thereof 9 528 cases are still open. 58 982 cases have been closed, which means that 
certain  financial  stage  has  been  reached.  87%  of  the  cases  were  closed  in  an 
administrative  procedure.33  The  term  "administrative  procedure"  includes  the 
following  administrative  stages:  Administrative 
investigation,  administrative 
procedure  (debt  established),  administrative  appeal  or  review.  8%  of  the  cases 
concluded with a remission procedure, write-off procedure for non-recoverable debts 
or the non-establishment due to an  administrative error. Of all cases 5% are closed 
with  a  judicial  procedure.  Until  a  final  decision  of  a  court  is  given,  the  OWNRES 
case remains open. From 1989 to 2011 OWNRES cases were relatively often subject 
to  judicial  procedures  in  the  following  countries:  Estonia  (29%  of  all  closed 

31 

32 
33 

This calculation is based on 68 510 cases, an established amount of EUR 5 billion (after corrections) 
and a recovered amount of EUR 2.5 billion.  
See annex 15. 
See annex 16. 

EN 

24 

   EN 

 
                                                 
OWNRES  cases),  in  Latvia  (27%),  Italy  (25%)  and  in  Greece  (20%).  In  Finland, 
Ireland, Luxembourg and Cyprus zero cases were closed in a judicial procedure.  

3.5. 

Conclusions  

In its capacity as Authorising Officer, the Commission (DG Budget is the delegated 
Authorising  Officer)  monitors  the  establishment  and  recovery  of  TOR  by  Member 
States  in  various  ways.  The  monitoring  is  carried  out  in  partnership  with  different 
Commission departments, including OLAF.  

(1)  Because  of  the  particular  interest  the  Budgetary  Authority  has  in  recovery, 
reliable information regarding the number of cases of irregularity and fraud and 
their development must be entered in OWNRES. Member States have a special 
responsibility  to  ensure  that  appropriate  statistical  information  on  irregularity 
and  fraud  is  provided  to  the  Commission.  The  distinction  in  OWNRES 
between fraud and irregularity might not be fully comparable between different 
Member States. Only court decisions make it certain whether a case is one of 
irregularity or fraud, whereas within OWNRES this distinction is usually based 
on a prognostication made by Member States’ administrations. The figures in 
OWNRES showing marked differences in the proportions of cases denoted as 
frauds  or  irregularities  between  Member  States  point  this  out  clearly. 
OWNRES can only be used for global analysis and monitoring.  

(2)  The  goods  involved  in  irregularities  and  frauds  demanding  Member  States’ 
attention  are  very  diverse.  TVs  keep  their  relevance  in  2011  and  are  like  in 
previous  years  the  most  important  goods  involved  in  registered  cases  of 
irregularity  or  fraud.  Tobacco,  cigarettes  and  oil  gained  significance.  The 
origin  of  the  goods  concerned  is  likewise  varied,  although  some  countries 
remain  continuously  at  the  top  of  the  rankings  (such  as  China  and  the  USA). 
Some Asian countries (Taiwan, Malaysia and Indonesia) and Zimbabwe were 
of more importance in 2011.  

(3)  The  established  amounts  of  TOR  at  stake  in  irregularity  and  fraud  are, 
according to OWNRES, EUR 321 million in 2011. Based on experience from 
previous years, it is likely that this figure for 2011 will change in future years 
due to new establishments and/ or corrections of establishment.  

(4)  The methods of detection vary between Member States, however, in 2011 post-
clearance inspections and primary controls (during the clearance) are creating 
70  %  of  all  OWNRES  cases.  Thereof,  the  shift  from  primary  (24%)  to  post-
clearance  inspections  (46%)  continued  in  2011.  According  to  OWNRES  the 
moment  of  discovery  is  an  indicator  for  classifying  a  case  as  fraud,  since 
primary  inspections  more  often  result  in  classifying  cases  as  fraud  than  post-
clearance  inspections.  However,  during  'ex-post'  controls  fraud  cases  with 
relatively high amounts are detected.  

(5)  The  customs  procedure  release  for  free  circulation  was  like  in  the  previous 
years the most affected to fraud and irregularities. 80% of all amounts reported 
in  OWNRES  have  been  detected  under  the  release  for  free  circulation. 
However, there are differences between the Member States. In some Member 

EN 

25 

   EN 

 
States  most  cases  have  been  detected  during  the  transit  procedure,  customs 
warehousing, inward processing, free zone or destruction (of cigarettes).  

(6)  For  EU-27  the  established  and  estimated  amounts  in  OWNRES  represent 
1.73%  of  the  collected  TOR  for  2011.  The  percentage  varies  between  the 
Member States and between the years.  

(7)  The Commission encourages Member States to continue their activities in the 
field of recovery and to provide required statistical information. The Budgetary 
Authority  is  entitled  to  have  available  the  best  possible  information  when 
monitoring TOR and recovery issues. 

EN 

26 

   EN 

 
PART III - EXPENDITURE 

4. 

PRESERVATION  AND  MANAGEMENT  OF  NATURAL  RESOURCES 
(AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES) 

4.1. 

Agricultural expenditure (Annexes 17-22) 

The  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  has  been  one  of  the  most  important 
common  policies  over  the  years,  as  a  large  part34  of  the  European  Union's  (EU) 
budget is spent in the agricultural sector.  

The  CAP-objectives  for  the  coming  years  is  an  agriculture  that  is  competitive  on 
world markets, which respects very strict standards on environment, food safety, and 
animal welfare, within a framework of a sustainable and dynamic rural economy. 

The agricultural expenditure is financed by 2 funds:  

•  EAGF 
•  EAFRD 

The  European  Agricultural  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGF)  finances  direct  payments  to 
farmers and measures to regulate agricultural markets such as intervention and export 
refunds, while the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) co-
finances the rural development programmes of Member States. 

The EU-budget for the year 2011 was about EUR 126.5 billion. Approximately EUR 
55.5  billion  was  spent  in  the  agricultural  sector,  of  which  EAGF  and  EAFRD 
expenditure account for respectively EUR 43.3 billion and EUR 12.2 billion. Annex 
17  provides  a  detailed  overview  of  the  agricultural  expenditure  concerning  the 
financial years 2004-2011. 

The  basic  rules  for  the  financial  management  of  the  Common  Agricultural  Policy 
(CAP) can be found in Council Regulation (EC) No 1290/2005.  

The  Commission  retains  overall  responsibility  for  the  management  of  EAGF  and 
EAFRD but does not make payments to the beneficiaries. Member States make the 
payments  to  the  beneficiaries.  This  takes  places  under  the  principle  of  shared 
management.  Member  States  are  not  only  responsible  for  making  payments  to  the 
beneficiaries. Member States are also obliged to prevent and deal with irregularities 
and to recover amounts unduly paid. Granting subsidies, setting up audit strategies, 
performing  audits,  reporting  irregularities  and  recovery  of  unduly  paid  amounts  go 
hand in hand. 

Commission  Regulation  (EC)  No  1848/2006  obliges  Member  States  to  report 
irregularities. Member States submit their irregularity reports via IMS Module 1848. 
Module 1848 was introduced in 2008 and was directly used by all Member States. It 

34 

Approximately 44% of the total 2011-budget was spent in the agricultural sector. 

EN 

27 

   EN 

 
                                                 
is a web based application that can be accessed via internet. Access via internet led to 
an enormous increase of the number of users of Module 1848. The total number of 
users increased from less than 50 in 2008 to more than 1,000 in 2011.  

The  data  provided  by  Member  States  via  Module  1848  is  used  for  performing  risk 
analysis as described in article 10 of Regulation  No 1848/200635 and to inform the 
Advisory  Committee  for  the  Coordination  of  Fraud  Prevention  (COCOLAF)  as 
described in article 9 of Regulation No 1848/200636. 

The  agricultural  section  of  this  report  contains  three  parts:  reporting  year  2011, 
reporting years 2004-2011 and financial years 2004-2006. The first part contains an 
overview  of  new  cases  reported  during  2011,  Member  States  compliance  with  the 
reporting obligations and the recovery of unduly paid amounts. In the second part are 
the trends and developments in the agricultural sector described on basis of the cases 
reported during the years 2004-2011. The third part contains definitive figures, based 
on  the  analysis  of  the  financial  years  2004-2006  which  years,  from  an  irregularity 
reporting point of view, are considered to be finalised. 

Four preliminary remarks need to be made concerning the outcomes of the analysis: 

(1)  A  higher  number  of  cases  reported  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  more 
irregularities  are  committed  or  that  a  Member  State  is  more  vulnerable  for 
irregularities.  A  more  developed  audit  strategy,  tailor  made  audits,  higher 
number  of  performed audits, better trained  or instructed auditors and so  forth 
will normally lead to a higher number of detected irregularities. In other words, 
it  is  possible  that  Member  States  with  a  higher  irregularity  rate  perform  far 
better than Member States with a lower irregularity rate; 

(2)  Audit  plans  and  programmes  are  still  running  for  the  period  2007-2011.  This 
means  that  cases  of  irregularities  still  can  be  detected  and  reported,  which 
could have a direct impact on the figures. The figures concerning the financial 
years 2007-2011, therefore, need to be seen as a half-time-result37. 

(3)  Not  all  irregularities  have  to  be  reported.  Member  States  must  only  inform 
OLAF of irregularities involving more than EUR 10 000. It is also good to bear 
in  mind  that  87%  of  the  number  of  payments,  representing  21%  of  the  total 
expenditure, concern amounts below EUR 10 000 which implies that for these 
payments normally no irregularities will be reported38.  

35 

36 

37 

38 

Art. 10 Reg. 1848/2006: Without prejudice to Article 11, the Commission may use any information of 
a general or operational nature communicated by Member States in accordance with this Regulation 
to  perform  risk  analyses,  using  information  technology  support,  and  may,  on  the  basis  of  the 
information obtained, produce reports and develop systems serving to identify risks more effectively. 
Art.  9  Reg.  1848/2006:  The  Commission  shall  every  year  inform  the  COCOLAF,  of  the  order  of 
magnitude of the sums involved in the irregularities which have been discovered and of the various 
categories of irregularity, broken down by type and with a statement of the number of irregularities 
in each category. 
Checks  on  aid  applications  are  being  performed  pre-payment.  However,  irregularities  can  also  be 
detected ex-post and, in that case, recovery procedures can be launched for at least four years after 
the irregularity was committed (art. 3 Reg. 2988/95). 
In  the  context  of  the  clearance  mechanism  (see  also  point  4.3.3.)  Member  States  are  reporting  all 
irregular payments to be recovered to DG AGRI, without any de minimis threshold. 

EN 

28 

   EN 

 
                                                 
(4)  Analyses are based on data provided by Member States and are nothing more 
as descriptive analysis as they illustrate the main features of a collection of data 
in quantitative terms. 

4.2. 

Reporting Year 2011 

4.2.1.  Reporting Year 2011: cases reported 

Table  NR1  provides  an  overview  per  Member  State  of  the  number  of  cases  of 
irregularities reported, the amounts affected and Member States' classification of the 
irregularities into "suspected fraud" or "established fraud"39.  

Table NR1: cases reported during Financial Year 2011 

MS

AT

BE
BG

CY
CZ
DE

DK
EE

EL
ES
FI

FR
HU

IE
IT
LT

LU
LV
MT

NL
PL

PT
RO
SE

SI
SK

REPORTING YEAR 2011 1) 2) 3)

irregularities

irregularities reported as fraudulent

of which suspected fraud

of which established fraud

cases

amounts in €

cases

amounts in €

cases

amounts in €

22

16
178

22
62
64

9
15

41
267
6

110
239

54
590
68

9
10

70
136

226
112
13

8
15

297 830

1 308 449
6 277 214

402 669
2 138 724
5 679 056

190 188
405 974

865 364
11 621 716
195 395

71 628 864
17 482 936

1 515 744
26 328 492
1 629 924

345 753
579 775

3 026 479
8 424 400

8 609 574
6 275 291
823 916

216 223
1 408 718

793 578
178 472 244

1
24

3
4

2

8
1

3
4

1
15
2

2

1
18

1
25
1

4
1

0
3 103 610

3 589
258 506

222 590

218 663
31 997

65 411 436
114 114

12 917
1 920 578
223 006

178 939

10 000
914 623

78 000
2 480 664
16 155

136 163
582 526

13

381 475

1

1

2

1

826 513

36 961

32 619

28 890

121

75 918 078

18

1 306 458

UK
total

33
2 395

1) IMS-Module-1848-download 2012/01/18
2) Financial Year 2011: 16 October 2010 - 15 October 2011

3) Cases of irregularities reported during 2011 concern expenditures of the financial years 1995-2011

Member  States  reported  2  395  new  cases  of  irregularities  with  a  total  amount 
affected  of  about  EUR  178  million.  These  cases  concern  expenditures  for  the 
financial years 1995-2011. Italy reported the highest number of cases (590) as France 
reported the highest amounts affected (EUR 71.6 million).  

France  reported  2  suspected  fraud  cases  with  a  total  amount  affected  of  more  than 
EUR 65 million, which had a huge impact on the total amount affected by suspected 
fraud cases40. 

39 

Established  fraud  means  that  it  has  been  proven  in  Court  that  it  was  fraud  while  suspected  fraud 
implies that a penal court still has to rule or that investigations are still on going. 

EN 

29 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
The  number  of  cases  that  have  been  reported  as  fraudulent  (suspected  fraud  or 
established  fraud)  is  139  (121  +  18),  which  is  6%  of  the  total  number  of  cases 
reported.  The  amount  affected  is  43%  of  the  total  amounts  affected.  The  "fraud 
cases"  are  mainly  reported  by  young  Member  States,  especially  Bulgaria  (37), 
Poland (20) and Romania (25). Italy reported 16 fraud cases. 

4.2.2.  Reporting Year 2011: reporting discipline 

The main purpose of submitting irregularity reports is to enable the Commission to 
perform risk analyses. For that purpose, OLAF needs to receive reliable, consistent 
and complete data and as early as possible (timely!).  

Table  NR2  provides  an  overview  of  the  compliance  rate  per  reporting  obligation. 
Member States are ranked in order of their overall 2011 compliance rate, which can 
be found in the fifth column from the right hand side.  

Table NR2: compliance per Member State 

timely
reporting

personal measure
affected

data

date
committed

practices
employed

financial
impact

sanctions

compliance rate

cases

who

3(1)l

what

3(1)a

when

3(1)i,k

how

3(1)e,f

why

3(1)m,n

5

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

COMPLIANCE

10

62
15
41

8
178

112
68
110

16
15

226
267
590

64
54
9

239
22

22
13
33

136
9

100%

94%
93%
90%

88%
80%

77%
93%
75%

88%
73%

61%
68%
66%

72%
80%
100%

38%
36%

68%
85%
33%

55%
22%

41%
50%
66%

100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%

99%
100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
100%
99%

100%
83%
89%

100%
100%

100%
77%
100%

58%
100%

100%
67%
97%

100%

100%
100%
100%

94%
100%

100%
84%
100%

94%
100%

100%
90%
97%

84%
83%
94%

100%
100%

98%
77%
91%

97%
100%

83%
42%
96%

100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

98%
100%
72%

100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
94%

100%
100%
100%

100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
99%
100%

100%
98%

100%
100%
96%

98%
99%
100%

100%
100%

83%
95%
100%

100%
93%

80%
89%
98%

100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
100%

100%
100%
100%

91%
100%

100%
100%
98%

99%
100%
89%

100%
100%

84%
96%
100%

100%
100%

96%
100%
99%

100%

100%
100%
100%

100%
96%

99%
99%
100%

88%
100%

100%
100%
100%

84%
100%
89%

100%
100%

95%
69%
85%

99%
78%

80%
100%
98%

100%
99%

99%
98%
97%

97%
96%

96%
96%
95%

95%
93%

93%
93%
92%

91%
91%

90%
89%
89%

88%
87%

85%
85%
83%

75%
93%

83%

97%
99%
96%

84%
89%

97%
97%
98%

98%
99%

90%
91%
94%

83%
91%
89%

87%
98%

90%
96%
71%

80%
77%

68%
59%
90%

85%

98%
90%
93%

99%

94%
99%
93%

93%
99%

99%
98%
93%

93%
97%
100%

93%
92%

81%
91%
79%

85%
94%

87%
70%
95%

83%
100%

94%
74%
86%

100%
94%

87%
96%

96%
95%

97%
96%
92%

79%
98%
100%

81%

84%
84%
94%

97%
92%

86%
78%
92%

90%
83%
73%

96%

81%
90%

74%
81%

72%
49%
77%

39%
64%
85%

85%
97%

85%
83%
88%

83%
85%

63%
67%
78%

MS

LU
MT

CZ
SK
EL

SI
BG

RO
LT
FR

BE
EE

PT
ES
IT

DE
IE
LV

HU
CY

AT
SE
UK

PL
DK

NL
FI
total

70
6
2 395

legal basis: art. 3(1)a-p  and art. 5 Reg. 1848/2006

IMS Module 1848 download: 18 January 2012

The  compliance  rate  has  been  determined  on  basis  of  the  reporting  obligations  as 
stipulated in article 3, paragraph 1, letters a - p of Reg. 1848/2006. The focus is on 
those obligations that are crucial for strategic analysis and can be summarised with 
the typical questions that are used in every (fraud) investigation: who, what, when, 
where, why and how.  

40 

Judicial authorities performed searches on the premises of involved persons in 2003, first in Belgium, 
and later on in other Member States including France. France reported these cases first in 2011 due to 
the secrecy of the penal procedure, which was levied at that date. This reporting resulted in a distorted 
image for the 2011 statistics especially due to the high financial impact. 

EN 

30 

   EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
In  2011,  the  overall  compliance  rate41  increased  from  90%  to  93%.  Most  Member 
States stabilized or improved their compliance rate during 2011. Finland made a big 
step  forward  in  2011  by  increasing  its  compliance  rate  from  59%  to  75%.  For 
Finland  as  well  as  Poland  count  that  the  reporting  of  personal  data  should  still  get 
more attention. Timely reporting is still an issue for a large number of Member States 
but especially for Denmark, United Kingdom, Cyprus, Hungary and the Netherlands. 

4.2.3.  Reporting Year 2011: financial follow up of irregularity cases 42 

0.36%

71 460

DK
EE

FY2011

BE
BG

MS
AT

32 

4 330 160

recovered

11 285 382

EL
ES
FI

CY
CZ
DE

during 2011

in % of total

outstanding

irrecoverable

from 

1.39%
0.07%

5.09%
0.02%

42 339
1 653

amount 

5 699 038
140 528

2 887 429
978 058

0.04%
0.08%
2.10%

EAGF, EAFRD and TRDI

16 826 564
861 622

13 963 929
0

61 470 095
266 302

0
138 911
577 906

697 857
3 069 107
13 758 470

1 581 528
22 740 847
1 340 113

0
12 786 294
2 029

481 036
1 024 429
25 300 574

60 488 438
106 516 420
1 287 766

Table NR3: Financial information on recovery cases (amounts in EUR)

of  Council 
Article 
Regulation 
No 
(EC) 
1290/2005  provides  for  an 
automatic 
clearance 
mechanism  for  unsuccessful 
recoveries  of  unduly  paid 
amounts.  If  a  Member  State 
fails  to  recover  an  unduly 
paid 
the 
beneficiary  within  four  years 
of  the  primary  administrative 
or  judicial  finding  (or,  in  the 
case  of  proceedings  before 
national  courts,  within  eight 
years),  50%  of 
the  non-
recovered  amount  is  charged 
to  the  budget  of  the  Member 
State  concerned  within  the 
the  annual 
framework  of 
financial  clearance  of 
the 
EAGF and EAFRD accounts. 
Even  after  the  application  of 
this  mechanism,  Member 
0.38%
States  are  obliged  to  pursue 
100.00%
their recovery procedures and to credit 50% of the amounts effectively recovered to 
the  EU  budget.  If  they  fail  to  do  so  with  the  necessary  diligence,  the  Commission 
may decide to charge the entire outstanding amounts to the Member State concerned. 
Moreover, since 2008, Member States are required to off-set any outstanding debts 
against future payments to the debtor (compulsory compensation). 

247 825 752
25 057 996
9 017 802

15 055 008
5 860 679
6 156 330

64 018 666
7 745 255
2 323 565

1 146 550
1 631 884
2 097 309

88 443
1 554 470
700 771

7 339 487
4 577 719
2 071 222

4 548 334
1 206 949 828

627 474
0
12 245

64 811
656 280
260 548

9 040 251
172 673 160

515 111 813
1 358 318

20.53%
2.08%
0.75%

78 336
49 423 763

11 554 353
35 155

11 556 866
8 124 382

43 791 573
1 188 131

10 906 285
18 157 708

5.01%
8.83%
0.11%

0.01%
0.13%
0.06%

5.30%
0.64%
0.19%

1 786 636
290 212

3 565 713
146 057

1 715 488
8 640 428

18
1 793
5

1 517
940 833

42.68%
0.11%

0.96%
0.67%

0.90%
1.50%

UK
Total

PT
RO
SE

FR
HU
IE

LU
LV
MT

SI
SK

NL
PL

IT
LT

Undue  payments  that  are  the  result  of  administrative  errors  committed  by  the 
national  authorities  have  to  be  deducted  from  the  annual  accounts  of  the  paying 
agencies concerned and, thus, excluded from EU financing. 

In  the  year  2011,  the  50/50  mechanism  was  applied  by  the  financial  clearance 
decision for the financial year 2010  on all pending non-recovered cases dating from 

41 

42 

The  compliance  rate  is  based  on  a  quantitative  analysis  of  data  provided  by  Member  States.  A 
Member  State  is  being  considered  as  compliant  as  soon  as  information  has  been  provided.  The 
quality of the information is not taken into account.  
The text, analysis and tables of this paragraph are provided by DG AGRI. 

EN 

31 

   EN 

 
                                                 
2006 or 2002 (cases that were four or eight years old respectively). EUR 27.8 million 
was charged to the Member States in this way and EUR 29.2 million was borne by 
the EU budget for reasons of irrecoverability (out of the EUR 50.7 million declared 
irrecoverable  by  the  Member  States,  EUR  21.5  million  had  already  been  cleared 
under  the  50/50  and,  therefore,  the  loss  is  shared  between  the  EU  and  the  Member 
States). A further EUR 0.6 million has been charged to the Member States in early 
2012  by  subsequent  decisions  that  cleared  the  accounts  for  financial  year  2010  of 
those paying agencies that were disjoined in April 2011. 

During  financial  year  2011  Member  States  recovered  from  the  beneficiaries  EUR 
172.7 million and the outstanding amount still to be recovered from the beneficiaries 
at the end of that financial year was  EUR  1 206.9  million. Table NR3 on the right 
hand  side  provides  an  overview  of  the  recovered,  irrecoverable  and  outstanding 
amounts at the level of beneficiaries at the end of financial year 2011. 

The financial consequences of non recovery for cases dating from 2007 or 2003 was 
determined  in  accordance  with  the  50/50  rule  mentioned  above  by  charging 
approximately EUR 12.6 million to the Member States concerned . Moreover, EUR 
25.7  million  was  borne  by  the  EU  budget  for  cases  reported  irrecoverable  during 
financial year 2011.  

NR4: Recoveries for cases detected since 2007 (amounts in EUR)

in 

Due  the  application  of  the 
50/50  mechanism  since  its 
introduction 
2006 
important 
non-recovered 
sums  have  already  been 
charged to the Member States 
for  EAGF  expenditure  (EUR 
458  million).  Consequently, 
out  of  the  EUR  1  206.9 
million  to  be  recovered  from 
the  final  beneficiaries  at  the 
end of financial year 2011 the 
amount  outstanding  towards 
the  EU  budget  is  limited  to 
EUR  943.5  million.  As 
regards the recovery of undue 
the 
payments  financed  by 
EAFRD,  it  has  to  be  noted 
that  the  50/50  rule  will  only 
applied 
commence 
after  the  closure  of  the  rural 
development programmes. 

being 

MS

AT

BE
BG
CY

CZ
DE

DK
EE
EL

ES
FI

FR
HU
IE

IT
LT

LU
LV
MT

NL
PL

PT
RO
SE

SI
SK
UK

New cases since 
2007

21 835 992.03

76 473 720.34
191 065.17
1 398 999.31

2 171 528.03
57 210 847.86

29 474 396.32
2 216 803.72
27 784 531.17

186 486 261.88
5 832 791.65

142 503 409.47
15 138 779.47
20 004 384.43

180 869 317.04
5 301 117.11

737 536.61
905 391.88
902 261.93

20 733 038.89
6 948 515.46

57 642 665.92
6 153 170.95
9 698 954.40

14 151 640.41
1 970 588.74
34 596 239.82

EAGF

Adjustments

Recoveries

2 111 440.23

19 570 964.73

1 017 596.47
26 796.80
18 860.56

156 100.95
3 012 410.09

7 338 730.75
1 050 127.64
2 714 337.30

20 951 509.64
101 321.23

100 309 856.30
7 581 573.71
2 131 039.07

61 005 850.53
2 422 265.21

447 478.48
17 395.37
970.38

1 729 371.95
1 315 731.85

8 147 218.66
1 214 006.50
805 361.59

50 717.90
848 369.89
7 423 535.97

16 595 025.89
33 917.92
1 119 445.84

1 953 821.25
47 667 745.33

19 562 518.92
1 102 195.69
4 914 505.70

94 899 495.44
5 255 748.80

53 559 279.53
8 081 283.93
15 058 758.31

85 848 816.94
2 695 581.25

219 019.30
776 494.18
312 012.05

18 379 636.42
6 577 642.08

20 850 547.81
3 670 569.80
7 635 985.26

3 421 065.23
336 809.90
22 761 849.34

Total

929 333 950.01

129 862 580.50

462 860 736.82

Recovery 
rate

99%

22%
16%
81%

97%
79%

53%
94%
20%

57%
89%

22%
36%
84%

35%
94%

76%
87%
35%

97%
80%

42%
50%
86%

24%
30%
84%

44%

The  new  clearance  mechanism  (50/50  rule)  referred  to  above  provides  a  strong 
incentive  for  Member  States  to  recover  undue  payments  from  the  beneficiaries  as 
quickly as possible. As a result, by the end of financial year 2011, 44% of the new 
EAGF  debts  from  2007  and  thereafter  had  already  been  recovered,  which  is  a 
significant improvement compared to the past. See table NR4 on the right hand side. 

EN 

32 

   EN 

 
During the years 2008-2011 the Commission was auditing the correct application of 
the new clearance mechanism through 18 on the spot controls in 13 Member States. 
In  general,  the  Member  States'  authorities  have  adequate  procedures  in  place  to 
protect the financial interest of the European Union. Deficiencies found during these 
on  the  spot  controls  are  being  followed  up  in  the  context  of  conformity  clearance 
procedures.  The  diligence  of  the  Member  States'  authorities  in  the  recovery  of  the 
most  significant  irregularity  cases  is  assessed  in  the  context  of  a  further  19 
conformity clearance procedures. 

4.3. 

General trends 

This  paragraph  provides  an  overview  of  trends  and  developments  concerning  the 
reporting years 2004-2011.  

First,  an  overview  is  given  of  the  expenditures  for  the  financial  years  2004–2011, 
followed by the cases of irregularities reported during the same period. These cases 
of irregularities do not only relate to the expenditures concerning the financial years 
2004-2011  but  also  to  expenditures  of  the  financial  years  1990–2004.  Cases  of 
irregularities are normally detected and reported some years after the expenditure due 
to for instance audit plannes which spread audits over the years and due to the type 
of support measures43.  

Important to reiterate is that a higher number of cases reported not necessarily means 
that more irregularities are committed. It is even possible that Member States with a 
higher irregularity rate perform better than Member States with a lower rate. 

43 

Irregularities  can  be  detected  many  years  after  the  granting  of  the  support  due  to  the  conditions 
under  which they are  granted.  The  premium  to  compensate  income  losses  (forestry)  can  concern  a 
period of 20 years from the date of first afforestation; 

EN 

33 

   EN 

 
                                                 
4.3.1.  Reporting Years 2004-2011: expenditure 

Chart  NR5  provides  an  overview  of  the  total  expenditure  for  the  reporting  years 
2004–2011. The amounts are indicated in EUR billion. 

Chart NR5: expenditure 2004-2011 

i

b

n

i
l
l
i

n
o

51

50

53

55

58

56

54

52

50

48

48

R
U
E

e
r
u
t
i
d
n
e
p
x
e

Chart  NR5  shows  that  from 
2007  onwards  the  expenditure 
increased  with  about  EUR  2 
billion  per  year.  Annex  17 
provides  a  more  detailed 
overview  per  Member  State. 
France  is  the  Member  State 
with the highest expenditure. It 
than  EUR  78 
spent  more 
billion  which  is  on  average 
approximately 20% of the total 
agricultural budget. Malta is the Member State with the lowest expenditure and spent 
approximately 65 million which is about 0.02% of the total agricultural expenditure.  

2010

2004

2007

2005

2009

2011

2006

2008

43

47

40

42

44

46

49

France, Spain, Germany and Italy together are responsible for almost 60% of the total 
agricultural expenditure. Spain and Germany had an expenditure of respectively EUR 
52 billion and EUR 51 billion which is approximately 13% of the total expenditure. 
Nine  Member  States  had  an  expenditure  smaller  than  1%  of  the  total  agricultural 
expenditure. 

4.3.2.  Reporting Years 2004-2011: cases of irregularities 

Member  States  reported  17,758  cases  of  irregularities  during  the  reporting  years 
2004–2011. The total amount affected by these irregularities is EUR 918 million.  

Chart  NR6  provides  per  reporting  year  an  overview  of  the  number  of  cases  of 
irregularities reported and the amounts affected.  

EN 

34 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Chart NR6: cases of irregularities and amounts affected (2004 – 2011) 

s
e
i
t
i
r
a
u
g
e
r
r
i

l

f
o

s
e
s
a
c

f
o

°
N

4,000

3,500

3,000

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

R
U
E

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
n

i

d
e
t
c
e
f
f
a

s
t
n
u
o
m
A

200

180

160

140

120

100

80

can 

downfall 

A  strong  downfall  can  be 
noticed in 2007 and 2008. This 
strong 
be 
explained  by  the  CAP-reform 
"decoupled direct aids" and the 
introduction  of  a  new  and 
higher  threshold  under  which 
no  irregularities  have  to  be 
reported44.  

amounts affected

cases of irregularities

Chart NR6 also shows that the 
cases  of  irregularities  and  the 
amounts  affected  increased  from  2009  onwards.  This  trend  can  be  explained  by  a 
higher agricultural expenditure, the introduction of IMS in 2008, the strong growth 
of IMS-users over the last years and efforts made by Member States and Commission 
to increase the quality of irregularity reporting.  

The peak of the amounts affected by irregularities in 2011 is caused by two French 
cases with a total amount affected of about EUR 65 million. Both cases concern one 
specific  fraud  which  should  already  have  been  reported  in  the  period  2001–2003. 
These  two  cases  led  to  a  distorted  picture  for  the  year  201145.  If  these  two  cases 
would  be  left  aside,  the  total  amount  affected  would  be  approximately  EUR  120 
million which is in line with the years 2009 and 2010.  

Remarkable  is  that  the  number  of  cases  of  irregularities  reported  by  the  top  three 
spenders  decreased.  France,  Germany  and  Spain  report  less  and  less  cases.  Chart 
NR7 visualises this downfall. 

Chart NR7: cases reported by France, Spain and Germany 

950

850

750

650

550

450

350

250

150

50

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Spain

France Germany

France,  Germany  and  Spain 
were  in  2004  still  responsible 
for the reporting of more than 
60%  of  the  total  number  of 
cases. 
percentage 
decreased  over  the  years  to 
less  than  20%  although  their 
part  in  the  total  expenditure 
stayed  more  or  less  at  the 
same level. 

That 

44 

45 

The threshold under which no cases of irregularities have to be reported increased from EUR 4 000 to 
EUR 10 000. 
See footnote 41. 

EN 

35 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4.3.3.  Reporting Years 2004-2011: cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent 

Member States reported during the reporting years 2004–2011 in total 1,211 cases of 
suspected fraud. The total amount affected by these cases is EUR 244 million. Chart 
NR8  provides  per  reporting  year  an  overview  of  the  number  of  cases  reported  and 
amounts affected. 

Chart NR8:irregularities reported as fraudulent 

s
e
s
a
c

f
o

°
N

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

R
U
E

n
o

i
l
l
i

m
n

i

d
e
t
c
e
f
f
a

s
t
n
u
o
m
A

91

81

71

61

51

41

31

21

11

1

From  2004  till  2007  included  
the  number  of  cases  and 
amounts  affected  increased. 
In  2008  a  downfall,  due  to 
CAP-reform 
higher 
reporting  threshold,  and  then 
the 
again  an 
number of cases and amounts 
affected till 2010.  

increase  of 

and 

amounts affected

cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent

In  2011,  a  downfall  of  the 
number  of  cases  can  be  seen 
and  an  increase  of  the  amounts  affected.  However,  the  increase  of  the  amounts 
affected  by  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  is  caused  by  the  above  already 
mentioned two French cases with a total amount affected of about EUR 65 million46.  
If these two cases would be left aside, the amount affected by cases of irregularities 
reported as fraudulent would also have decreased. 

NR9: fraudulent

Remarkable  is  that  especially  the  new  Member  States  and  Italy 
report  fraudulent  cases.  Poland  reported  with  297  cases  the 
highest number, followed by Italy with 279 cases. Other Member 
States  with  high  number  of  cases  reported  as  fraudulent  are 
Bulgaria,  Romania  and  Hungary  with  162,  101  and  63  cases 
respectively.  No  such  cases  were  reported  by  Luxembourg  and 
Malta. 

The top three spenders (France, Spain and Germany) reported 52, 
49  and  20  cases  respectively,  which  is  about  10%  of  the  total 
number. To recall, the total expenditure of the top three spenders 
is  almost  50%  of  the  total  agricultural  budget.  On  basis  of  their 
part in the expenditure, a higher number of irregularities reported 
as fraudulent could be expected. 

The sectors most affected by irregularities reported as fraudulent 
are rural development, decoupled direct aids and other direct aids. 
These  sectors  were  indicated  in  respectively  637,  363  and  113 
cases,  which  is  more  than  90%  of  the  total  number  of  cases  of 
irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent.  Annex  18  provides  for  all 

reported as

fraudulent
cases

297
279

162
101
63

52
49

34
32
24

23
20

20
12
9

8
6

5
5
3

3
1

1
1
1

MS

PL
IT

BG
RO
HU

FR
ES

NL
PT
EL

UK
BE

DE
SI
LV

EE
AT

CZ
LT
CY

SE
DK

FI
IE
SK

LU
MT
total

0
0
1 211

46 

See footnote 41 

EN 

36 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
 
sectors an overview of the number of cases and the amounts affected. 

The  number  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  in  which  the  sector  rural 
development was mentioned is more than 50% of the total number of suspected fraud 
cases. 

Most  applied  modus  operandi  in  the  sector  rural  development  is  overdeclaration  of 
land. Table NR10 provides an overview.  

Table NR10: sector rural development - Modus Operandi top 7 

REPORTING YEARS 2004-2011

cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent

type of irreuularity / modus operandi

cases

amounts in €

overdeclaration and/or declaration of ficticious product, species and/or land

documents false and/or falsified

action not implemented

product, species, project and/or activity not eligible for aid

fictitious use or processing

other irregularities concerning the operator/beneficiary

other irregularities (to be specified)

262

140

64

55

43

39

27

7 378 265

11 325 973

2 582 983

6 666 627

1 469 859

1 726 775

1 922 832

Member Sates indicated for 262 cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent that the 
applied  modus  operandi  was  overdeclaration  of  land.  Striking  is  that  260  cases  are 
reported  by  Bulgaria  and  Poland  with  respectively  67  and  193  cases.  The  other  2 
cases  were  reported  by  France  and  Italy.  This  does  not  mean  that  overdeclaration 
does not take place in other Member States. Other Member States also reported cases 
of overdeclaration but did not reported their cases as fraudulent. 

EN 

37 

   EN 

 
 
The  reported  cases  concerning  overdeclaration  of  land  can  be  roughly  subdivided 
into 4 categories: 
1. 
2. 
3. 
4. 

simple overdeclaration caused by calculation or measuring errors; 
intentional overdeclaration by overcalculating or overmeasuring; 
overdeclaration by declaring land not suitable or eligible for support; 
declaration of non-owned land. 

ad 1. simple overdeclaration 
This type is caused by a simple calculation or measuring error due to for instance the 
shape  of  the  land.  It  concerns  normally  small  differences.  The  beneficiary  is  not 
aware  that  too  many  square  meters  were  declared.  These  cases  are  normally 
classified as "irregularity". 

ad 2. intentional overdeclaration by overcalculating or overmeasuring 
Overcalculation  or  overmeasuring  was  done  intentionally  by  adding  extra  square 
meters to the total or by measuring for self-benefit in order to get a higher financial 
support. The beneficiary is aware of the fact that he is declaring more square meters. 
These cases are normally classified as "suspected fraud". 

ad 3. overdeclaration by declaring land not suitable or eligible for support 
Beneficiary  includes  in  his  declaration  also  land  that  is  not  suitable  or  eligible  for 
support.  The  land  is  owned  by  the  beneficiary  but  does  not  fulfil  the  conditions. 
Beneficiary is aware of the fact that not all declared land is suitable or eligible but 
has  the  attitude  "let's  try"  or  "let's  see  if  they  notice  it".    These  cases  are  normally 
classified as "suspected fraud". 

Example: beneficiary owns 100 hectares of land of which 25 hectares are eligible for 
aid. He declares a surface of 75 hectares. 

ad 4. declaration of non-owned land 
Beneficiary  includes  in  his  declaration  also  land  that  is  owned  and  used  by  a  third 
person.  This  could  be  land  that  is  suitable  or  eligible  for  financial  support  but  also 
land that is not suitable or eligible for financial support. The risk of double payment 
exists now also the legitimate owner could apply for financial support. These cases 
are normally classified as "suspected fraud". 

Example:  beneficiary  receives  financial  support  for  agricultural  activities  in  less 
favoured  areas.  The  land  was  not  owned  by  the  beneficiary  but  leased.  A  lease 
contract was included in the documentation that was handed over when the financial 
support  was  requested.  An  audit  learned  that  no  lease  contract  existed  between  the 
owner of the land and beneficiary. The land was also still farmed by the owner.  

Member States indicated in 449 cases concerning the sector rural development that 
the  Modus  Operandi  was  overdeclaration.  As  already  mentioned  above,  262  cases 
were  committed  intentionally  thus  reported  as  fraudulent.  28  of  these  cases  have 
already  been  confirmed  by  Court'  decisions.  187  cases  were  reported  as  non-
fraudulent.  

Table  NR11  provides  an  overview  how  Member  States  classified  cases  of 
overdeclaration concerning the sector rural development. 

EN 

38 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table NR11: classification of cases of overdeclaration 

1

18

49

1
4

MS

total

3
83

AT
BG

HU
IE

3
150

2
2
54

2
2
55

IT
LT
NL

irregularity

DE
FI
FR

cases 

suspected 
fraud

established 
fraud

REPORTING YEARS 2004-2011

classification overdeclaration cases

The impression is that Member 
States  do  not  interpret  and 
of 
classify 
overdeclaration  in  the  same 
way.  The  latter  was  reason  to 
put  the  classification  of  cases 
of  overdeclaration  on 
the 
the  meeting 
agenda 
of 
and  mutual 
"irregularities 
agricultural 
– 
assistance 
products"  of  April  2012. 
Commission 
and  Member 
States  discussed  on  basis  of  a 
case study the classification in 
the 
order 
interpretation and classification of cases. Prior to the meeting, Member States were 
asked  to  interpret  the  facts  and  to  analyse  and  to  classify  the  case.  Member  States' 
interpretation  of  the  facts  led  to  different  classifications.  It  proved  that  Member 
States do not interpret and classify cases in the same way. Especially the question if 
an irregularity has been committed intentionally or not led to different opinions and 
positions.  The  discussion  will  certainly  get  a  follow  up  in  order  to  harmonise  the 
process of irregularity reporting. 

harmonize 

PL
PT
total

218
1
449

25
1
187

to 

7
1
4

8
1
4

234

183

1
4

10

28

1

In  addition  has  to  be  mentioned  that  Member  States  did  not  classify  some  of  their 
cases as suspected fraud although penal sanctions were imposed or penal procedures 
were started. Member States explanations for not classifying such cases as suspected 
fraud vary between "simple mistake" and being afraid for consequences (in private!) 
in case of a wrong classificiation. In some Member States, civil servants can be held 
in person liable for their acts. 

EN 

39 

   EN 

 
4.4. 

Specific analysis 

To  present  reliable  rates  and  levels,  a  time  frame  should  be  used  that  can  be 
considered  as  "finalised".  The  financial  year  2011  cannot  yet  be  used  to  calculate 
final  rates  as  a  large  number  of  cases  concerning  the  financial  year  2011  will  be 
reported in the coming years. Irregularities, fraudulent as well as non-fraudulent, are 
normally  reported  within  a  period  of  two  and  three  years  after  a  subsidy  has  been 
granted. This implies that also the financial years 2008-2010 cannot be considered as 
finalised.  In  addition,  some  cases  are  reported  with  some  delay,  which  implies  that 
cases  concerning  the  financial  year  2007  can  also  still  be  expected,  therefore,  the 
financial years 2007–2011 should be considered as still "on going". 

The financial years 2004-2006 can be considered as finalised47. Member States had 
set  up  audit  strategies  and  audit  plans  and  performed  audits  on  basis  of  these 
strategies  and  plans.  Audit  findings  have  become  definitive  and  irregularities  have 
been  reported.  In  addition,  the  50/50  mechanism  was  applied  by  the  financial 
clearance  decision  for  the  financial  year  2010  on  all  pending  non-recovered  cases 
dating from 2006 or 2002 (cases that were four or eight years old respectively)48.  

Chart NR12: course of cases of irregularities 

5

4

77

46

61

68

56

-50

561

950

750

550

350

150

463

267

626

167

378

689

-250

1058

1513

1,750

1,550

1,350

1,150

of 

of 

expenditures 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

The  course  of  the  number  of 
irregularities  
cases 
reported,  non-fraudulent  as 
well as fraudulent, concerning 
the 
the 
financial  years  2004-2006 
enforces  the  assumption  that 
all  or  almost  all  cases  have 
been reported for the financial 
years 2004-2006. Chart NR12 
demonstrates the course of the 
reported cases for the expenditures of the financial years 2004-2006. The thick blue 
line  indicates  the  course  of  the  reported  cases  of  irregularities  not  reported  as 
fraudulent  concerning  the  financial  years  2004-2006.  In  2006,  Member  States 
reported  1  513  cases  of  irregularities  concerning  the  expenditures  of  the  financial 
years 2004–2006. The smooth light blue line is a trendline that indicates a downfall 
to zero in 2013. In other words, some cases can still be expected but the expectation 
is that these cases will not have a huge impact on the overall figures.  

cases of irregularities not reported as fraudulent
cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent

14

26

The red line indicates the number irregularities reported as fraudulent. The course of 
the  red  line  follows  the  same  pattern  as  the  blue  line  (non-fraudulent  cases  of 
irregularities), only a bit later in time. The latter is caused by the fact that cases of 
irregularities reported as fraudulent are, in general, reported slightly later than other 
cases  of  irregularities.  Apparently,  Member  States  devote  more  care  on  cases  of 
irregularities reported as fraudulent. Also for this type of cases counts that it can be 

47 

48 

In  next  years  report,  the  financial  year  2007  will  be  included  in  the  analysis  to  determine  the 
different rates and levels. 
Commission Decision 2011/272EU of 29 April 2011 

EN 

40 

   EN 

 
                                                 
expected  that  no  more  cases  or  almost  no  more  cases  will  be  reported  for  the 
financial years 2004-2006.  

4.4.1.  Financial Years 2004-2006: cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent 

information, 

This paragraph will focus on the fraud rates for the financial years 2004-2006. The 
rates will be provided per Member State and per financial year. To avoid an overload 
of 
information  on  expenditure,  cases  of 
irregularities reported as non-fraudulent, cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent 
and  the  irregularity  and  fraud  rates  per  Member  State  and  per  financial  year  are 
provided in annexes 19-22 and served as basis for the analysis hereunder.  

tables  with  detailed 

Table  NR  13  provides  per  Member  State  an  overview  of  the  expenditures  for  the 
financial  years  2004–2006,  number  of  beneficiaries  and  the  cases  of  irregularities 
reported  as  fraudulent.  Member  States  are  ranked  on  basis  of  their  expenditure. 
France had the highest expenditure, thus, on top of the table. 

Table NR13: number of beneficiaries and number of fraudulent cases 

amounts in €

29 766 296 358

19 674 141 141
18 601 759 128

16 603 217 858
12 614 994 220
8 620 672 822

5 384 690 535
3 725 541 789

3 663 409 066
3 594 418 609
3 465 673 196

3 010 931 663
2 747 558 608

2 726 736 763
2 624 761 522
1 167 454 352

843 336 587
536 375 095
447 901 595

262 985 005
232 067 058

140 382 921
131 448 784
87 132 979

7 603 540

FINANCIAL YEARS 2004 - 2006

expenditure

number of beneficiaries

 number of cases of irregularities reported as 
fraudulent 

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

638 664

950 116
414 988

1 703 609
413 633
959 169

194 362
81 658

160 009
86 285
21

48 612
71 206

271 150
87 613
754

11
2
2

8
3

5
2 311
0

0

583 800

964 642
411 485

1 494 041
445 782
890 616

151 022
103 058

152 639
82 445
1 410 136

48 582
73 391

268 115
83 322
207 942

18 870
239 172
12 425

65 646
70 141

19 937
2 319
35 987

6 299

547 548

964 191
433 764

1 622 352
270 942
926 345

150 102
108 517

155 148
89 963
1 037 919

49 718
143 205

274 608
79 572
210 810

20 993
233 672
13 992

61 715
81 611

20 893
2 247
39 976

4 076

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

7

145

1

1

2

3

4

1

5

3
3

96
1
12

2

1

136

4

1

1

2

10

3
4

44
1
8

2

127

4

2

1

3

1

140 681 491 195

6 084 191

7 841 814

7 543 879

165

267

210

MS

FR

ES
DE

IT
UK
EL

IE
NL

AT
DK
PL

BE
SE

PT
FI
HU

CZ
LT
SK

SI
LV

EE
LU
CY

MT
BG

RO
total

The total expenditure for the financial years 2004-2006 was almost EUR 141 billion. 
The total amount affected by irreguluarities was more than EUR 253 million which 
implies an Irregularity Rate (IrR) of 0.18%. 

EN 

41 

   EN 

 
 
Member  States  classified  642  cases  (=165+267+210)  as  fraudulent  out  a  total  of 
6,079 cases of irregularities concerning the expenditures of the financial years 2004-
2006, which implies a Fraud Frequency Level (FFL) of 10.20%.  

The  total  amount  affected  by  fraudulent  cases  is  almost  EUR  60  million,  which 
implies a Fraud Rate (FrR) of 0.04% and a Fraud Amount Level (FAL) of 22.35%. 

The 642 cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent were reported by 16 Member 
States which implies that no suspicion of fraud occurred in 9 Member States. In other 
words,  for  9  Member  States  counts  that  none  of  the  irregularities  was  committed 
intentionally.  

Striking  are  the  sometimes  huge  differences  between  Member  States.  Italy  and 
Poland  had  respectively  285  and  265  cases  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent 
while  the  top  three  spenders  (France,  Spain  and  Germany)  together  reported  36 
cases.  

In general counts that the number of cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent is 
low,  in  total  as  well  as  per  Member  State,  especially  when  it  is  brought  in  relation 
with the number of beneficiaries. France granted in the period 2004-2006 subsidies 
to respectively 638 664, 583 600 and 547 548 beneficiaries. 

France  reported  for  the  financial  year  2004,  on  a  total  number  of  638  664 
beneficiaries, one case of suspected fraud, which implies a Fraud Frequency Level – 
Beneficiaries  (FFL-B)  of  0.0002%.  The  FFL-B  is  for  the  financial  years  2005  and 
2006 respectively 0.0009% and 0.0018%. These levels are soo low that it could be 
considered  as  negligible.  The  latter  does  not  only  count  for  France  but  for  all 
Member States.  

In  a  positive  approach  this  would  mean  that  beneficiaries  comply  for  almost  100% 
with the conditions set by the regulations and that there are almost no beneficiaries 
that commit fraud or, to say it in other words, that there are almost no beneficiaries 
that are aware or should be aware of the fact that they commit irregularities. 

In order to be complete, table NR 14 provides an overview of the EU-25 rates and 
levels  per  year  for  the  period  2004-2006.  The last  column  contains  the  average  for 
the whole period. 

EN 

42 

   EN 

 
Table NR14: rates and levels49 

2004

2006

2005

average

IrR
FrR
FAL

0.28%
0.08%
26.61%

RATES AND LEVELS

The  irregularity  rate  (IrR),  fraud 
rate (FrR) and fraud amount level 
the 
(FAL)  are  decreasing 
period  2004-2006.  However,  the 
fraud  frequency  level  (FFL)  is 
FFL
increasing.  The  latter  is  logic 
FFL-B
now  the  total  number  of  cases  of  irregularities  reported  decreased  and  the  cases  of 
irregularities reported as fraudulent increased.  

0.18%
0.04%
22.35%

0.11%
0.02%
19.36%

0.15%
0.03%
21.08%

12.27%
0.00%

10.20%
0.00%

11.76%
0.00%

6.57%
0.00%

in 

4.5. 

Conclusions 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

Approximately  44%  of  the  EU-budget  was  spent  in  the  agricultural  sector,  of  which 
EAGF and EAFRD account for respectively EUR 43.3 billon and EUR 12.2 billion. 

IMS  Module  1848  is  used  by  all  Member  States  and  the  number  of  users  increased 
from approximately 50 in 2008 to more than 1 000 in 2011. 

A  higher  number  of  cases  of  irregularities  reported  does  not  necessarily  mean  that 
more  irregularities  are  committed  or  that  a  Member  State  is  more  vulnerable  for 
irregularities. A  more developed audit strategy, tailor made audits, higher number of 
performed  audits  will  normally  lead  to  a  higher  number  of  detected  irregularities. 
Therefore,  it  is  possible  that  Member  States  with  a  higher  irregularity  rate  perform 
better,  either  in  substance  or  in  their  reporting,  than  Member  States  with  a  lower 
irregularity rate. 

4.5.1.  Reporting Year 2011 

(4) 

The  EU-27-compliance-rate-2011  increased  from  90%  to  93%.  Finland  and  Poland 
improved    the  compliance  rate  for  thereporting  of  personal  data  to  respectively  67% 
and 58%.Timely reporting is still a problem for a large number of Member States. 

(5)  Member States reported 2 395 new cases with a total amount affected of about EUR 
178 million. These cases concern expenditures for the years 1995-2011. Italy reported 
the  highest  number  of  cases  (590)  as  France  reported  the  highest  amounts  affected 
(EUR  72  million).  6  cases  had  a  total  amount  affected  of  more  than  EUR  1  million. 
Luxembourg had no cases of irregularities to report. 

49 

IrR = amount affected by irregularities year n / expenditure year n 
FrR = amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / total expenditure year 
n 
FAL = amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / amount affected by 
irregularities year n 
FFL  =  number  of  cases  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  year  n  /  number  of  cases  of 
irregularities year n 
FFL-B  =  number  of  beneficiaries  involved in  cases  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  year  n  / 
number of beneficiaries year n 

EN 

43 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
 
(6)  Member States reported 139 out of 2 395 cases as fraudulent, which is 6% of the total 
number  of  reported  cases  and  43%  of  the  total  amounts  affected.  These  cases  are 
mainly reported by Italy and young Member States as Bulgaria, Poland and Romenia. 
6 Member States did not report any of their cases as fraudulent.  

(7) 

The number of cases of irregularities and the amounts affected are not equally spread 
over and within Member States. 

(8)  Member States recovered during the year 2011 about EUR 173 million and declared 
irrecoverable  about  EUR  49  million.  The  overall  outstanding  amount  at  the  end  of 
Year 2011 is about EUR 1.2 billion. 

(9) 

The  new  clearance  mechanism  (50/50  rule)  provides  a  strong  incentive  for  Member 
States to recover undue payments from the beneficiaries as quickly as possible. As a 
result, by the end of year 2010, 44% of the new EAGF debts from 2007 and thereafter 
had already been recovered, which is a significant improvement compared to the past. 

4.5.2.  Reporting Years 2004-2011 

(10)  The  figures  concerning  the  years  2004-2011  can  be  used  to  identify  trends.  These 
figures should be considered as half-time-result now still cases of irregularities will be 
reported  for  the  years  2007-2011  and,  to  a  smaller  extent  for  the  years  2004-2006. 
Definitive  figures  can  only  be  determined  of  years  that  can  be  considered,  from  an 
irregularity reporting point of view, as "finalised". 

(11)  The total expenditure for the years 2004-2011 was about EUR 396 billion. The highest 
expenditure  was  made  by  France  (20%)  and  the  lowest  by  Malta  (<  0.1%).  Member 
States  reported  for  these  years  17,758  cases  of  irregularities  with  a  total  amount 
affected  of  about  EUR  918  million  which  implies  a  provisional  irregularity  rate  of 
0.23%.  

(12)  Cases  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  are  not  equally  spread  over  and  within 
the 27 Member States. Poland and Italy are together responsible for almost 50% of the 
total number of these cases. Germany has with 20 cases a rather low number. 

(13)  Sectors for which most cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent  were notified are: 
rural  development,  decoupled  direct  aids  and  other  direct  aids.  Most  frequently  used 
Modus Operandi is "overdeclaration of land". 

(14)  Member States interpret the term "fraud" diffently.  

4.5.3.  Financial Years 2004-2006 

(15)  The  years  2004-2006  can  be  considered  as  finalised  now  audit  plans  have  been 
executed, recovery procedures have been started and irregularities have been reported.  

(16)  The  total  expenditure  for  the  years  2004-2006  was  about  EUR  141  billion.  Member 
States  reported  in  total  6,079  cases  with  a  total  amount  affected  of  about  EUR  279 
million, which implies an EU-25 irregularity rate of 0.18%.  

EN 

44 

   EN 

 
(17)  Member States classified 642 of the 6,079 cases as fraudulent. 550 cases (86%) were 
reported by 2 Member States: Italy and Poland. The other 92 cases were reported by 
14 Member States. 9 Member States did not classify any of their cases as suspected-
fraud or established.  

(18)  The irregularity and fraud rates are very low. 

(19)  The number of beneficiaries that committed fraud is very low, almost negligible. 

EN 

45 

   EN 

 
4.6. 

Fisheries (Annex 23) 

Council  Regulation  (EC)  No  1198/2006  establishes  the  European  Fisheries  Fund 
(EFF) and defines the framework for EU support for the sustainable development of 
the fisheries sector, fisheries areas and inland fishing. 

The  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF)  shall  contribute  to  realising  the  Common 
Fisheries  Policy  (CFP)  objectives,  which  specifically  consist  of  ensuring  the 
conservation  and  sustainable  use  of  marine  resources.  In  order  to  achieve  this,  the 
Fund shall provide financial support aimed at: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

ensure  the  long-term  future  of  fishing  activities  and  the  sustainable  use  of 
fishery resources; 

reduce pressure on stocks by matching EU fleet capacity to available; 

promote the sustainable development of inland fishing; 

help  boost  economically  viable  enterprises  in  the  fisheries  sector  and  make 
operating structures more competitive; 

foster  the  protection  of  the  environment  and  the  conservation  of  marine 
resources; 

encourage  sustainable  development  and  improve  the  quality  of  life  in  areas 
with an active fishing industry; 

promote equality between women and men active in the fisheries sector. 

The  EFF  provides  for  five  priorities:  measures  to  adapt  the  EU  fishing  fleet, 
aquaculture,  inland  fishing,  processing  and  marketing,  collective  action, 
sustainable development of fishing areas and technical assistance. 

4.6.1.  Financial framework 

The EFF has a budget of €4 304 million for th e period 2007-13. Over that period the 
Commission  proposes  to  allocate  on  average  €615 million  per  year  to  the  Member 
States who have decided to benefit from EFF aid (all the Member States except for 
Luxembourg). 

The  amounts  are  divided  between  the  Member  States  according  to  the  size  of  their 
fisheries  sector,  the  number  of  people  working  in  the  sector,  the  adjustments 
considered necessary for the fishing industry and continuity of the measures in hand. 

Except for certain expenditure incurred by the Commission that is 100% covered by 
the EFF, the maximum contribution of the EFF is always calculated as a proportion 
of  the  total  sum  of  all  public  expenditure.  It  varies  according  to  the  priority  of  the 
initiative and will be higher for the regions and Member States covered by the new 
"convergence"  objective  under  the  Structural  Funds.  The  intensity  of  public  aid 
authorised for each operation financed also varies according to the same parameters. 

EN 

46 

   EN 

 
The  Regulation  sets  the  rules  governing  eligibility  of  expenditure,  financial 
management,  financial  corrections,  budgetary  appropriations  and  reimbursement.  It 
establishes a Committee of the European Fisheries Fund to assist the Commission in 
managing the EFF. 

4.6.2.  Management, monitoring and control  

Each Member State must appoint the following bodies before requests for payment 
can be submitted: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

a managing authority for the programme to select and monitor initiatives to be 
financed; 

a certification authority to verify that expenditure complies with EU rules; 

an  audit  authority  to  verify  the  proper  functioning  of  the  managing  and 
certification authorities; 

a monitoring committee, which a representative of the Commission participates 
in for advisory purposes and which assesses progress in reaching the objectives 
of the operational programme. 

4.6.3. 

Irregularities affecting the EFF reported in 2011 

Chapter VIII of Commission Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 of 26 March 200750 lays 
down  detailed  rules  for  the  implementation  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1198/2006 
contains the relevant provisions for the reporting of irregularities to the Commission, 
establishing  a  set  of  rules  that  are  very  similar  to  those  foreseen  for  the  Structural 
Funds. 

In  2011  Member  States  reported  48  irregularities,  of  which  2  were  reported  as 
fraudulent.  These  two  cases  were  reported  by  Germany  and  Poland  for  a  total 
financial volume of about EUR 30 000. 

The  violations  linked  to  these  two  cases  were  categorised  as  ‘False  or  falsified 
supporting documents’ and ‘Expenditure not legitimate’. 

The remaining 46 irregularities not reported as fraudulent involve EUR 1.6 million. 
Spain has reported the largest share of these irregularities (23, for EUR 1.2 million 
involved), followed by Poland (19 for about EUR 300 000 involved). 

The  most  frequent  type  of  reported  irregularity  was  ‘Absence  of  declaration’ 
followed by ‘Not eligible expenditure’. 

Annex 23 provides a complete overview by Member State. 

50 

OJ L120, 10.05.2007. 

EN 

47 

   EN 

 
                                                 
5. 

COHESION FOR GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT (ANNEXES 24-28) 

5.1. 

Introduction 

Since  1986,  the  objective  of  cohesion  policy  has  been  to  strengthen  economic  and 
social  cohesion.  The  Lisbon  Treaty  and  the  EU's  new  high-level  strategy  (Europe 
2020) introduce a third dimension: territorial cohesion. 

This  topic  has  been  under  discussion  since  the  early  1990's,  and  with  each  new 
country that joins the EU, the need to pay attention to the evolution of the European 
territory becomes more acute. 

The programmes financed under the policy for cohesion for growth and employment 
(Cohesion  Policy)  are  implemented  during  several  years  known  as  programming 
periods. 

For the current programming period 2007-2013, the cohesion policy focuses on three 
main objectives: 

• 

• 

• 

Convergence – solidarity among regions: its aim is to 51 

Regional Competitiveness and Employment: its 52 

European  territorial  cooperation  (ETC): 
to  encourage 
cooperation across borders - be it between countries or regions – that would 
not happen without help from the cohesion policy. In financial terms, the sums 
concerned are negligible in comparison with the other two objectives, but many 
countries  and  regions  would  like  to  see  that  change  in  future.  All  regions  are 
concerned.53 

its  aim 

is 

Three  funds  support  the  activities  financed  under  the  Cohesion  Policy.  Chart  SF1 
shows which fund supports which objective. 

51 
52 
53 

EN 

Number of Europeans concerned: 500 million 
Total amount: € 8.7bn (2.5% of total budget) 
Type of projects funded: shared management of natural resources, risk protection, improving transport 
links, creating networks of universities, research institutes etc. 

48 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
Chart SF1: Objective, Structural Funds and instruments 2007-2013 

5.2. 

Irregularities reporting 

The  legal  provisions  setting  the  reporting  obligation  for  the  Cohesion  Policy  are 
contained  in  three  different  regulations.  Regulation  (EC)  No  1681/94  which  covers 
the  four  Structural  Funds54  for  all  programming  periods  until  2000-2006  included; 
Regulation (EC) No 1831/94 on the Cohesion Fund, with the exception of the period 
2007-2013);  and  Regulation  No  1828/2006,  which  covers  the  programming  period 
2007-2013. Annexes 25 to 28 provide details about the irregularities reported under 
the different regulations. 

While  Regulations  Nos  1681/94  and  1831/94  are  almost  identical  in  content,  rules 
have  changed  for  the  programming  period  2007-2013,  for  which  derogations  have 
been  widened  and  reporting  requirements  simplified,  in  particular  in  relation  to  the 
updates of the information concerning recovery. 

In  the  following  paragraphs,  when  referring  to  irregularities  reported  in  2011,  it 
should be kept in mind that, conformly to the reporting obligations, Member States 
shall  notify  irregularities  within  two  months  folliwing  the  end  of  each  quarter. 
Therefore the “reporting period” goes, in fact, from 1st March 2011 until 29 February 
2012. 

5.3. 

Reporting Discipline 

Thanks  to  the  introduction  of  IMS,  the  timeliness,  quality  and  completeness  of 
reported  information  is  satisfactory  in  general.  Only  France  has  not  entirely 
completed its preparations (but started reporting through IMS nonetheless), but it is 
expected to do so in the course of 2012.  

54 

The four Structural Funds financing the Cohesion Policy in the programming period 2000-2006 are: 
a)  The European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), supporting primarily productive investment, 

infrastructure and development of SMEs; 

b)  The  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  supporting  measures  to  promote  employment  (education 

systems, vocational training and recruitment aids); 

c)  The  Guidance  Section  of  the  European  Agricultural  Guidance  and  Guarantee  Fund  (EAGGF-
the  adjustment  of  agricultural  structures  and  rural 

Guidance),  supporting  measures  for 
development; 

d)  The Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), supporting measures for the adjustment of 

the fisheries sector and the ‘accompanying measures’ of the common fishery policy. 

EN 

49 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Minor inconsistencies are still noticed in the classification of the irregularities, as it 
still  happens  that  an  irregularity,  whose  described  modus  operandi  is  ‘false  or 
falsified supporting documents’ is not classified as ‘suspected fraud’ as it would be 
expected. However, these these inconsistencies involve less than 1% (29 on 3 880) of 
the reported irregularities. 

Lastly, still a significant number of irregularities (about 38%), lacks the indication of 
the period in which the irregularity took place, while for the date of establishment of 
the  irregularity  important  improvements  have  been  made  (less  than  4%  missing). 
Therefore all Member States are requested to pay more attention to the reporting of 
the period in which the irregularities took place. 

5.4. 

General trends 

Annex 24 shows the overall trend of the reported irregularities by year. In 2011 the 
number of notified irregularities (both reported as fraudulent or not) and the related 
financial  amounts  involved  decreased  in  relation  to  2010,  by  45%  and  21% 
rispectively.  

The  main  reasons  for  this  significant  decrease  are  linked,  in  particular,  to  the 
“neutralisation” of the “acceleration” to the reporting of irregularities following the 
introduction  of  the  IMS;  to  a  general  improvement  in  the  management  and  control 
sytems;  and  to  the  cyclical  effect  of  the  closure  of  the  programming  period  2000-
2006 (with increased control activities in the latest years of its implementation) and 
the consequent contraction as the programmnig cycle 2007-2013 is implemented in a 
progressive way. 

Accordingly to these decreases, also the impact on the overall resources allocated to 
the Cohesion Policy in the 2011 budget has been decreasing from 3.15% to 2.43%. 

However, it should be kept in mind that reported irregularities refer to programmes 
and  projects  that  are  of  a  multi-annual  nature  and  they  refer  to  four  different 
programming  periods.  Furthermore,  the  budget  for  the  year  2011,  on  which  the 
impact  of  irregularities  reported  by  the  Member  States  has  been  calculated,  is 
indicating the resources allocated to the fifth year of the programming period 2007-
2013, while only a part of the reported irregularities is referred to it. 

This implies that a correct estimation of the impact of irregularities (fraudulent and 
non-fraudulent) on the part of the European budget dedicated to the Cohesion policy 
is  possible  only  through  an  analysis  by  programming  period.  Paragraph  5.5  deals 
with these types of analysis. 

Similarly  to  previous  years,  also  in 2011  the  ERDF  and  the  programmes  related  to 
the  objective  ‘Convergence  (ex-objective  1  for  the  period  2000-2006)  show  the 
highest number of irregularities and related irregular amounts. 

EN 

50 

   EN 

 
For  the  first  time,  irregularities  related  to  the  programming  period  2007-2013  have 
been the most numerous, as showed in Table SF 1. Irregularities concerning the older 
programming periods are still notified, including four reported as fraudulent55 

Table  SF1:  irregularities  reported  in  2011and  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  by 
programming period 

Programming Period

Reported 
irregularities

N

Related amounts

of which, reported as 
fraudulent

related amounts 
(reported as 
fraudulent)

N

1989-1993
1994-1999
2000-2006
2007-2013
TOTAL

3
67
1 381
2 429
3 880

1 145 269
9 242 136
438 663 554
770 585 672
1 219 636 631

4
96
176
276

368 150
31 615 942
172 499 246
204 483 338

FFL

FAL

%

%

0.0%
0.0%
4.0%
6.0%
7.0%
7.2%
7.2% 22.4%
7.1% 16.8%

The countries having reported the highest number of irregularities in 2011 were the 
Poland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, United Kingdom, Greece and the Czech Republic (all 
having  reported  more  than  275  irregularities).  The  highest  irregular  amounts  were 
reported  by  the  Greece,  Italy,  Czech  Republic,  and  Poland  (all  above  EUR  100 
million).  Annexes  25,  26,  and  28  detail  the  number  of  irregularities  and  related 
amounts  reported  by  Member  State  under  the  different  programming  periods  and 
funds. 

Table SF1 also shows the Fraud Frequency Level (FFL) and the Fraud Amount Level 
(FAL), that is to say the percentage of the notified irregularities and of their related 
amounts which have been reported as fraudulent. These shares are quite stable across 
the years and show average values of 9.2% for the FFL and 13.3% for the FAL for 
the period 2001-201156. 

On  the  basis  of  this  estimation,  the  FrR57  of  the  Cohesion  Policy  is  0.46%  of  the 
2011 budget for this policy area, with a significant decrease in relation to 2010, when 
it was 0.74%. 

However,  this  projection  on  the  EU  budget  does not  imply  that  these amounts turn 
out  into  a  loss.  In  fact,  as  indicated  in  Table  SF2,  13%  of  the  financial  amounts 
involved  have  been  prevented  from  being  unduly  spent  and,  furthermore,  those 
which were spent are referred to behaviours potentially fraudulent which have been 
detected by national authorities and for which recovery procedures are ongoing.  

5.5. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent 

In 2011 276 irregularities were reported as fraudulent by Member States58. Reported 
cases  still  refer  to  several  programming  periods,  as  showed  in  Table  SF  1.  The 

55 

56 

57 

58 

The four cases, concerning the programming period 1994-1999, were reported by Germany. two cases 
were classified as suspected and two as established fraud. 
In  relation  to  2010,  the  FFL  value  is  fairly  stable  (7.2%  against  6.6%),  while  the  FAL  is  decreasing 
(18.7% against 23.3%). 
The  definition  of  FrR  is  in  the  CSWD  "Methodology  for  the  statistical  evaluation  of  irregularities 
reported in 2011". 
The Commission Staff Working Document "Methodology for the statistical evaluation of irregularities 
reported in 2011" specifies that, in relation to the Cohesion Policy, is considered "irregularity reported 

EN 

51 

   EN 

 
€
€
 
                                                 
number  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  and  their  related  amounts  are 
decreasing  in  relation  to  the  previous  year  (by  41%  and  44%  respectively),  as 
showed  in  Chart  SF2,  in  line  with  the  overall  decrease  already  highlighted  in 
paragraph 6.2. 

Chart SF2: irregularities reported as fraudulent and related financial amounts – 2007-2011 

600

500

400

N

300

200

100

0

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

R
U
E
n
o

i
l
l
i

m

2007

2008

2009

YEAR

2010

2011

No of irregularities reported as fraudulent

Related amounts

The chart, depurated of its fluctuations, shows a decreasing trend of the number of 
irregularities  reported  as fraudulent, while their financial volume remains relatively 
high. This may point out to a general improvement of the anti-fraud controls put in 
place  by  Member  States,  able  to  target  high  risk  sectors,  involving  higher  amounts 
and, at the same time better preventing fraud. The time series is too short to provide a 
definitive conclusion in this sense, but it is a positive trend worth being analysed also 
in the next years. 

Table SF 2 shows the financial amounts involved in the cases reported as fraudulent 
in 2011 in relation to the amounts effectively disbursed. The difference between the 
two amounts shows the fraud prevention capability of national systems. 

as fraudulent" an irregularity that has been classified as "suspected fraud" or "established fraud" by the 
reporting Member State or "considered as possibly fraudulent" by the Commission on the basis of the 
analysis provided in the irregularity report. 

EN 

52 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Table SF2: cases of suspected fraud reported in 2011, their financial value and its part being 
paid out and the prevention rate by Member State 

Member States

No of irregularities 
reported as fraudulent

Fiancial amounts 
involved

Of which 
disbursed

Prevention 
Rate

AT
BG
CZ
DE
EE
ES
FI
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LV
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL

N

EUR

8
9
11
48
2
5
1
6
2
1
50
9
7
1
51
21
6
1
6
8
23
276

1 100 593
749 919
19 107 756
12 833 878
414 266
132 873
11 257
851 474
128 488
15 672
73 864 102
1 032 525
7 841 921
63 693
79 564 526
959 709
1 193 059
30 015
1 884 581
1 610 649
1 092 383
204 483 338

EUR

592 387
384 128
18 960 755
10 548 590
14 754
74 706
11 257
851 474
83 003
15 672
63 377 892
87 758
1 396 588
35 799
75 019 943
585 495
1 154 537
30 015
1 884 581
1 610 649
974 243
177 694 227

%

46%
49%
1%
18%
96%
44%
0%
0%
35%
0%
14%
92%
82%
44%
6%
39%
3%
0%
0%
0%
11%
13%

Poland, Germany and Italy were the countries having notified the highest number of 
irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent,  while  Estonia,  Lithuania,  and  Latvia  are  those 
which showed the highest fraud prevention rate, with more than 80% of the involved 
amounts prevented from being spent. However these rates are significantly affected 
by the low number of irregularities reported as fraudulent by these countries and the 
low related amounts. 

5.5.1.  Types of fraud by Fund 

Table SF 3 indicates the distribution of the suspected and established fraud cases by 
Fund.  It  should  be  kept  in  mind  that,  as  the  cases  refer  to  several  programming 
periods, all concerned funds are showed. 

EN 

53 

   EN 

 
 
Table SF3: cases of suspected fraud reported in 2011, their financial value and its part being 
paid out and the prevention rate by Fund 

Fund

No of irregularities 
reported as fraudulent

Fiancial amounts 
involved

Of which 
disbursed

Prevention 
Rate

ERDF
Cohesion Fund
ESF
EAGGF - Guidan
FIFG
TOTAL

N

154
10
97
14
1
276

EUR
107 467 866
90 026 518
5 675 180
1 285 908
27 865
204 483 338

EUR
83 058 124
88 935 105
4 491 407
1 181 725
27 865
177 694 227

%

23%
1%
21%
8%
0%
13%

ERDF shows the highest number of cases and related financial volume, but also the 
highest prevention rate; the ESF also presents quite a high number of cases, but the 
related amounts are much lower, in line with the value of the projects supported by 
this  type  of  fund.  On  the  other  side,  the  Cohesion  Fund  presents  the  opposite 
situation, with a low number of irregularities reported as fraudulent but high amounts 
involved.  

The  main  violations  concern  the  use  of  false  or  falsified  declarations,  supporting 
documents  or  certificates  (present  in  almost  47%  of  all  cases),  ineligible  or  not 
legitimate  expenditure  (20%  of  the  cases),  ineligibility  to  receive  the  financial 
support  (23%  of  the  cases)  or  an  incomplete  or  non  adequate  execution  of  the 
projects (18%)59. Violations of the procurement rules in connection with fraudulent 
cases are reported in almost 9% of the cases, followed by irregularities (falsifications 
or other) in relation to the keeping of the accounts (7%). 

From  the  point  of  view  of  the  amounts  involved,  the  violations  related  to  the 
eligibility or the legitimacy of expenditure concerns about 42% of the whole amounts 
involved (and 50% of those paid out), followed by violations linked to procurement 
rules  (33%);  the  use  of  false  or  falsified  documents,  certificates  or  declarations 
interests about 39% of the amounts (and 30% of those paid out). 

Corruption has been reported in three (3) cases, mainly in connection with violation 
of  public  procurement  rules,  for  a  total  amount  of  EUR  700  000  involved  but  the 
whole sum is indicated as being prevented. 

5.5.1.1.  ERDF 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent in relation to the ERDF mostly follow the pattern 
indicated above. The three mentioned cases of possible corruption are related to this 
fund. 

59 

It is important to keep in mind that more than one violation can occur at the same time, and therefore 
the summing up of the percentages presented under this paragraph will exceed 100%. 

EN 

54 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
5.5.1.2.  ESF 

The most recurring violation in relation to ESF financed project is the use of  false or 
falsified supporting documents (41 cases on 96 – 43%). Other violations concern the 
keeping of accounts the eligibility/legitimacy of the expenditure. 

5.5.1.3.  Other funds 

For the Cohesion Fund, there is not an emerging pattern, but the seven reported cases 
refer  to  different  typologies  of  violations  committed,  ranging  from  infringements 
linked to public procurement rules, projects not completed, expenditure unjustified or 
not legitimate, missing documents or use of false or falsified documents. 

For  the  EAGGF  –  Guidance  (programming  period  2000-2006)  the  most  recurrent 
violation  is  the  use  of  false  or  falsified  documents  (in  4  of  the  8  cases  reported  as 
fraudulent), followed by the falsification of accounts (2 on 8). 

For the FIFG (programming period 2000-2006) the only case reported as fraudulent 
concerns the use of false or falsified expenditure. 

5.5.2. 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent – Year 2011 

In  2011  Member  States  reported  3  601  irregularities  as  non-fraudulent,  involving 
some  EUR  1.02  billion  of  irregular  financial  amounts.  The  impact  of  these 
irregularities  on  the  annual  commitment  appropriations  is  about  2%,  decreasing  in 
relation  to  2010  (2.4%).  However,  as  showed  in  Table  SF4  these  reported 
irregularities  concern  4  different  programming  periods,  with  the  highest  number 
related to the 2007-2013 programming cycle. 

Table SF4: irregularities not reported as fraudulent by programming period – year 2011 

Programming Period

No of irregularities not 
reported as fraudulent

Related amounts

Average amount

1989-1993
1994-1999
2000-2006
2007-2013
TOTAL

N

EUR

EUR

3
63
1 285
2 253
3 604

1 145 269
8 873 986
407 047 612
598 086 426
1 015 153 293

381 756
140 857
316 769
265 462
281 674

Table SF5 shows the distribution of these irregularities not reported as fraudulent by 
Fund.  As  irregularities  are  referred  to  several  programming  periods,  all  funds 
involved have been included. 

EN 

55 

   EN 

 
 
Table SF5: irregularities not reported as fraudulent by Fund – year 2011 

Member State

ERDF
Cohesion Fund
ESF
EAGGF - Guidance
FIFG
TOTAL

No of irregularities not 
reported as fraudulent
N

Related amounts

Average amount

EUR

EUR

2 334
185
853
194
38
3 604

683 819 340
155 468 567
96 837 935
70 982 634
8 044 817
1 015 153 293

292 982
840 371
113 526
365 890
211 706
281 674

Table SF6 shows the distribution of these irregularities not reported as fraudulent by 
Member  State.  Countries  that  benefit  from  the  Cohesion  Fund  will,  in  principle, 
show a higher average amount value. 

Table SF6: irregularities not reported as fraudulent by Member State – year 2011 

Member State

No of irregularities 
not reported as 
fraudulent

Related amounts

Average amount

N

EUR

EUR

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK

TOTAL

35
60
42
1
259
245
6
44
376
17
50
307
40
33
339
129
4
34
3
49
674
367
53
6
28
117
286
3 601

15 061 008
3 995 703
4 165 168
23 562
145 267 550
30 034 975
156 598
2 903 779
93 071 811
426 688
13 036 609
309 017 757
3 382 604
2 320 321
119 623 250
53 283 109
65 626
5 078 470
92 826
1 989 674
85 443 723
60 443 649
5 851 081
1 203 594
5 544 408
22 741 549
30 928 203
1 015 074 429

430 315
66 595
99 171
23 562
560 879
122 592
26 100
65 995
247 531
25 099
260 732
1 006 572
84 565
70 313
352 871
413 047
16 406
149 367
30 942
40 606
126 771
164 697
110 398
200 599
198 015
194 372
108 141
281 887

The most recurrent types of infringements linked to the irregularities not reported as 
fraudulent  are  consistent  with  previous  years'  patterns  and  are  mainly  related  to 
infringements of rules concerned with public procurement (36% of the total number 

EN 

56 

   EN 

 
 
 
of irregularities not reported as fraudulent and 47% of the related amounts) and to the 
eligibility of expenditures (29% by number and 18% by amounts). 

5.6. 

Analysis of the 2000-2006 Programming Period– cumulative data 

A  specific  and  detailed  analysis  of  the  programming  period  2000-2006  has  already 
been performed in the Commission Staff Working documents (CSWD) on statistical 
evaluation of irregularities accompanying the Annual Reports for the years 2009 and 
2010.  Therefore,  in  the  present  document  only  some  summary  tables  will  be 
included, to update the main figures and indicators analysed in past years. 

Similarly  to  the  approach  followed  then,  in  order  to  improve  the  comparability 
among the different Member States, the irregularities referred to the Cohesion Fund 
are  not  included  in  relation  to  the  programming  period  2000-2006,  as  an  extensive 
analysis as been performed in the CSWD accompanying the PIF Report 2010. 

The  analysis  is  adapted  to  follow  the  approach  of  the  present  document, 
distinguishing  between  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  and  irregularities  not 
reported as fraudulent. 

5.6.1. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent - programming period 2000-2006 

5.6.1.1.  General overview 

Table  SF7  summarises  the  main  figures  and  indicators  related  to  the  irregularities 
reported as fraudulent in relation to the different funds. 

Table  SF7:  Programming  Period  2000-2006  –  overall  situation  and  main  indicators  by 
Objective 

FUND

ERDF
ESF
EAGGF - Guidance
FIFG
TOTAL

Irregularities 
reported as 
fraudulent
N

854
1 012
437
30
2 333

Related amounts

Payments

EUR
349 977 340
140 527 078
42 342 480
5 854 192
538 701 090

EUR

125 049 191 740
64 737 976 203
21 856 553 391
3 640 556 038
215 284 277 371

FrR

%

0.28%
0.22%
0.19%
0.16%
0.25%

Data showed in Table SF5 differs only slightly in relation to the same table published 
in last CSWD accompanyin the 2010 PIF Report, indicating that a certain “stability” 
of  the  information  has  been  reached  in  relation  to  the  programming  period  2000-
2006 and that the main conclusions highlighted therein maintain their validity. They 
are summarised below. 

– 

Programmes to support regions falling within the scope of the Objective 1 are 
those  presenting  the  highest  fraud  rate,  followed  by  those  related  to  the 
Objective  3.  The  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  impact  on  0.25%  of  the 
overall payments for the programming period 2000-2006. 

EN 

57 

   EN 

 
 
– 

– 

Concerning  the  Funds,  ESF  is  the  fund  affected  by  the  highest  number  of 
irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent,  while  the  ERDF  shows  the  highest  fraud 
rate with 0.28% of the total payments. 

Concerning the situation by Member State, Italy remains the country with the 
highest number of irregularities reported as fraudulent and the highest financial 
volume  related  to  them,  followed  by  Germany,  Poland,  the  United  Kingdom 
and Portugal. An extremely low number of fraudulent irregularities (in relation 
to  the  payments  received  from  the  structural  funds)  has  been  detected  and 
reported  by  Greece  and  France  in  particular;  other  Member  States  having 
communicated  no  or  few  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  are:  Belgium, 
Denmark, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlandsand Sweden, as showed in Table SF8. 

Map  SF1  displays  the  FrR  by  Member  State,  highlighting  the  high  values,  in 
particular, of Italy, Poland, Latvia and Luxembourg. The high FrR of these  Member 
States should be interpreted in a positive way, rather than negative. 

Good anti-fraud systems show, inevitably, bad figures. By good anti-fraud system it 
is  meant  a  system  that  does  not  only  detect  fraud,  putting  in  place  adequate  means 
and resources; but also duly reports it according to the existing rules. These countries 
which  show  some  good  results  in  terms  of  fraud  detection  should  probably  invest 
more resources from the fraud prevention perspective. 

EN 

58 

   EN 

 
Map SF1: FrR by Member State 

EN 

59 

   EN 

 
 
Table  SF8:  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  and  Fraud  Rate  by  Member  State  – 
Programming Period 2000-2006 

MEMBER 
STATE

Irregularities reported 
as fraudulent

Related amounts

Payments

AT
BE
CY

CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
MT
LT
LU
LV
NL
PL
PT
SE
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL

N

EUR

11
4
3

13
362
1
24
157
9
9
9
20
2
1 082
0
10
8
19
3
240
152
8
7
18
162
2 333

468 401
273 720
18 986

4 075 268
67 685 174
43 039
838 341
15 541 570
823 880
219 887
801 196
1 729 920
0
341 482 939

1 215 822
292 071
3 925 020
104 858
60 049 082
18 827 529
238 274
1 805 075
3 336 634
14 904 405
538 701 090

EUR
1 550 554 131
1 871 635 876
53 387 077

1 528 775 313
29 107 317 009
663 761 841
354 919 758
44 142 202 316
1 953 304 518
15 170 266 135
22 241 552 874
1 967 362 514
3 062 543 922
29 141 999 651
63 160 700
865 075 694
69 990 446
624 352 076
2 455 445 454
8 111 293 581
19 914 950 338
1 944 863 010
235 942 553
1 087 524 473
15 455 673 722
215 284 277 371

FrR

%

0.03%
0.01%
0.04%

0.27%
0.23%
0.01%
0.24%
0.04%
0.04%
0.00%
0.00%
0.09%
0.00%
1.17%
0.00%
0.14%
0.42%
0.63%
0.00%
0.74%
0.09%
0.01%
0.77%
0.31%
0.10%
0.25%

5.6.1.2.  Irregularities reported as fraudulent –established fraud 

The prosecution and adequate sanctioning of fraudsters is one of the cornerstones of 
good anti-fraud systems, without which no deterrence can be exercised against those 
who are guilty of such crime. 

In relation to the programming period 2000-2006, Member States communicated the 
establishment of fraud in 203 cases (41 more than last year). 

Table SF9 shows the number of cases of established fraud per Member State and per 
fund. 

EN 

60 

   EN 

 
 
Table  SF9:  N°  of  irregulariites  reported  as  established  fraud  by  Member  State  and  Fund  – 
Programming Period 2000-2006 

Member State

ERDF

N

FUND

ESF

N

EAGGF - 
Guidance

N

No of cases of 
established fraud

Amounts involved

N

EUR

BE
CY
DE
EE
ES
FR
HU
IT
PL
PT
SK
UK
TOTAL

1

22
1
1
1

5
9
1

1
42

1
96
2
1

1
11
6

2
10
130

1

2
27

1
31

1
1
119
3
2
1
1
18
42
1
2
12
203

123 750
273
7 681 597
312 630
63 561
111 904
24 775
4 195 943
1 129 553
40 339
55 085
3 597 704
17 337 114

The  highest  number  of  cases  of  established  fraud  concerns  the  ESF;Germany  has 
been  the  State  the  most  successful  in  completing  the  related  procedures  (119 
decision, from 100 in 2010), followed by Poland (42 from 35), Italy (18 from 14) and 
the  United  Kingdom  (12  from  7).  Information  concerning  new  cases  of  established 
fraud was received from Belgium, Estonia, Portugal and Slovakia. 

In the greatest majority of cases, the use of falsified supporting documents was the 
modus operandi adopted for committing fraud.  

The  average  amount  affected  by  established  fraud  cases  is  about  EUR  200 000  for 
the cases related to ERDF, about EUR 42 000 for ESF and EUR 110 000 for EAGGF 
– Guidance. 

5.6.2. 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent – programming period 2000-2006 

For  the  whole  period  2000-2006,  24  236  irregularities  were  reported  as  non-
fraudulent, involving an overall amount of about EUR 3.8 billion, for an impact of 
1.8% of the total payments (Irregularity Rate). 

Table SF10 shows the irregularities reported as non-fraudulent, their related amounts 
and the impact on the payments by Fund. 

Table  SF10:  Irregulariites  not  reported  as  fraudulent  and  Irregularity  Rate  by  Fund  – 
Programming Period 2000-2006 

FUND

ERDF
ESF
EAGGF - Guidan
FIFG
TOTAL

Irregularities not 
reported as 
fraudulent
N

Related 
amounts

Payments

Net-IrR

12 414 2 847 433 990
605 331 208
274 661 383
56 589 493
24 121 3 784 016 074

8 150
3 139
418

125 049 191 740
64 737 976 203
21 856 553 391
3 640 556 038
215 284 277 371

%

2.3%
0.9%
1.3%
1.6%
1.8%

EN 

61 

   EN 

 
 
€
€
 
Also  in  the  case  of  irregularities  not  reported  as  fraudulent  the  situation  is  rather 
stable in relation to the data published in the CSWD accompanying the PIF Report 
2010, which can be summarised as follows: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

ERDF  is  the  fund  presenting  the  highest  number  of  irregularities  reported  as 
non-fraudulent, related amounts and irregularity rate (2.3%). 

Objective 2 programmes have the highest irregularity rate (2.7%), followed by 
the  Interreg  programmes  (2.1%);  the  Objective  1  programmes  present  an 
irregularity rate that equals the average (1.8%). 

The following Member States have an irregularity rate significantly higher than 
the  average:  Luxembourg  (5.6%),  Slovakia  (5.3%),  the  Netherlands  (4.6%), 
Slovenia  (4.2%),  Czech  Republic  (3.7%),  Austria  and  the  United  Kingdom 
(3.3%). 

The following Member States have an irregularity rate significantly lower than 
the average: France (0.3%), Finland (0.5%), Denmark and Sweden (0.8%). 

5.7. 

Analysis of the 2007-2013 programming period - cumulative data 

An  important  difference  between  the  2007-2013  and  the  2000-2006  programming 
periods  is  the  number  of  funds  involved.  In  the  previous  programming  cycle,  five 
European  Funds  were  providing  the  resources  from  the  EU  budget  (ERDF,  ESF, 
EAGGF – Guidance, FIFG and the Cohesion Fund), while for the current period only 
three are involved (ERDF, ESF and Cohesion Fund).  

Also  in  terms  of  data  available  through  the  reporting  of  irregularities,  some 
differences are present. In particular, for the current period the focus is much more 
on the irregularities reported as fraudulent than fo those not reported as fraudulent. In 
the  first  case,  Member  States  are  requested to submit  also the potential fraud cases 
prevented,  while  in  the  second  case  only  reporting  is  obligatory  only  in  relation  to 
irregularities  for  which  expenditure  has  taken  place  and  it  has  been  certified  to  the 
European Commission.  

For this reason, in relation to the irregularities reported as fraudulent a new indicator 
is introduced in the analysis, i.e. the fraud prevention rate, which is calculated on the 
basis of the amounts which would have been disbursed had the irregularity not been 
detected. 

5.7.1. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent – 2007-2013 programming  period  

Table SF11 shows the irregularities reported as fraudulent by Fund. 

EN 

62 

   EN 

 
Table SF11: Irregularities reported as fraudulent and Fraud Rate by Fund – Programming 
Period 2007-2013 

FUND

ERDF
Cohesion Fund
ESF
TOTAL

Irregularities 
reported as 
fraudulent
N

172
12
123
307

Related amounts

of which 
disbursed

Payments

FrR

EUR
489 793 709
83 547 851
9 351 832
582 693 392

EUR
162 896 641
73 233 451
5 469 694
241 599 786

EUR

57 241 087 081
16 479 121 292
22 610 145 343
96 330 353 716

%
0.86%
0.51%
0.04%
0.60%

Prevention 
Rate

%

67%
12%
42%
59%

The ERDF shows the highest Fraud Rate (0.71%) but, at the same time, it is also the 
fund for which the preventive action by Member States has given the highest results 
(67%). The overall fraud rate is the double than for the 2000-2006 period, but also 
the overall prevention rate is significant (59%), showing positive results in the fight 
against  fraud  obtained  through  the  investigative  actions  conducted  by  Member 
States.  

From  the  perspective  of  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  by  Objective,  the 
Convergence  programmes  show  a  fraud  rate  that  is  significantly  higher  than  the 
others but, at the same time, an important prevention rate (59%) as showed in Table 
SF12. 

Table  SF12:  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  and  Fraud  Rate  by  Objective  – 
Programming Period 2007-2013 

OBJECTIVE

Convergence
Competitiveness
Multiregional
ETC
TOTAL

Irregularities 
reported as 
fraudulent
N

224
36
16
31
307

Related amounts

of which 
disbursed

Payments

FrR

EUR
574 282 816
3 667 913
3 539 323
1 203 340
582 693 392

EUR
236 844 930
1 546 767
2 672 977
535 111
241 599 786

EUR

65 303 372 288
15 145 453 949
14 168 665 631
1 712 861 848
96 330 353 716

%
0.88%
0.02%
0.02%
0.07%
0.60%

Prevention 
Rate

%

59%
58%
24%
56%
59%

Table SF13 presents the same information by Member State. 

EN 

63 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table  SF13:  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  and  Fraud  Rate  by  Member  State  – 
Programming Period 2007-2013 

MEMBER STATE

Irregularities 
reported as 
fraudulent
N

Related amounts

of which 
disbursed

Payments

FrR

EUR

EUR

EUR

3
2
2

17
76

14 273

14 754

6
1
31

107 154 603
4 466 207

407 690 578
7 429 702

443 731
58 166
18 823

1 083 057
42 937
4 621 162

574 851
42 937
1 751 838

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL*
* Total payments do not equal the sum of all Member States' values, as also payments or the ETC programmes are included

443 081 477
721 651 315
952 705 851
182 763 402
4 572 119 788
9 744 280 479
156 864 015
1 314 075 530
12 326 283 793
632 494 608
3 714 581 914
6 359 984 576
6 243 214 808
386 355 113
4 945 534 039
2 547 242 194
16 703 344
1 210 463 188
171 887 965
506 119 956
20 581 550 202
7 789 151 309
1 362 479 220
633 135 893
1 234 147 942
2 279 125 828
3 589 494 119
96 330 353 716

212 193
70 211 894
173 862
1 193 059
1 344 675
1 691 072
5 846 471
514 594
582 693 392

36 299
57 688 771
59 839
1 154 537
216 036
1 691 072
2 846 096
472 040
241 599 786

726 248
48 407
15 672
61 308 439
87 758

726 248
109 438
15 672
70 360 944
1 034 842

3
72
2
6
5
5
10
22
307

5
4
2
16
10

7 870 273

1 229 108

7

Prevention 
Rate

%

47%
0%
62%

74%
40%

97%
100%
24%

0%
56%
0%
13%
92%

84%

83%
18%
66%
3%
84%
0%
51%
8%
59%

%
0.24%
0.01%
0.49%
0.00%
8.92%
0.08%
0.00%
0.03%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.01%
0.00%
0.00%
1.42%
0.04%
0.00%
0.65%
0.00%
0.04%
0.34%
0.00%
0.09%
0.21%
0.14%
0.26%
0.01%
0.60%

Some  countries  have  not  yet  submitted  any  irregularity  reported  as  fraudulent  and 
namely: Cyprus, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Malta. 

The  high  fraud  rate  of  the  Czech  Republic  is  mainly  due  to  a  single  case  which 
involves an extremely high amount. Even without that case, however, the fraud rate 
would remain the highest in the EU. This situation is anyhow balanced by the high 
prevention  rate,  meaning  that  only  a  part  of  the  involved  amounts  are  effectively 
disboursed and need to be recovered. 

Some Member States show very high fraud prevention rates, and in particular Spain, 
Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and the Czech Republic. With 
the exception of the latter, however, the number of reported cases is still too low to 
draw defninitive conclusions in this respect. 

Data concerning the fraud prevention rate are visualised on Map SF2. 

EN 

64 

   EN 

 
 
Map SF2: Prevention rate by Member State 

5.7.2. 

Irregularities reported as non-fraudulent – programming  period 2007-2013 

Table  SF14  shows  the  irregularities  not  reported  as  fraudulent  by  Member  State, 
presenting  also,  for  terms  of  comparison,  the  received  payments  and  the  resulting 
net-irregularity rate.60. 

60 

The net-irregularity rate takes into account exclusively the irregularities not reported as fraudulent.  

EN 

65 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table SF14: Irregularities not reported as fraudulent and Irregularity Rate by Member State 
– Programming Period 2007-2013 

MEMBER STATE

Irregularities not 
reported as 
fraudulent

Related amounts

Payments

Net-IrR

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL*

N

EUR

29
66
109
1
342
175
4
70
147
20
46
278
84
88
94
145
7
52
3
47
918
95
73
14
53
118
503
3 581

2 640 350
4 162 660
13 406 096
23 562
159 010 524
18 032 358
126 867
5 334 142
35 953 236
570 766
12 491 690
140 188 992
28 669 041
2 471 942
43 813 692
62 093 542
234 086
5 565 912
92 826
1 647 936
121 602 973
28 974 117
7 200 484
1 573 479
9 593 407
27 092 036
53 418 404
785 985 121

EUR
443 081 477
721 651 315
952 705 851
182 763 402
4 572 119 788
9 744 280 479
156 864 015
1 314 075 530
12 326 283 793
632 494 608
3 714 581 914
6 359 984 576
6 243 214 808
386 355 113
4 945 534 039
2 547 242 194
16 703 344
1 210 463 188
171 887 965
506 119 956
20 581 550 202
7 789 151 309
1 362 479 220
633 135 893
1 234 147 942
2 279 125 828
3 589 494 119
96 330 353 716

%

0.60%
0.58%
1.41%
0.01%
3.48%
0.19%
0.08%
0.41%
0.29%
0.09%
0.34%
2.20%
0.46%
0.64%
0.89%
2.44%
1.40%
0.46%
0.05%
0.33%
0.59%
0.37%
0.53%
0.25%
0.78%
1.19%
1.49%
0.82%

* Total payments do not equal the sum of all Member States' values, as also payments or the ETC programmes are included

For  most  Member  States  the  irregularity  rate  is  higher  than  for  the  previous 
programming  period,  though  the  overall  result  is  lower.  This  confirms  that  the 
introduction of IMS, the simplification of the rules for irregularity reporting and the 
efforts  made  by  the  Commission  and  national  services  in  the  Member  States  is 
paying  off,  as  the  situation  looks  more  homogeneous  than  in  the  previous 
programming period. 

Differently  from  the  previous  period  and  consistently  with  the  analysis  of  the 
irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  for  the  2007-2013  cycle,  the  highest  rates  are 
related to the programmes within the Convergence objective. 

5.7.3.  Recovery 

For  the  2007-2013  programming  period,  Member  States  are  obliged  to  provide  the 
Commission  with  clear  and  structured  data  on  the  amounts  withdrawn  from  co-
financing  before  the  national  recovery  is  finalised  and  the  amounts  effectively 

EN 

66 

   EN 

 
 
recovered from beneficiaries at national level. This information is showed in annex 
27. 

5.8. 

Conclusions 

5.8.1.  Analysis of irregularities reported in 2011 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

The  completeness  and  accuracy  of  irregularity  reporting  keep  on  improving 
and the introduction of IMS is playing an important role both on the quality 
and quantity of the reported irregularities. The Commission is grateful to all 
Member  States  having  successfully  implemented  the  system  for  their 
continuous  efforts  to  improve  the  quality  of  their  reports  and  encourages 
France to complete their preparation for a full exploitation of the system. The 
improvements  are  particularly  evident  in  relation  to  the  reporting  of 
irregularities for the programming period 2007-2013. 

In  2011,  Member  States  have  detected  and  reported  3 880  irregularities, 
involving an overall amount of EUR 1.22 billion. Reported irregularities and 
related  financial  amounts  have  been  significantly  decreasing  in  comparison 
with 2010 (45% by number of cases and 21% in financial volume). The main 
reasons for this decrease is the “neutralization” of the cyclical increase due to 
the closure of the programming period 2000-2006 and of the implementation 
of  the  new  reporting  system  IMS,  which  has  produced  an  acceleration  in 
reporting in 2010, absorbed in 2011. 

Similarly  to  the  overall  trend,  also  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  and 
their related amounts have significantly decreased in 2011 in relation to 2010, 
rispectively by 41% and 44%. 

ERDF  and  ESF  remain  the  funds  with  the  highest  number  of  irregularities 
reported as fraudulent. Poland, Germany and Italy have submitted the highest 
number of irregularities reported as fraudulent. 

The  main  violations  concern  the  use  of  false  or  falsified  documents 
(supporting  documents,  certificates,  declarations).  This  is  the  most  used 
instrument  to  either  to  try  and  inflate  the  costs  of  the  project  or  to  prove  a 
(non-existing)  right  to  obtain  the  financial  support.  Violation  of  public 
procurement  rules  is  also  an  important  infringement  reported  in  relation  to 
fraudulent cases. Corruption has been detected in three cases. 

5.8.2.  Programming Period 2000-2006 

(6) 

(7) 

All main conclusions established in the CSWD accompanying the 2010 PIF 
Report maintain their validity. 

Italy, Poland, Latvia and Luxembourg present the highest Fraud Rates among 
Member States. A higher number of irregularities reported as fraudulent does 
not necessarily mean that more irregularities or fraud are committed or that a 
Member  State  is  more  vulnerable  to  them.  A  more  developed  audit  or  anti-
fraud  strategy,  tailor  made  audits,  higher  number  of  performed  audits  or 
investigations will normally lead to a higher number of detected irregularities 

EN 

67 

   EN 

 
and  fraud.  Therefore,  it  is  possible  that  Member  States  with  a  higher 
irregularity  or  fraud  rate  perform  better  tan  Member  States  with  a  lower 
irregularity or fraud rate. 

(8) 

An  extremely  low  number  of  fraudulent  irregularities  (in  relation  to  the 
payments received from the structural funds) has been detected and reported 
by  Greece  and  France 
in  particular;  other  Member  States  having 
communicated  no  or  few  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  are:  Belgium, 
Denmark, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlandsand and Sweden. A low fraud rate 
concerns  also  Spain.  These  results  could  indicate  either  a  lower  fraud 
detection  capability  or  the  fact  that  a  part  of  detected  fraud  may  remain 
unreported. 

(9) 

Germany is the most successful Member State in completing procedures for 
the establishment of fraud in relation to the programming period 2000-2006, 
followed by Poland and Italy. 

5.8.3.  Programming Period 2007-2013 

(10) 

In  comparison  with  the  previous  period  the  amounts  related  to  irregularities 
reported as fraudulent are higher. However a significant fraud prevention rate 
is also emerging from the analysis of data. This may suggest that anti-fraud 
controls are more targeted and focused on high risk areas. This trend needs, 
anyhow, to be strngthened by future data. 

(11)  Most Member States show very high fraud prevention rates, and in particular 
Spain,  Estonia,  Lithuania,  Latvia,  Sweden,  the  Netherlands,  and  the  Czech 
Republic. With the exception of the latter, however, the number of reported 
cases is still too low to draw defninitive conclusions in this respect. 

(12)  Programmes most affected by irregularities are those implemented under the 

Convergence objective. 

(13)  Some countries have not yet submitted any irregularity reported as fraudulent 

and namely: Cyprus, Denmark, France, Luxembourg, Malta. 

EN 

68 

   EN 

 
6. 

PRE-ACCESSION FUNDS (ANNEXES 29-30) 

The descriptive statistical analysis presented hereinafter relates to the developments 
in  the  area  of  enlargement  and  assistance  provided  to  enhance  administrative 
capacities during the pre-accession period for candidate countries and to assist in the 
fulfilment of the Copenhagen criteria for EU membership. 

The  forthcoming  analysis  is  limited  to  the  programmes  implemented  under 
decentralised management subject to irregularity reporting obligation established by 
Financing  Agreements  and  other  relevant  EU  legislation.  It  mainly  covers  the 
programming  period  2000-2006,  though  some  information  is  also  referred  to  the 
financial perspectives 2007-2013. 

Agenda  200061  set  up  two  financial  mechanisms,  ISPA62  and  SAPARD63,  to 
complement  the  actions  of  the  PHARE64  programme,  which  has  been  the  EU  aid 
programme for the EU-1265 since 1990. The 10 Member States that joined the EU in 
2004 received a Transition Facility in 2004-2006. Bulgaria and Romania received a 
Transition Facility in 2007 which is regarded as post-accession assistance.  

Croatia  benefits  from  several  types  of  pre-accession  assistance  like  Community 
Assistance  for  Reconstruction,  Development  and  Stabilisation  (CARDS)  (2001-
2004),  PHARE  and  ISPA  (2005-2006)  as  well  as  SAPARD  (2006).  It  is  the  only 
country subject to reporting CARDS66 irregularities since 200667. 

Turkey  has  been  receiving  pre-accession  assistance  since  200268.  The  financial 
support  provided  falls  under  two  periods:  2002-2006  -  Turkish  Pre-accession 
assistance (TPA) with a total allocation of EUR 1 249 million and 164 projects and 
2007-2013 – Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance (five components) with a total 
allocation of EUR 4 873 million. 

61 

62 

63 
64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

On 26  March 1999,  at  the  Berlin  European  Council,  the Heads  of  Government  or States  concluded a 
political agreement on Agenda 2000 
ISPA  programme  dealt  with  large-scale  environment  and  transport  investment  support  in  candidate 
countries. 
SAPARD programme has supported agricultural and rural development in candidate countries. 
PHARE programme applied to candidate countries, principally involving institution building measures 
(and  associated  investment)  as  well  as  measures  designed  to  promote  economic  and  social  cohesion, 
including cross–border co–operation.  
The following abbreviations are used to describe groups of countries: 
a) EU-12 designates all Member States having acceded the EU since 2004; 
b) EU-10 indicates Member States having acceded in 2004; 
c) EU-2 refers to Member States having acceded in 2007; 
d) CAND identifies candidate countries. 
Community  Assistance  for  Reconstruction, Development and  Stabilisation  applied  to Western  Balkan 
countries  
Commission  Decision  PE/2006/148  of  07/02/2006  conferring  management  of  aid  provided  under 
PHARE and CARDS to an Implementing Agency in Croatia 
European financial contribution in the framework of pre-accession strategy was first granted to Turkey 
under Council Regulation 2500/2001. 

EN 

69 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
Since  1st  January  2007  EU  pre-accession  assistance  has  been  channeled  through  a 
single  Instrument  for  Pre-accession  Assistance  (IPA)69  designed  to  deliver  support 
for  candidate  and  potential  candidate  countries.  The  preliminary  allocation  for  IPA 
country programmes in the period 2007-2013 is EUR 8.4 billion (in 2010 – EUR 1.6 
billion). 

6.1. 

Reporting discipline 

In general the communications received via IMS are complete. Some mistakes can be 
still  encountered  in  relation  to  the  financial  aspects  of  the  reports,  but  the  level  of 
completeness of the reported information is close to 100% for all countries. Also in 
terms of timeliness the reporting behaviour is satisfactory. 

The improved completeness of the information allows now for some assessment of 
the  data  quality.  Here  some  inconsistencies  are  still  detected,  concerning  dates 
related  to  the  irregularity  or  to  its  detection  or  to  the  correct  assessment  of  the 
irregularity (fraudulent / non-fraudulent). 

6.2. 

General Trends 

The following analysis intends to provide an overview of the reported irregularities 
in 2011 and to compare the reporting trends observed during the period 2002 -2011.  

In 2011, 247 irregularities were reported on pre-accession funds (PHARE, SAPARD, 
ISPA,  Transition  Facility  (TF),  CARDS,  Turkish  pre-accession  instrument  -  TPA) 
from the Member states and Candidate countries.  

The  total  European  contribution  amount  affected  by  irregularities  in  2011 
(programming period 2000-2006) was EUR 58.5 million. For the 2007-2013 period, 
in 2011 20 irregularities were reported involving EUR 1.3 million. 

Annexes 29 and 30 provide more details about the information above, distinguishing 
also by Fund. 

6.2.1.  Overall trend 

A word of caution before presenting the general trends is necessary, considering that 
a wider variety of pre-accession instruments is covered due to different programming 
periods;  that  the  ongoing  enlargement  process  now  addresses  different  beneficiary 
countries;  and  that  Member  states  and  Candidate  countries  do  not  necessarily  have 
the same approach towards reporting.  

In fact, reporting countries happen to be at different stages of the project cycle. The 
EU-10  group  has  finalised  the  projects  and  reports  very  few  new  cases,  the  focus, 
however, remains on administrative and judicial follow-up. The EU-2 group reports a 
significant  number  of  newly  detected  cases  which  certainly  affect  the  overall 
tendency. Turkey has been reporting consistently, while Croatia shows a significant 

69 

Council Regulation (EC) No 1085/2006 

EN 

70 

   EN 

 
                                                 
decrease of  irregularities reported, probably due to delays in the implementation of 
the IMS; FYROM has been reporting its first irregularities70.  

The  number  of  reported  irregularities  has  continued  decreasing  by  another  37%  in 
relation to 2010 and by 30% in amounts. 

6.2.2. 

Irregularities reported as fraudulent 

6.2.2.1.  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  in  relation  to  Pre-Accession  Assistance  (2000-

2006) 

SAPARD remains the fund for which the highest number of irregularities reported as 
fraudulent  are  received  (38  on  a  total  of  47).  Table  PA1  shows  the  distribution  of 
such irregularities and their related amounts per Fund. 

Table PA1: Irregularities reported as fraudulent by Fund – Pre-Accession Assistance 

Funds

ISPA
PHARE
SAPARD
TPA
TOTAL

Irregularities reported 
as fraudulent
N

3
4
38
2
47

Involved amounts

EU R

7 253 158
317 472
2 688 083
683 569
10 942 282

Table PA2 shows how these irregularities are distributed by Beneficiary Country. 

Table  PA2:  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  by  Beneficiary  Country  –  Pre-Accession 
Assistance 

Beneficiary 
Countries

Irregularities reported 
as fraudulent
N

BG
PL
RO
TR
TOTAL

4
26
15
2
47

Involved amounts

EU R

7 516 614
619 521
2 122 578
683 569
10 942 282

Poland has reported the highest number, while the most significant financial amounts 
affected  by  such  fraudulent  irregularities  were  detected  in  Bulgaria.  In  comparison 
with previous years, overall figures are decreasing for all countries but Poland.  

Concerning  SAPARD,  the  types  of  infringements  detected  mainly  concern  the 
violation of rules for public procurement proceedings, funding from different public 
sources which exceeded the maximum allowed, failure to meet the criterion of access 
to  the  aid  and  lack  of  necessary  documents,  the  use  of  falsified  supporting 

70 

Similarly  to  the  Cohesion  Policy,  however,  derogations  to  the  reporting  obligations  have  also  been 
widened. 

EN 

71 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
documents, and in particular falsified offers. A case involving conflict of interest was 
also identified. Three cases were investigated by OLAF. 

Chart  PA1  shows  the  type  of  entities  involved  in  the  irregularities  reported  as 
fraudulent in relation to SAPARD. 

Chart PA1: Type of entity involved in the irregularities reported as fraudulent 

Limited Liability
Company

Other type of company

Public entity

Consortium

Association

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

The three ISPA irregularities reported as fraudulent concern Bulgaria. One of them 
stems  from  an  OLAF  investigation.  The  legal  entities  involved  are  three  consortia 
and  the  violations  mainly  are  related  to  supporting  documents  (missing  or 
incomplete). 

The three cases relatad to the Pre-Accession Facility for Turkey mainly concern false 
declarations (concerning works performed or staff employed) and violation of public 
procurement rules. All three cases involve local public bodies (municipalities). 

The  four  cases  related  to  PHARE  all  concern  Romania  and  are  mainly  linked  to 
ineligible  or  unjustified  expenditure.  In  two  cases  public  entities  were  involved, 
while in the other two one association and to companies. 

6.2.2.2.  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  in  relation  to  the  Instrument  for  Pre-Accession 

(2007-2013) 

The  IPA  component  that  was  affected  by  the  highest  number  of  irregularities 
reported  as  fraudulent  is  the  Human  Resources  Development,  as  showed  in  Table 
PA3. 

EN 

72 

   EN 

 
 
Table  PA3:  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  by  IPA  Component  –  Instrument  for  Pre-
Accession 

Component

Cross Border
Human Resources Development
Rural development
Regional Development
Technical Assistance
TOTAL

Irregularities reported as 
fraudulent
N

Involved amounts

EUR

1
2
3
2
1
9

856 800
38 951
87 332
0
0
983 083

The  highest  amounts,  however,  concern  the  Cross  Border  component,  due  to  an 
important case reported by Italy (see Table PA4). 

Table  PA4  shows  how  these  irregularities  are  distributed  by  Beneficiary  Country. 
One  of  these  concerns  Italy,  as  the  Managing  authority  of  the  Cross  Border 
cooperation programme is located there and was directly involved in the irregularity. 

Table  PA4:  Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  by  Beneficiary  Country  –  Instrument  for 
Pre-Accession 

Beneficiary Countries

Irregularities reported as 
fraudulent
N

IT
MK
TR
TOTAL

1
3
5
9

Involved amounts

EUR

856 800
87 332
38 951
983 083

The  type  of  violations  committed  mainly  concern  the  use  of  false  or  falsified 
supporting documents and the violation of rules concerning public procurement. The 
legal  entities  involved  in  these  violations  are  Corporations  (in  3  cases),  Limited 
Liability Companies, and Public bodies. 

6.2.3. 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent 

6.2.3.1.  Irregularities  not  reported  as  fraudulent  in  relation  to  Pre-Accession  Assistance 

(2000-2006) 

The  196  irregularities  not  reported  as  fraudulent  by  the  Beneficiary  countries  are 
distributed across the different funds according to Table PA5. 

EN 

73 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table PA5: Irregularities not reported as fraudulent by Fund – Pre-Accession Assistance 

Funds

ISPA
PHARE
SAPARD
TPA
Transitional Facility
TOTAL

Irregularities not 
reported as 
fraudulent
N

37
36
109
13
1
196

Involved amounts

EUR

23 232 612
5 166 687
18 534 726
686 593
5 549
47 626 167

Like in previous years, the majority of these irregularities still concerns SAPARD, as 
visualised in Chart PA2. 

Chart PA2: Irregularities not reported as fraudulent by Fund – Pre-Accession Assistance 

Transitional Facility
1%

TPA
7%

ISPA
19%

PHARE
19%

SAPARD
54%

In line with previous years’ trends, the majority of these irregularities were reported 
by  Bulgaria  and  Romania,  but  their  numbers  keeps  on  declining  since  2009.  Table 
PA6 shows the distribution of these irregularities across the Beneficiary Countries. 

EN 

74 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table PA6: Irregularities not reported as fraudulent by Beneficiary Country – Pre-Accession 
Assistance 

Beneficiary 
Countries

Irregularities not 
reported as fraudulent

Involved 
amounts

BG

EE
HR
HU
LT
PL
RO
SK
TR
TOTAL

N

36

1
2
3
2
8
130
1
13
196

EUR
19 318 496

72 897
81 292
62 825
2 804 135
6 054 497
18 545 433
0
686 593
47 626 167

The  majority  of  the  violations  concerned  the  failure  to  respect  contract  conditions 
and  the  impossibility  to  complete  the  financed  action  due  to  the  insolvency  of  the 
beneficiary. 

6.2.3.2.  Irregularities  reported  as  non-fraudulent  in  relation  to  the  Instrument  for  Pre-

Accession (2007-2013) 

Eleven irregularities were reported as non-fraudulent in relation to four components, 
as showed in Table PA7. 

Table  PA  7:  Irregularities  not  reported  as  fraudulent  by  IPA  Component  –  Instrument  for 
Pre-Accession 

Component

Cross Border
Human Resources Development
Regional Development
Technical Assistance
TOTAL

Irregularities not reported 
as fraudulent
N

Involved amounts

EUR

1
8
1
1
11

17 700
174 732
0
100 927
293 360

The  eleven  irregularities  were  reported  by  two  countries,  Croatia  and  Turkey,  as 
showed in Table PA8. 

Table PA 8: Irregularities not reported as fraudulent by Beneficiary Country – Instrument for 
Pre-Accession 

Beneficiary Countries

Irregularities not reported 
as fraudulent
N

HR
TR
TOTAL

1
10
11

Involved amounts

EUR

17 700
275 660
293 360

EN 

75 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
The  most  recurring  typologies  of  detected  irregularities  were  failure  to  respect 
contract  conditions,  violations  of  public  procurement  rules  and  irregularities 
concerning the supporting documentation. 

6.2.4.  Recovery for the Pre-Accession Assistance – Cumulative results 2002-2011 

Recovery  becomes  a  topical  issue  when  the  project  cycle  is  about  to  close. 
Administrative  procedures  (recoveries  and  sanctions)  together  with  effective 
prosecution are the cornerstones of fraud prevention.  

Once  more,  it  is  interesting  to  analyse  the  reporting  issue  in  relation  to  a  whole 
programming  period  rather  than  on  yearly  basis,  as  more  recent  years  will  always 
present recovery rates which are far lower.  

Table  PA  9  demonstrates  the  recovery  situation  per  country.  The  table  provides  an 
overview for all the years and all the funds. It presents the recovery rate which is the 
percentage  of  the  total  amount  recovered  on  the  irregular  amounts  effectively 
disbursed.  

Table PA 9: Recovery by Beneficiary Country, cumulative results – Pre-Accession Assistance 

Irregularities not reported as fraudulent

Irregularities reported as fraudulent

Beneficiary 
country

Involved amounts

Amounts to be 
recovered

Cumulative 
Recovery Rate

Involved 
amounts

Amounts to be 
recovered

BG
CY
CZ
EE
HR
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
RO
SI
SK
TR
TOTAL

EUR

54 741 016
23 807
2 919 980
6 505 895
8 921 975
5 804 149
7 398 606
1 124 290
112 620
12 807 513
118 062 968
1 598 263
11 690 443
3 395 296
235 106 820

EUR
14 046 149
0
1 281 150
641 334
346 651
1 475 700
2 652 578
899 545
0
7 626 052
42 219 649
36 079
6 708 448
2 477 822
80 411 157

%

74.3%
100.0%
56.1%
90.1%
96.1%
74.6%
64.1%
20.0%
100.0%
40.5%
64.2%
97.7%
42.6%
27.0%
65.8%

EUR

59 765 170
0
0
216 149
447 368
773 734
131 895
1 576 011
0
1 537 142
32 480 685
0
99 748
1 899 920
98 927 822

EUR
4 920 095
0
0
0
0
405 122
0
1 576 011
0
687 203
27 697 986
0
85 966
816 395
36 188 778

Cumulative 
Recovery 
Rate
%

91.8%

100.0%
47.6%
100.0%
0.0%

55.3%
14.7%

13.8%
57.0%
63.4%

However,  these  figures  reflect  only  the  information  provided  in  the  irregularity 
reports, but do not take into account the recoveries and financial corrections made by 
the Commission. 

EN 

76 

   EN 

 
 
6.3. 

Conclusions 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

In  2011  reported  irregularities  and  related  irregular  amounts  confirmed  the 
decreasing tendency already started in 2010.  

The decrease is visible for all funds and almost for all beneficiary countries. 
The  majority  of  the  new  detected  and  reported  cases  are  still  related  to  the 
SAPARD fund. 

Recovery rate has significantly improved in comparison with previous years 
and  the  cumulative  results  now  indicate  that  about  65%  of  the  amounts 
unduly  paid  out  has  been  recovered.  The  positive  trend  concerns  also  the 
irregularities repoted as fraudulent. 

EN 

77 

   EN 

 
7. 

DIRECT EXPENDITURE – CENTRALISED DIRECT MANAGEMENT 

7.1. 

Introduction 

This chapter contains a descriptive analysis of the data on recovery orders issued by 
Commission  services  in  relation  to  expenditures  managed  under  ‘centralised  direct 
management’71, which is one of the four implementation modes the Commission can 
use to implement the budget. This chapter is based on data retrieved from the ABAC 
system,  which  is  a  transversal,  transactional  information  system  allowing  for  the 
execution  and  monitoring  of  all  budgetary  and  accounting  operations  by  the 
Commission. The system was developed by the Commission to facilitate compliance 
with the requirements of the Financial Regulation and its implementing rules. 

For  the  analysis  presented  in  this  chapter,  however  the  following  distinction  will 
apply72: 

– 

– 

the  category  of  ‘Irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent’  comprises  of  
irregularities  which  were  notified  to  OLAF  by  the  Commission  services;  and 
irregularities  which  have  not  been  reported  as  fraudulent  by  the  Commission 
services, however whose fraudulent nature could be derived on the basis of the 
analysis of the information73. 

on the other hand, ‘Irregularities not reported as fraudulent’ are any other 
type  of  reported  irregularities,  for  which  fraudulent  nature  has  not  been 
ascertained. 

7.2. 

Analysis of irregularities reported as fraudulent 

In 2011, the Commission services registered 922 recovery orders in ABAC that were 
qualified as irregularities. The committed budget for these 922 recoveries was EUR 
6.7 billion, of which EUR 51.4 million was identified as irregular74. 

7.2.1.  Financial amounts involved 

Among the 922 recoveries registered in 2011, 24 recoveries have been qualified by 
the Commission services as suspected fraud and subsequently reported to OLAF; and 
another  10  recoveries  can  be  considered  as  fraudulent;  even  if  originally  they  have 
been  qualified  as  simple  irregularities.  The  financial  impact  of  these  34  recoveries 
accounts for EUR 1.5 million. 

71

72

73

74

In  accordance  with  Article  53a  of  the  Council  Regulation  (EC,  Euratom)  No  1605/2002  (‘Financial 
Regulation’) and Commission Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 2342/2002 (‘Implementing Rules’). 
Please  see  section  3.2  on  ‘Definitions  applied  in  the  analyses’  of  the  Working  document  on 
Methodology regarding the Statistical Evaluation of Irregularities. 
For instance where the description of the modus operandi is related to the use of falsified documents, or 
to inappropriate accumulation of aid, OLAF considers the nature of these irregularities fraudulent. 
The financial impact of a case of suspected fraud can only be determined following the conclusion of an 
OLAF  investigation.  It  is  only  at  the  end  of  judicial  proceedings  (‘res  judicata’)  that  a  case  can  be 
qualified as fraud and that the actual amount of fraud can be established. 

EN 

78 

   EN 

 
                                                 
 
 
 
 
However, the recovery amounts should be compared to the overall budget committed 
under the centralised direct management, which corresponds to an average amount of 
EUR 10 billion per financial year. 

Table  DE1  gives  an  overview  of  the  financial  commitments75  related  to  recoveries 
recorded in 2011 by policy domain (‘internal policies’ and ‘external actions’) as well 
as of the number and financial amounts involved in the recoveries. 

Table DE 1:  Commitments for which recoveries were issued in 2011 (number and amounts) 
by policy domain. 

Area

Internal policies
External actions
Total

Commitments 

Recoveries

EUR x 1000

5 035 041
1 687 080
6 722 121

%
74.9
25.1
100

N

806
116
922

%
87.4
12.6
100

EUR x 1000

32 229
19 150
51 379

%
62.7
37.3
100

Recoveries in 
% of 
Commitments

%

0.6
1.1
0.8

The  table  shows  that  the irregular amounts only represent 0.8% of  the value of  the 
commitments  concerned  by  the  recoveries.  More  recovery  orders  were  issued  for 
commitments  made  under  the  internal  policies  domain  than  the  external  assistance 
actions, but the relative share of recoveries in commitments is higher in the external 
actions area. 

Table  DE2  provides  a  more  detailed  classification  of  the  policy  areas  by  budget 
headings.  It  gives  information  only  in  relation  to  the  budget  headings  where 
irregularities occurred. Yet, there is not always a direct link between the budget title 
or budget line and the Directorate General dealing with its implementation, as several 
DGs can share the appropriations on a budget line. Consequently, the information in 
this table does not refer to the number of irregularities fraud per Directorate General. 

75

 For the calculation of commitments, see section 4.3 of the Working document on Methodology regarding the Statistical Evaluation of 
Irregularities 

EN 

79 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
Table DE 2:  Recoveries (number and amounts) by qualification and budget heading, 2011. 

Budget Heading

Commitments 

not  reported as fraudulent

Irregularities

EUR x 1000

N

%

EUR x 1000

%

freedom, security

Area of
and justice
Budget
Communication

and

and

social

Development and relations
with African, Caribbean and
Pacific (ACP) states
Education and culture
Employment
affaires
Energy
Enlargement
Enterprise
Environment
action
External relations
Humanitarian aid
Information
media
Maritime
fisheries
Mobility and transport
Research
Trade
Total

climate

society

affairs

and

and

343 974
4 352
54 591

280 004
1 502

99 776
74 305
17 741
9 908

154 888
75 567
473 996

79
1
19

25
1

5
1
25
50

18
37
3

8.9
0.1
2.1

2.8
0.1

0.6
0.1
2.8
5.6

2.0
4.2
0.3

2 105
769
110

3 927
5

107
153
1 767
1 635

4.2
1.5
0.2

7.9
0.0

0.2
0.3
3.5
3.3

1 844
11 772
440

3.7
23.6
0.9

662 433

329

37.0

17 057

34.2

206 258
112 874
2 224 088
19 901
4 816 158

8
64
220
3
888

0.9
7.2
24.8
0.3
100

1 347
1 357
5 471
5
49 869

2.7
2.7
11.0
0.0
100

reported as fraudulent
EUR x 1000

N

1

1

11

2

5
1

10

3
1

34

751

203

175
26

318

35
0

1 510

As  it  appears  from  the  table,  most  of  the  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  are 
linked  to  commitments  made  in  the  area  of  external  actions.  The  budget  heading 
‘Development and relations with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) states’ alone 
counts for almost one-third of the number and exactly the half of associated amounts 
of  recovery  orders  that  proved  to  be  fraudulent.  Moreover,  the  latter  together  with 
budget  headings  ‘Enlargement’,  ‘External  relations’  and  ‘Humanitarian  aid’  count 
already  76.5%  of  the  recoveries  and  82.4%  of  the  recovery  amounts  qualified  as 
irregularities of fraudulent nature. Nonetheless, it should be pointed out that the sum 
of recovery amounts in the ‘external action’ area is only EUR 1.2 million, whereas 
the related committed amount was EUR 1.7 billion in 2011. 

When  looking  at  the  other  irregularities  not  reported  as  fraudulent,  the  area  of 
external actions counts for 10.1% of the recoveries and 35.9% of recovery amounts. 
On  the  other  hand,  in  the  internal  policy  area,  budget  heading  ‘Information  society 
and media’ stands out with the highest figures both in terms of number and amount. 
‘Research’  comes  to  the  second  place  regarding  the  number,  and  third  place  (after 
‘external  relations’)  regarding  the  recovery  amounts.  Yet,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the 
very nature of these areas imply the high number of contracts, and hence the higher 
number of recovery orders. Moreover, the explanation for the relatively high number 
of  irregularities  resides  in  the  fact  that  Commission  services  duly  detect  and  report 
irregularities in ABAC. 

EN 

80 

   EN 

 
 
7.2.2.  Recoveries by geographic area and Member State 

Table  DE3  summarizes  the  recoveries  per  geographical  area,  where  the  beneficiary 
of the EU funding resided. 

Table DE 3: 
2011. 

 Recoveries  (number  and  amounts)  by  region  of  residence  and  qualification, 

Contractor place of 
residence

Commitments

ACP
the Americas
Asia & Central Asia
EFTA
ENP & Russia
EU
PA
Total

EUR x 1000
187 193
61 879
54 844
156 756
427 666

N
761
986
1 088
332
644
5 397 935 28 131
645
6 412 347 32 587

126 074

Irregularities

not  reported as fraudulent

N

9
7
8
65
15
767
17
888

%

1.0
0.8
0.9
7.3
1.7
86.4
1.9
100.0

EUR x 1000
2 664
161
459
2 724
10 857
31 894
111
49 869

%

5.3
0.3
0.9
5.5
21.8
64.0
2.2
100

reported as fraudulent
N
EUR x 1000

%

1

32
1
34

19

1.3

1 431
60
1 510

94.8
4.0
100

This year almost all the recoveries qualified as ‘irregularity reported as fraudulent’, 
related to beneficiaries residing inside the EU and only two (one in Thailand and one 
in Turkey) appeared outside of it. These 32 recoveries in the EU account for 95% of 
irregular cases qualified as fraudulent both in number and in amount. 

From the perspective of other irregularities not reported as fraudulent, the number of 
beneficiaries  residing  in  the  European  Union  is  similarly  the  highest  (86.4%  of 
recoveries and 64% of the recovery amounts), not surprisingly though, as the number 
of commitments and the related committed amounts are also the highest for the EU 
in the direct expenditure area. 

The remaining 121 recovery orders (13.6%) were issued to entities residing outside 
the EU, for a total amount of EUR 18.0 million (36.0%). In the latter category, the 
amount  of  recoveries  relates  to  entities  in  the  ENP  &  Russia  countries  with  total 
value of irregular amount EUR 10.8 million, followed by beneficiaries residing in the 
EFTA states (5.5% or EUR 2.7 million). Thirdly, the ACP countries as beneficiary 
residences count for 5.3% of the irregularities or EUR 2.6 million irregular amounts. 

Table DE4 gives an overview of the recoveries per Member State of residence of the 
entities in the European Union and the qualification of the recovery. 

EN 

81 

   EN 

 
 
Table DE 4:  Recoveries (number and amounts) by Member State and qualification, 2011. 

Contractor place 
of origin

Commitments

not reported as fraudulent

reported as fraudulent

Irregularities

EUR x 1000

N

N

%

EUR x 1000

%

N

EUR x 1000

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV 
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SK
SI
SE
UK 
Total EU

129 829
855 882
24 963
13 608
38 723
141 153
14 895
74 231
519 781
61 878
104 096
37 342
9 993
482 571
22 549
23 227
341 319
14 863
350 929
168 117
95 647
29 808
21 633
28 728
404 032
19 358
547 718
5 397 935

410
7 959
226
151
273
466
137
263
1 956
2 333
481
278
249
4 229
261
210
1 352
160
2 148
429
325
207
141
136
959
350
2 042
28 131

30
61
2
6
13
77
11
3
61
60
7
89
9
6
118
3
12
5
14
49
9
10
10
23
3
2
74
767

3.9
8
0.3
0.8
1.7
10
1.4
0.4
8
7.8
0.9
11.6
1.2
0.8
15.4
0.4
1.6
0.7
1.8
6.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
3
0.4
0.3
9.6
100

877 568
1 975 025
780 974
27 404
42 882
2 056 996
235 423
8 947
4 123 933
4 498 836
172 649
2 788 017
414 894
179 454
4 551 591
11 429
1 434 967
32 138
212 462
852 303
70 875
477 711
274 783
1 133 682
2 153
30 698
4 240 514
31 894 245

2.8
6.2
2.4
0.1
1.3
6.4
0.7
0
12.9
14.1
0.5
8.7
1.3
0.6
14.3
0
4.5
0.1
0.7
2.7
0.2
1.5
0.9
3.6
0
0.1
13.3
100

3

2
1
3
1

5

3
1
2
4

1
3

104

203
10
25
76

109

133
1
34
588

3
91

3
32

53
1 431

Out of the 32 recoveries qualified as ‘irregularity reported as fraudulent’, more than 
two recoveries were issued to beneficiaries residing in the following Member States: 
Spain (5 recoveries), Italy (4 recoveries), Belgium, Germany, France, Poland and the 
United  Kingdom  (3  recoveries  each).  The  highest  aggregate  amounts  involved  in 
irregularities of a fraudulent nature were recorded for beneficiaries residing in Italy, 
Cyprus, France and Spain. 

Substantially  higher  irregular  recovery  amounts  can  be  found  in  relation  to 
qualifications  ‘irregularity  not  reported  as  fraudulent’.  The  highest  aggregate 
recovery  amounts  in  the  latter  category  concern  beneficiaries  registered  in  Italy, 
Spain, the United Kingdom, and Greece. Although the aggregate recovery amounts 
are above EUR 4 million each, they are related to numerous (in total 313) recovery 
orders. 

7.2.3.  Method of detection 

For each recovery order, the Commission service that issues the order has to indicate 
how  the  irregularity  has  been  detected.  Six  different  categories  have  been  pre-
defined,  two  of  which  fall  under  the  direct  responsibility  of  the  European 
Commission: On-the-spot checks and the verification of documents by desk officers 
and financial officers responsible for the implementation of the commitment. Table 

EN 

82 

   EN 

 
 
DE5  gives  a  breakdown  of  the  recoveries  by  method  of  detection  and  by 
qualification. 

Table DE 5:  Recoveries (number and amounts) by method of detection and by qualification, 
2011.  

Method of detection

not  reported as fraudulent

reported as fraudulent

N

%

EUR x 1000

%

N

%

EUR x 1000

%

Irregularities

by

national

Control
authorities
Community control / Check
on the spot
Community control / Desk
check documents
OLAF

2

0.2

825

1.7

542

61.0

17 855

35.8

7

20.6

648

42.9

161

18.1

8 625

17.3

European Court of Auditors

4

0.5

68

0.1

control
engineers,

Independent
(supervising
auditors, ..)
Other
Total

161
18
888

18.1
2.0
100

22 034
463
49 869

44.2
0.9
100

1
16

1

4
5
34

2.9
47.1

2.9

11.8
14.7
100

76
590

5.0
39.0

1

0.1

57
139
1 510

3.8
9.2
100

Almost half of the ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ was detected by OLAF: the 
16 recoveries account for 47.1% of the number and 39.0% of the recovery amounts. 
Secondly,  ‘Community  controls’  proved  to  be  the  other  efficient  tool  to  discover 
irregularities.  This  means  that  in  2011,  70.6%  of  the  number  of  irregularities  that 
proved to be fraudulent and 87.0% of the related amounts were detected by ‘OLAF’ 
and ‘Community controls’. 

The picture is slightly different in case of ‘irregularities not reported as fraudulent’. 
Though in this category too, it is by means of ‘Community controls’ that most of the 
irregularities  were  found.  In  the  second  place,  it  was  ‘Independent  control’  that 
discovered  the  second  highest  number  of  irregularities  with  equally  the  second 
highest aggregate recovery amounts. 

7.2.4.  Types of error 

The  Commission  services  also  have  to  indicate  the  type  of  error  that  was  detected 
when  the  recovery  order  was  issued.  The  number  of  categories  is  relatively  higher 
compared  to  e.g.  the  method  of  detection,  and  the  interpretation  of  these  findings 
must be done with care as several types of error may be attributed to one recovery. 
Consequently,  Table  DE6  presents  the  number  of  occurrences  and  the  related 
aggregate  amounts  a  type  of  error  appeared  when  analysing  the  34  recoveries  that 
were  qualified  as  irregular  and  reported  as  fraudulent.  This  means  that  the  figures 
presented  below  are  by  no  means  equal  to  the  number  of  actual  recoveries  and 
related amounts recorded in 2011. 

EN 

83 

   EN 

 
 
Table DE 6: Occurrence of types of error - qualification: irregularity reported as fraudulent 
(number of occurrences and aggregate amounts), 2011 

Type of error

in accordance with the

Action not
rules
Calculation error
Deadline not respected
Expenditure declared not related to
the action
Expenditure not covered by legal
base
Falsified documents

Inappropriate accumulation of aid
Incomplete Documents
Incorrect rates used in calculating
the claim
Missing Documents
Public procurement procedures not
respected
Recoverable VAT, interest received
not correctly reflected

Irregularities reported as fraudulent
Occurrence
N
%

Financial weight
%

EUR x 1000

1
7
1

5

3
16

7
2

2
10

1

1

1.8
12.5
1.8

8.9

5.4
28.6

12.5
3.6

3.6
17.9

1.8

1.8

60
691
53

612

69
573

163
84

20
714

60

1

1.9
22.3
1.7

19.7

2.2
18.5

5.2
2.7

0.6
23.0

1.9

0.0

For one-quarter of the recoveries qualified as irregularity of a fraudulent nature, more 
than  one  type  of  error  was  indicated.  The  above  table,  therefore  points  out  how 
frequently a type of error occurred and how much aggregate financial weight can be 
attributed to each of it. 

The  most  frequently  registered  type  of  error  is  ‘Falsified  documents’  followed  by 
‘Missing documents’. Thirdly, ‘Inappropriate accumulation of aid’ appears also to be 
often  marked  as  error  regarding  an  irregularity.  These  three  types  of  error  are 
registered  for  58.9%  of  the  occurrences  and  46.8%  of  the  aggregate  recovery 
amounts related to them. 

Turning  to  other  irregularities  (not  reported  as  fraudulent)  another  pattern  can  be 
depicted.  The  type  ‘Action  not  in  accordance  with  the  rules’  occurs  the  most 
frequently, then secondly the type 'Expenditure not covered by legal base’ and thirdly 
‘Public procurement procedures not respected’. These types of error are signalled in 
56.2% of the occurrences to which 70.1% of financial weight is linked. Further high 
occurrence can be found in relation to the following errors: ‘Incorrect rates used in 
calculating the claim’, ‘Missing documents’ and ‘Calculation error’. 

7.2.5.  Time delay 

For  the  recovery  orders  issued  in  2011,  which  were  qualified  as  the  ‘irregularity 
reported as fraudulent’, the average delay between the occurrence of the irregularity 
and  its  detection  is  4  years  and  3  months.  However,  one-third  of  the  cases  were 
detected  and  reported  shortly  after  the  irregularity  was  perpetrated.  The  method  of 

EN 

84 

   EN 

 
 
detection, the type of irregularity or the recovery amount does not seem to affect the 
time delay. 

7.3. 

Recovery 

This  paragraph  describes  the  payments  made  to  the  Commission  further  to  the 
issuing of the recovery orders. Once a recovery order is issued, the beneficiary has to 
pay back the undue payment or the amount is offset from remaining payments. 

Table DE 7:  Recoveries in 2011 (number and amount) by payment status and qualification. 

Classification

reported

Irregularity not
as fraudulent
Irregularity reported as
fraudulent

Total

Recovered (cashed)
N

EUR x 1000

To recover (open)
N

EUR x 1000

656

26

682

32 102

752

32 855

232

8

240

17 767

758

18 524

The  recovery  rate  for  recoveries  qualified  as  ‘irregularity  reported  as  fraudulent’  is 
49.8%; meanwhile the rate for other irregularities is higher: 64.4%. So far, 63.9% of 
the accepted recovery amounts are cashed. 

7.4. 

Conclusions 

The above analysis is based on the irregularities detected in the expenditure managed 
by the Commission on a centralised direct basis, as registered in the recovery context 
of  the  Commission's  financial  system  ABAC.  However,  the  recovery  context  has 
only started functioning in 2008. 

It has to be also taken into consideration that for the analysis of recoveries registered 
in year 2011, a revised methodology76 has been applied. 

Due to the fact, that year after year the number of recovery orders issued change as 
well as the associated recovery amounts, any comparison with previous year’s results 
can only be done with due care. 

Table DE8 gives, therefore, only an indicative picture by placing this year’s rates in 
parallel with those of preceding years. 

Table DE 8:  Summary table for 2011 – Fraud rates 

INDICATOR

Fraud Rate (FrR)
Fraud frequency level (FFL)

Fraud amounts level (FAL)
Irregularity Rate (IrR)

2011
%

2010
%

2009
%

2008
%

0.02

3.69
2.94

0.78

0.02

2.06
8.44

0.27

0.01

2.13
5.39

0.17

0.02

2.04
9.31

0.17

76  See Working document on Methodology regarding the Statistical Evaluation of Irregularities 

EN 

85 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
(1) 

(2) 

It  is  only  a  tiny  part  of  the  Commission  expenditures  that  is  concerned  by 
irregularities.  The  recovery  orders  issued  in  2011  qualified  as  irregularities 
relate to 0.8% of the overall amounts paid by the Commission. The recovery 
orders classified as ‘irregularities reported as fraudulent’ are even lower and 
affect  0.02%  of  those  payments.  The  aggregated  amount  of  the  recovery 
orders  issued  in  2011  that  proved  to  be  irregular  represents  0.6%  of  the 
commitments  (in  relation  to  which  irregularity  was  detected)  made  by  the 
Commission for internal policies and 1.1% for external actions. 

34  recovery  orders  were  found  to  be  irregular  and  of  a  fraudulent  nature, 
which  is  higher  than  last  year’s  figure.  However  their  financial  impact  this 
year  is  smaller  than  in  2010.  On  the  other  hand,  the  number  of  other 
irregularities  decreased  compared  to  the  previous  years  by  a  bit  more  than 
10%, though the financial impact of them has risen by EUR 10 million. 

(3)  Most  of  the  irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent  are  linked  to  commitments 
made in the area of ‘external actions’. The sum of recovery amounts in that 
area  is  EUR  1.2  million.  In  the  ‘internal  policy’  area,  the  budget  heading 
‘Information  society  and  media’  stands  out  with  the  highest  figures  both  in 
terms of number and amount. ‘Research’ comes to the second place. 

(4) 

(5) 

(6) 

(7) 

(8) 

In  the  perspective  of  the  geographical  distribution  of  irregularities  (reported 
as fraudulent or not), almost all the recoveries concerns beneficiaries residing 
in the European Union. Though, similarly the number and value of contracts 
(commitments) are also the highest for the EU in the direct expenditure area. 

Half  of  the  ‘irregularities  reported  as  fraudulent’  was  detected  by  OLAF. 
Furthermore,  in  line  with  the  previous  years,  the  most  frequent  method  of 
detection  remains 
'Community  controls'  regarding  both  categories  of 
irregularities (reported as fraudulent and other irregularities). 

In  relation  to  irregularities  for  which fraudulent  nature  is  reported,  the  most 
frequently  registered  type  of  error  is  ‘falsified  documents’  followed  by 
‘missing  documents’  and  by  ‘inappropriate  accumulation  of  aid’.  Whereas, 
other  irregularities  follow  a  different  pattern:  here,  the  type  ‘Action  not  in 
accordance  with  the  rules’  occurs  most  frequently,  followed  by  type 
'Expenditure  not  covered  by  legal  base’  and  thirdly  by  ‘Public  procurement 
procedures not respected’. 

For  the  recovery  orders  issued  in  2011  and  qualified  as  fraudulent,  the 
average  delay  between  the  irregularity  and  its  detection  is  4  years  and  3 
months. 

The  recovery  rate  for  recoveries  qualified  as  ‘irregularity  reported  as 
fraudulent’  is  49.8%;  meanwhile  the  rate  for  other  irregularities  is  higher: 
64.4%. So far, the Commission has already recovered or offset 63.9% of the 
total  recovery  amounts  related  to  recovery  orders  (qualified  as  irregular) 
issued in 2011. 

EN 

86 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEXES 

EN 

87 

   EN 

 
ANNEX 1 – SUMMARY OF FINANCING OF THE GENERAL BUDGET BY CLASS OF OWN RESOURCE AND BY MEMBER 

STATE, IN MILLION EUR 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 2 - EVOLUTION OF BUDGET PAYMENT APPROPRIATIONS BY HEADING IN 2011 (IN MILLION EUR) 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 3 – NUMBER OF CASES OWNRES AND AMOUNTS – PERIOD 2008-2011 PER MEMBER STATE 

Member State

AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
EL
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
SE
UK

CY
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
SI
SK

EU-15 TOTAL

EU-10 TOTAL

BG
RO

EU-2 TOTAL
EU-27 TOTAL

EN 

2008

2009

2010

2011

N

104
378
1 833
59
521
21
316
42
54
321
1
910
29
71
1 079
5 739
14
65
17
71
64
25
3
141
26
17
443
19
75
94
6 276

EUR

15 787 167
12 825 558
102 551 896
4 379 957
28 182 292
1 035 615
15 420 696
2 117 139
1 908 762
32 537 871
109 902
44 981 541
1 901 045
6 056 584
78 359 620
348 155 645
781 475
4 923 906
700 606
5 867 227
1 473 369
943 213
279 533
5 207 117
883 519
411 378
21 471 343
38 084
6 996 469
7 377 309
377 004 297

N

168
313
1 353
48
527
30
287
35
56
315
0
746
23
67
805
4 773
11
69
11
66
47
19
7
144
51
22
447
34
59
93
5 313

EUR

21 628 952
7 598 212
91 010 855
9 345 382
30 419 837
1 710 974
19 481 112
2 104 052
3 646 353
38 882 718
0
30 564 915
91 002
5 426 160
59 109 586
321 839 128
718 211
4 250 860
235 755
5 648 511
1 803 573
1 007 289
1 762 703
4 926 998
2 581 068
1 955 201
24 890 169
955 592
8 270 855
9 226 447
355 955 744

EUR

10 366 559
23 813 009
92 642 316
24 092 179
92 891 108
1 419 298
25 079 520
3 147 264
1 873 490
45 737 800
0
38 103 850
923 479
4 905 268
35 455 516
400 450 656
521 143
9 511 667
161 236
8 207 134
2 020 355
1 510 864
495 717
3 015 263
1 298 472
1 121 908
27 863 759
617 099
9 579 145
10 196 244
438 510 659

N

77
177
1 212
76
389
55
323
45
28
290
0 
734
18
53
771
4 248
4
49
3
66
45
34
1
132
21
10
365
30
53
83
4 696

EUR
3 446 807
5 719 743
77 083 981
3 727 476
41 269 145
4 033 254
22 703 295
3 703 561
740 017
30 597 377
0 
30 777 719
77 156
9 503 289
44 581 323
278 658 547
171 891
2 924 041
122 937
2 429 711
16 435 450
1 073 324
75 168
8 419 096
1 281 529
351 877
33 285 024
288 537
8 461 893
8 750 430
320 694 001

N

166
301
1 470
50
478
32
275
51
37
351
0
878
29
57
835
501
11
72
5
73
39
18
2
104
44
14
382
51
101
152
5 544

90 

Change 
cases 
2010-2011

Change 
amount 
2010-2011

%

%

-53.61%
-41.20%
-17.55%
52.00%
-18.62%
71.88%
17.45%
-11.76%
-24.32%
-17.38%
0.00%
-16.40%
-37.93%
-7.02%
-7.66%
-15.21%
-63.64%
-31.94%
-40.00%
-9.59%
15.38%
88.89%
-50.00%
26.92%
-52.27%
-28.57%
-4.45%
-41.18%
-47.52%
-45.39%
-15.30%

-66.75%
-75.98%
-16.79%
-84.53%
-55.57%
184.17%
-9.47%
17.68%
-60.50%
-33.10%
0.00%
-19.23%
-16.45%
93.74%
25.74%
-30.41%
-67.02%
-69.26%
-23.75%
-70.40%
713.49%
-28.96%
-84.84%
179.22%
-1.30%
-68.64%
19.46%
-53.24%
-11.66%
-14.18%
-26.87%

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 4 – OWNRES CASES PER MEMBER STATE 

OWNRES CASES BY MEMBER STATE

NUMBER OF CASES

2.000 

1.800 

1.600 

1.400 

1.200 

1.000 

800 

600 

400 

200 

-

AT BE DE DK ES FI FR EL IE IT LU NL PT SE UK CY CZ EE HU LT LV MT PL SI SK BG RO

MEMBER STATE

2008

2009

2010

2011

EN 

91 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 5 – IMPACT ON CUSTOM PROCEDURE FREE CIRCULATION 

YEAR

CASES

IMPACT CASES ON TOTAL

AMOUNTS ESTABLISHED

N

%

EUR

IMPACT AMOUNTS 
ESTABLISHED ON TOTAL
%

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

4 252

4 330

3 964

3 921

3 508

66.19%

68.99%

74.61%

70.73%

74.70%

338 949 229

313 230 562

300 859 224

350 444 431

255 386 878

83.97%

83.08%

84.52%

79.92%

79.64%

EN 

92 

EN 

 
  
 
 
CN

PRODUCT

2009

AMOUNT
EUR

CASES
N

2010

2011

CN

PRODUCT

AMOUNT
EUR

CASES
N

CN

PRODUCT

AMOUNT
EUR

CASES
N

ANNEX 6 – TOP 10 CHAPTER HEADINGS 

85

61

24

87
62
84
64

73
29

16

TVs and parts etc.

79.509.563 

822

85

TVs and parts etc.

83.771.261

825

85

Clothing

32.711.865 

294

84

Machines

39.525.166

376

24

Tobacco / cigarettes
(Parts of) cars / 
motors
Clothing
Machines
Footwear
Articles of iron and 
steel
Organic chemicals

25.008.622 

395

17

22.607.144 
16.811.076 
15.949.662 
14.859.503 

14.619.185 
13.636.576 

296
352
378
208

258
174

87
16
8
64

24
61

Food

11.617.137 

79

73

Sugar
(Parts of) cars / 
motors
Food
Vegetables
Footwear

Tobacco / cigarettes
Clothing
Articles of iron and 
steel

34.847.045

48

73

21.524.757
20.172.049
18.595.585
18.290.159

17.689.908
15.998.067

375
58
64
240

378
290

87
84
61
64

62
39

14.142.059

199

15

Oil

TVs and parts etc.
Tobacco / 
cigarettes
Articles of iron 
and steel
(Parts of) cars / 
motors
Machines
Clothing
Footwear

Clothing
Plastic

54.023.552

27.700.623

19.707.674

17.864.814
17.498.626
16.957.517
15.202.797

15.058.098
10.478.569

10.323.857

625

315

273

295
289
219
187

366
259

48

EN 

93 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 7 – GOOD AFFECTED BY FRAUD AND IRREGULARITY – PERIOD 2009-2011 

2009

2010

2011

TARIFF 
CODES

CASES

AMOUNTS

N

EUR

TARIFF 
CODES

CASES

AMOUNTS

N

EUR

TARIFF 
CODES

CASES

AMOUNTS

N

EUR

24022090

85219000

85393190

16041416

61046300

7032000

61091000

87032410

38249091

85365080

85285990

85287119

29310095

4021019

84279000

55032000

87032319

64041990

87120030

29371200

63022100

61159399

39232100

8030019

85299092

319

100

47

28

1

79

51

20

3

4

65

41

3

4

39

18

16

19

37

1

10

2

79

5

32

21 421 811 85219000

116

28 490 970 24031090

19 571 667 17019910

14 443 910 84148022

9 677 039 8030019

9 500 000 16041416

12

56

33

9

28 324 123 24022090

23 423 061 85365019

18 032 400 94054039

13 693 520 15132110

8 748 032 24022090

285

11 846 402 2071410

8 657 549 85393190

8 558 340 85287119

5 989 211 85285990

5 427 349 20091199

4 294 857 18061090

4 204 038 21069098

3 962 877 32159080

3 914 753 87120030

3 610 700 85258019

3 591 001 17019100

51

89

56

4

13

28

11

97

17

10

9 712 114 85219000

9 564 445 85078030

8 730 046 85269120

8 003 403 21069098

7 627 746 87032410

7 207 185 7032000

6 491 852 85234059

5 278 410 85287119

5 063 458 28362000

4 747 327 87120030

3 544 464 7032000

119

3 850 592 22071000

3 450 601 16041469

3 406 831 64029996

3 356 160 64039113

2 968 779 2071410

2 860 760 32041100

2 568 510 39053000

2 495 501 85299092

2 219 806 61091000

3 702 308 64041990

3 656 003 39232100

3 379 830 73121081

3 067 586 61091000

2 932 986 84148022

2 769 147 84099100

2 636 807 17029095

2 611 972 15119090

1

6

11

20

11

1

33

57

94 

6

224

6

93

1

18

62

3

14

31

16

40

3

46

1

56

3

21

56

32

38

23

5

2

1

14 981 205

9 540 170

6 779 299

6 005 080

5 807 520

5 726 035

5 665 566

5 367 741

5 139 397

5 121 656

4 919 771

4 792 896

4 648 836

4 578 921

4 142 980

3 699 122

3 578 475

3 468 990

3 452 557

3 089 575

2 969 264

2 754 279

2 455 787

2 426 886

2 330 073

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 8 – FRAUD AND IRREGULARITIES: BREAKDOWN BY ORIGIN OF GOODS 

2009

2010

2011

COUNTRY

AMOUNTS
EUR

CASES
N

COUNTRY

AMOUNTS
EUR

CASES
N

COUNTRY

AMOUNTS
EUR

CASES
N

China

150 377 763

1 976 China

169 650 163

2 107 China

123 618 181

1 719

United States of America

36 739 337

559 United States of America

42 123 902

627 United States of America

41 032 825

521

Japan

18 490 151

226 Spain

27 607 308

6 Not known 

16 384 332

595

Hong Kong

17 050 453

81 Brazil

23 521 043

88 Zimbabwe

14 825 002

Not known 

16 025 219

551 Ecuador

17 165 777

29 Brazil

13 682 958

1

92

Bangladesh

10 612 396

132 Ceuta

15 143 431

40

Japan

9 791 472

128

Argentina

Seychelles and 
dependencies

9 727 022

39 Not known 

14 010 239

598

Indonesia

8 255 834

2 El Salvador

11 316 546

14 Taiwan

9 351 590

7 755 008

18

76

Vietnam

7 761 012

46 South Korea

9 754 225

126 Malaysia

7 273 100

163

South Korea

7 257 446

96

Japan

9 076 895

177 United Arab Emirates

5 384 463

23

EN 

95 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 9 – SEIZED AND CONFISCATED GOODS (cigarette CN 2402 2090) 

MEMBER 
STATES

CASES

AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
EL
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
SE
UK
EU-15
BG
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
RO
SI
SK
EU-12
EU-27

N
1
5
4
0
0
4
20
11
11
16
0
0
0
3
82
157
0
0
0
0
4
2
9
1
31
11
2
0
60
217

2009
ESTIMATED OR 
ESTABLISHED AMOUNT 
OF TOR
EUR
20 227
548 111
74 421
0
0
88 151
989 920
2 007 421
6 822 040
2 426 867
0
0
0
80 105
5 846 358
18 903 621
0
0
0
0
420 216
115 057
490 369
60 912
863 505
4 807 384
96 818
0
6 854 261
25 757 882

CASES

N
1
4
1
0
0
1
14
16
21
23
0
21
2
5
32
141
18
0
0
0
1
9
11
0
23
8
1
0
71
212

2010
ESTIMATED OR 
ESTABLISHED AMOUNT 
OF TOR
EUR
80 841
200 828
257 634
0
0
63 244
1 183 412
2 693 790
5 642 987
4 287 095
0
1 577 170
61 062
611 337
1 563 384
18 222 784
1 642 061
0
0
0
138 743
364 612
744 757
0
1 074 817
2 673 233
96 297
0
6 734 520
24 957 304

CASES

N
0
1
0
0
0
1
8
23
11
27
0
11
0
1
26
109
1
0
0
0
5
2
4
0
21
0
1
2
36
145

2011
ESTIMATED OR 
ESTABLISHED AMOUNT 
OF TOR
EUR
0
40 034
0
0
0
1 753 466
597 965
10 589 247
2 175 514
5 125 752
0
754 557
0
14 639
3 040 172
24 091 346
16 384
0
0
0
160 369
99 484
239 256
0
665 111
0
133 401
568 390
1 882 395
25 973 741

EN 

96 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 10 – PERCENTAGE CLASSIFICATION OF FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE 2009-2011 

PERCENTAGE CLASSIFICATION OF FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE 
2009-2011

120,00%

100,00%

S
E
S
A
C
D
U
A
R
F
%

80,00%

60,00%

40,00%

20,00%

0,00%

AT

BE DE DK ES

FI

FR

EL

IE

IT

LU

NL

PT

SE UK BG CY CZ

EE HU LT

LV MT

PL RO SI

SK

MEMBER STATE

2009

2010

2011

EN 

97 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 11 – AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN FRAUD PER MEMBER STATE PERIOD 2009-2011 

MEMBER 
STATE

CASES

AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
EL
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
SE
UK
EU-15
BG
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
RO
SI
SK
EU-12
EU-27

N

168
313
1 353
48
527
30
287
35
56
315
0
746
23
67
805
4 773
34
11
69
11
66
47
19
7
144
59
51
22
540
5 313

2 009

FRAUD 
CASES
N

62
52
102
10
257
12
22
33
11
181
0
76
4
4
80
906
22
2
3
0
7
14
1
7
39
15
23
11
144
105

FRAUD 
AMOUNTS
EUR
13 744 595
2 891 264
18 867 080
2 895 392
19 678 495
441 108
1 026 102
3 993 028
6 822 040
31 899 859
0
9 864 890
442 458
131 829
6 001 044
118 699 184
901 678
237 313
756 737
0
997 947
533 257
170 476
1 762 703
966 619
6 324 670
1 201 407
1 278 880
15 131 687
133 830 871

CASES

N

166
301
147
50
478
32
275
51
37
351
0
878
29
57
835
501
51
11
72
5
73
39
18
2
104
101
44
14
534
5 544

FRAUD 
AMOUNTS
EUR
4 976 303
6 920 716
13 808 113
20 134 101
84 181 199
183 111
1 225 476
5 704 488
5 642 987
28 006 185
0
3 192 474
1 419 134
1 176 998
1 674 684
178 245 969
2 927 396
183 816
13 042
0
229 308
214 829
143 611
495 717
1 148 572
3 327 675
563 520
0
9 247 486
187 493 455

CASES

N

77
177
1 212
76
389
55
323
45
28
290
0
734
18
53
771
4 248
30
4
49
3
66
45
34
1
132
53
21
10
448
4 696

2 011

FRAUD 
CASES
N

FRAUD 
AMOUNTS
EUR

13
24
68
18
248
7
22
43
11
123
0
16
4
2
25
624
24
0
1
0
1
16
0
1
28
17
11
0
99
723

940 829
3 015 774
6 826 486
1 676 801
36 147 025
1 921 645
1 517 410
14 711 032
2 175 514
16 221 117
0
863 864
345 964
28 014
2 808 709
89 200 184
1 139 831
0
38 622
0
52 089
15 448 318
0
75 168
716 414
1 715 784
1 000 073
0
20 186 299
109 386 483

2 010

FRAUD 
CASES
N

25
25
140
11
334
5
16
50
21
180
0
43
10
9
34
903
47
3
1
0
5
4
1
2
26
13
20
0
122
1 025

98 

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 12 - METHODS OF DETECTION OF OWNRES CASES – YEAR 2011 

Member State

Recovery Rate

%

Primary 
inspections
%

Ex-post 
controls
%

Voluntary 
admission
%

AT

BE

DE

DK

ES

FI

FR

EL

IE

IT

LU

NL

PT

SE

UK

CY

CZ

EE

HU

LT

LV

MT

PL

SI

SK

BG

RO

EU-27

34.20%

34.80%

80.50%

81.25%

25.62%

48.59%

54.13%

2.48%

79.86%

8.49%

0.00%

44.87%

55.47%

46.40%

71.85%

33.20%

69.32%

100.00%

74.50%

3.85%

20.36%

0.00%

78.65%

47.75%

89.74%

18.52%

73.95%

51.69%

3.50%

10.89%

5.71%

16.34%

28.55%

78.77%

13.08%

0.70%

0.00%

48.13%

0.00%

7.25%

2.32%

0.00%

5.86%

48.44%

0.50%

12.19%

14.35%

2.76%

31.81%

0.00%

8.33%

1.23%

36.61%

59.34%

0.58%

14.23%

86.84%

89.11%

80.52%

83.66%

64.43%

19.38%

86.60%

99.30%

100.00%

50.59%

0.00%

92.75%

92.23%

100.00%

93.05%

40.71%

78.42%

87.81%

85.65%

97.24%

68.19%

100.00%

91.67%

98.77%

58.91%

40.66%

99.42%

80.92%

9.66%

0.00%

13.77%

0.00%

7.02%

1.85%

0.32%

0.00%

0.00%

1.28%

0.00%

0.00%

5.45%

0.00%

1.10%

10.85%

21.08%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

0.00%

4.48%

0.00%

0.00%

4.85%

EN 

99 

   EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX 13 – CUSTOMS PROCEDURES AFFECTED TO FRAUD AND 

IRREGULARITY IN 2011 – BASED ON ESTABLISHED AMOUNTS 

Free 
circulation
79,99%
31,75%
89,45%
91,55%
97,43%
45,12%
96,08%
41,08%
97,27%
99,72%
0,00%
80,55%
89,19%
55,04%
74,12%
100,00%
100,00%
100,00%
95,18%
3,48%
79,77%
0,00%
93,96%
53,96%
100,00%
86,62%
22,92%
79,64%

%

Customs 
warehousing
4,27%
37,97%
4,35%
0,00%
1,32%
54,37%
1,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,06%
0,00%
12,31%
10,81%
0,00%
10,15%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
7,87%
5,53%

Transit

3,07%
27,78%
1,44%
3,79%
0,10%
0,51%
0,37%
3,21%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
5,69%
0,00%
0,00%
1,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
3,43%
92,92%
20,23%
0,00%
5,50%
35,63%
0,00%
13,38%
0,00%
6,84%

MS

AT
BE
DE
DK
ES
FI
FR
EL
IE
IT
LU
NL
PT
SE
UK
CY
CZ
EE
HU
LT
LV
MT
PL
SI
SK
BG
RO
EU-27

Inward 
processing

Other 

11,14%
1,52%
0,00%
2,50%
2,94%
1,83%
4,36%
0,29%
0,73%
0,42%
0,00%
0,00%
1,57%
0,98%
0,00%
55,71%
2,73%
0,00%
0,17%
0,05%
0,00%
0,00%
0,23%
1,22%
0,00%
0,00%
43,73%
1,23%
14,56%
0,17%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
1,38%
1,48%
2,12%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00% 100,00%
0,54%
0,00%
10,41%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
69,21%
0,00%
3,48%
4,52%

EN 

100 

   EN 

 
 
ANNEX 14 

Percentage of established and estimated OWNRES amounts to the collected and made 
available TOR (gross)*)  in 2011 per Member State

MS

Gross amount  TOR, €

*

OWNRES established and 
estimated amounts, €

Percentage 
OWNRES/gross 
TOR, %

AT

BE
DE

DK

ES
FI

FR
EL

IE
IT

LU
NL

PT
SE

UK

BG
CY

CZ
EE

HU
LT

LV
MT

PL
RO

SI
SK

EU-15

EU-12

EU-27

252 658 381

2 108 066 159
4 607 996 322

436 737 242

1 560 215 110
203 169 586

2 088 448 019
188 022 470

266 335 464
2 322 320 556

19 056 019
2 580 869 779

179 963 992
622 692 176

3 402 431 468
20 838 982 742

65 510 956
32 844 686

294 124 474
29 193 700

134 647 925
59 435 608

30 086 341
13 520 317

470 102 554
146 513 773

98 922 317
156 519 110
1 531 421 762

22 370 404 504

3 524 418

17 076 923
77 996 970

4 001 840

44 908 023
4 033 254

24 152 204
14 736 888

2 915 531
36 683 302

                             -     
52 001 575

960120
9 517 928

51 731 579
344 240 555

1 290 240
171 891

2 924 041
122 937

2 510 336
16 515 288

1 073 324
75 168

8 634 138
8 539 014

1 281 529
351 877
43 489 783

387 730 338

1,39%

0,81%
1,69%

0,92%

2,88%
1,99%

1,16%
7,84%

1,09%
1,58%

0,00%
2,01%

0,53%
1,53%

1,52%
1,65%

1,97%
0,52%

0,99%
0,42%

1,86%
27,79%

3,57%
0,56%

1,84%
5,83%

1,30%
0,22%
2,84%

1,73%

EN 

101 

   EN 

 
 
 
MEMBER 
STATES 

AMOUNT €  
IN 2010 

RECOVERED 
€ IN 2010 

ANNEX 15 – RECOVERY RATE TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (RR) 

RECOVERY RATES TRADITIONAL OWN RESOURCES (RR) 

9.583.091 
13.018.547 
1.477.979 
521.143 
9.538.150 
76.450.386 
24.092.404 
366.076 
73.239.617 
1.419.298 
24.455.970 
2.528.574 
8.123.679 
1.880.921 
45.458.660 
2.020.355 
0 € 
1.252.926 
495.717 
39.575.864 
3.026.036 
736.154 
9.588.424 
4.911.511 
1.297.962 
1.121.908 
36.580.488 

1.537.877 
9.278.560 
551.675 
312.112 
2.613.164 
55.807.307 
3.217.868 
161.236 
39.951.997 
1.139.242 
11.807.926 
77.886 
3.209.853 
496.014 
5.172.588 
662.505 

0 € 

21.760 
0 
13.554.793 
1.133.490 
550.663 
1.714.732 
4.339.607 
408.307 
941.828 
21.260.974 

2010 

2011 

RR IN 
2010 
16,05 %
71,27 %
37,33 %
59,89 %
27,40 %
73,00 %
13,36 %
44,04 %
54,55 %
80,27 %
48,28 %
3,08 %
39,51 %
26,37 %
11,38 %
32,79 %
0,00%
1,74 %
0,00 %
34,25 %
37,46 %
74,80 %
17,88 %
88,36 %
31,46 %
83,95 %
58,12 %

AMOUNT 
€  2011 
10.366.559 
23.813.009 
617.099 
521.143 
9.511.667 
92.642.316 
24.092.179 
161.236 
92.891.108 
1.419.298 
25.079.520 
3.147.264 
8.207.134 
1.873.490 
45.737.800 
2.020.355 
0 € 
1.510.864 
495.717 
38.103.850 
3.015.263 
923.479 
9.579.145 
4.905.268 
1.298.472 
1.121.908 
35.455.516 

RECOVERED 
€  2011 

RR 2011 

AMOUNT €  
2011 

RECOVERED 
€  2011 

RR 2011 

2.151.914 
10.340.999 
208.012 
330.190 
2.666.270 
70.977.620 
4.243.128 
161.236 
45.001.867 
1.202.911 
12.614.813 
462.366 
3.531.976 
488.583 
7.225.634 
662.505 
0 € 

34.028 
0
23.711.258 
1.323.912 
692.217 
1.765.780 
4.339.607 
700.754 
941.828 
29.453.935 

20,76 % 
43,43 % 
33,71 % 
63,36 % 
28,03 % 
76,61 % 
17,61 % 
100,00 % 
48,45 % 
84,75 % 
50,30 % 
14,69 % 
43,04 % 
26,08 % 
15,80 % 
32,79 % 
0,00% 
2,25 % 
0,00 % 
62,23 % 
43,91 % 
74,96 % 
18,43 % 
88,47 % 
53,97 % 
83,95 % 
83,07 % 

3.446.807 
5.719.743 
288.537 
171.891 
2.924.041 
77.083.981 
3.727.476 
122.937 
41.269.145 
4.033.254 
22.703.295 
3.703.561 
2.429.711 
740.017 
30.597.377 
16.435.450 
0 € 
1.073.324 
75.168 
30.777.719 
8.419.096 
771.560 
8.461.893 
9.503.289 
1.281.529 
351.877 
44.581.323 

1.178.666
1.990.555
53.440
57.071
2.026.952
62.055.924
3.028.645
122.937
10.571.949
1.959.750
12.288.403
92.024
1.810.162
590.958
2.596.304
632.689
0 €
218.562
0
13.809.403
6.621.871
427.999
6.257.541
4.409.948
611.874
315.761
32.033.762

34,20 % 
34,80 % 
18,52 % 
33,20 % 
69,32 % 
80,50 % 
81,25 % 
100,00 % 
25,62 % 
48,59 % 
54,13 % 
2,48 % 
74,50 % 
79,86 % 
8,49 % 
3,85 % 
0,00% 
20,36 % 
0,00 % 
44,87 % 
78,65 % 
55,47 % 
73,95 % 
46,40 % 
47,75 % 
89,74 % 
71,85 % 

392.761.840 € 

179.923.964 € 

45,81% 438.510.659 € 

225.233.343 € 

51,36% 

320.694.001 € 

165.763.150 €

51,69% 

AT 
BE 
BG 
CY 
CZ 
DE 
DK 
EE 
ES 
FI 
FR 
EL 
HU 
IE 
IT 
LT 
LU 
LV 
MT 
NL 
PL 
PT 
RO 
SE 
SI 
SK 
UK 
EUR-27 
TOTAL 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
Annex 16 – Administrative stage of all closed cases from 1989 to 2011 

MS 

Administrative 
procedure 

Judicial 
procedure 

Other* 

% 

AT 
BE 
DE 

DK 
ES 
FI 
FR 
EL 
IE 
IT 

LU 
NL 

PT 
SE 
UK 
CY 
CZ 
EE 
HU 

LT 
LV 
MT 
PL 
SI 
SK 
BG 
RO 
EUR -27 

91,54%

98,14%
76,76%

94,73%
93,55%
85,56%
91,60%
78,01%

98,80%
65,94%

95,45%
96,51%
88,06%
87,61%
88,41%
100,00%
96,35%
65,45%

83,37%
80,00%
60,00%
78,95%
83,06%
96,93%
86,73%
75,93%
89,52%
87,18%

1,21% 

1,38% 
3,02% 

2,01% 
2,71% 
0,00% 
6,80% 
20,48% 

0,00% 
25,07% 

0,00% 
0,13% 
6,27% 
7,76% 
7,77% 
0,00% 
0,30% 
29,09% 

14,81% 
18,80% 
27,14% 
13,16% 
15,57% 
1,23% 
1,02% 
18,52% 
10,48% 
5,00%

7,25% 

0,48% 
20,22% 

3,26% 
3,74% 
14,44% 
1,59% 
1,51% 

1,20% 
8,99% 

4,55% 
3,36% 
5,67% 
4,63% 
3,82% 
0,00% 
3,34% 
5,45% 

1,82% 
1,20% 
12,86% 
7,89% 
1,37% 
1,84% 
12,24% 
5,56% 
0,00% 
7,82% 

*Other administrative stages are: Remission procedure (Article 239(2) of Regulation No 2913/92 and Article 905 of 
Regulation No 2454/93, Write-off procedure for non-recoverable debts (Article 17(2) of Regulation No 1150/2000 
and Non-establishment due to an administrative error (Article 220(2) b of Regulation No 2913/92.v 

EN 

103 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 17: AGRICULTURAL EXPENDITURE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-2011 

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

EXPENDITURE FINANCIAL YEARS 2004-2011

amounts in million €

FY2011

FY2010

FY2009

FY2008

FY2007

FY2006

FY2005

FY2004

total expenditure 2004 - 2011

amounts

in % of total

9 481
6 994
6 698

5 892
4 171

3 955
2 854
1 705

1 603
1 455

1 312
1 259
1 122

1 027
999

989
839
738

645
533

433
270
221

180
60
49

9 418
6 838
6 687

5 491
3 355

3 823
2 901
1 422

1 596
1 335

1 295
1 182
995

1 054
996

961
844
711

625
486

559
252
206

156
59
51

10 205
5 917
6 237

5 419
2 906

3 135
2 807
1 148

1 634
1 422

1 276
950
836

1 172
842

1 026
788
853

536
472

348
219
205

151
63
47

9 716
6 262
6 344

5 604
2 415

3 566
2 687
475

1 787
900

1 115
974
689

1 124
942

1 035
787
757

332
314

231
198
182

90
56
44

9 736
5 919
5 975

5 222
2 297

4 341
2 879
7

1 723
651

827
822
540

1 086
951

1 144
809
854

302
324

0
166
169

79
45
47

10 126
6 723
6 497

5 499
2 113

4 302
3 083
0

1 753
757

1 296
974
459

1 157
935

1 217
850
979

250
306

0
136
156

74
48
49

9 940
6 592
6 343

5 793
1 342

4 225
2 756
0

1 777
410

1 229
906
379

1 217
930

1 277
898
995

196
230

0
96
107

66
39
45

9 700
6 359
5 761

5 310
11

4 088
2 781
0

1 855
0

1 139
847
5

1 220
882

1 231
877
1 037

1
1

0
0
0

1
0
38

78 321
51 604
50 543

44 231
18 609

31 435
22 748
4 757

13 728
6 930

9 487
7 913
5 025

9 057
7 476

8 881
6 692
6 924

2 889
2 666

1 571
1 337
1 246

796
370
369

20%
13%
13%

11%
5%

8%
6%
1%

3%
2%

2%
2%
1%

2%
2%

2%
2%
2%

1%
1%

0%
0%
0%

0%
0%
0%

MS

FR
ES
DE

IT
PL

UK
EL
RO

IE
HU

AT
PT
CZ

DK
SE

NL
FI
BE

SK
LT

BG
LV
SI

EE
CY
LU

MT
total

12
55 495
financial years 2004 - 2011: 16 October 2003 - 15 October 2011

22
53 320

12
50 625

5
48 629

6
46 921

2
49 743

6
47 794

0
43 145

65
395 671

0%
100%

EN 

104 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 18: REPORTING YEARS 2004–2011 – cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent 

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

REPORTING YEARS 2004-2011
cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent

description

cases

amounts in €

Rural development - Transitional Instrument for the new Member States

Rural development - period 2007 to 2013 (EAFRD)
Rural development - period 2000 to 2006 (EAGGF - Guarantee Section)
Rural development - other measures

Decoupled direct aids
Other direct aids

Fruit and vegetables
Beef and veal
Cereals - Market measures

Sheepmeat and goatmeat
W ine - Products of the wine-growing sector

Milk and milk products
Pigmeat, eggs and poultry, bee-keeping and other animal products
Olive oil

Ancillary direct aids (reliquats, small producers, agrimonetary aids, etc.)
Sugar

Other plant products/measures
Textile plants
Food programmes

Rice
Promotion

Non-Annex 1 products - refunds
Additional amounts of aid
Sugar Restructuring Fund

no data provided (concerns Finland and Italy)

246

233
158
0

363
113

76
66
61

53
41

31
8
6

6
5

5
4
4

3
3

2
2
1

2

8 355 946

48 008 093
38 471 333
0

20 194 651
53 614 709

41 800 021
7 254 274
11 373 469

9 842 719
3 721 921

11 762 971
279 411
144 572

747 717
275 924

1 320 507
40 797
189 950

581 274
178 732

56 246
84 379
130 656

109 926

EN 

105 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 19 FINANCIAL YEAR 2004 – detailed figures on cases, amounts, rates and levels 

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

FINANCIAL YEAR 2004

cases of irregularities                                                

expenditure

reported as fraudulent

cases

amounts in €

IrR

cases

amounts in €

FrR

FFL

FAL

1 138 656 625
1 037 439 422

4 709 829

5 761 466 322
1 219 778 220
549 348

2 781 392 099
6 358 832 455

877 003 118
9 700 274 541
495 937

1 854 807 600
5 310 290 203

529 064
37 803 194
35 319

1 231 483 329

10 786 207
846 534 755

882 182 751
70 725
1 427 900

53
40

1
1

298
43

91
434

11
399
1

100
386

2
4

126

6
258

71

1

506 025
653 266

0.04%
0.06%

66 700
17 070

5 336 662
14 813 952

1 732 596
23 944 248

125 566
5 213 333
157 042

1 109 257
56 032 872

17 571
42 680 ? 

0.36%

0.09%
1.21%

0.06%
0.38%

0.01%
0.05%
31.67%

0.06%
1.06%

0.05%

3 287 919

694 802
3 796 386

0.27%

6.44%
0.45%

745 024

0.08%

0

4 150 059
122 443 030

0.00%

0.10%
0.28%

1

1
7

1

66 700 ?

?

?

1 108 875
1 469 675

0.04%
0.02%

1.10%
1.61%

64.00%
6.14%

131 065

0.00%

0.25%

2.51%

145

29 672 615

0.56%

37.56%

52.96%

4

1

2
3

42 680

120.84%

100.00%

100.00%

10 302

17 342
59 740

0.00%

0.16%
0.01%

0.79%

33.33%
1.16%

0.31%

2.50%
1.57%

165

32 578 993

0.08%

6.57%

26.61%

UK
total

4 088 111 422
43 144 660 385

186
2 512

MS

AT
BE
BG

CY
CZ

DE
DK
EE

EL
ES

FI
FR
HU

IE
IT

LT
LU
LV

MT
NL

PL
PT
RO

SE
SI
SK

IrR = irregularity rate

(=amount affected by irregularities year n / expenditure year n)

FrR = fraud rate

(=amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / expenditure year n)

FFL = fraud frequency level

(=number of cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / total number of cases of irregularities year n)

FAL = fraud amount level

(=amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / amount affected by irregularities year n)

??? = indicates a reporting error

EN 

106 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 20: FINANCIAL YEAR 2005 – detailed figures on cases, amounts, rates and levels 

expenditure

cases of irregularities                                                

reported as fraudulent

cases

amounts in €

IrR

cases

amounts in €

FrR

FFL

FAL

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
FINANCIAL YEAR 2005

1 228 510 543
994 532 600

38 853 010
379 406 247
6 343 157 490
1 217 287 420
65 576 653
2 756 089 807
6 592 405 424
897 502 395
9 940 198 363
410 401 976
1 777 063 864
5 793 471 207
230 035 057
45 072 490
96 187 883
5 893 827
1 276 622 402
1 341 929 857
905 730 452

8
45

11
21
154
30
36
85
511
16
344
7
33
292
56

7

67
159
205

930 330 974
106 663 890
196 472 343
4 224 544 755
47 793 940 928

58
11
44
71
2 271

115 390
3 688 579

133 485
459 553
1 633 669
637 330
343 529
1 785 220
19 537 891
168 195
9 215 119
100 924
483 875
17 276 373
706 579

0.01%
0.37%

0.34%
0.12%
0.03%
0.05%
0.52%
0.06%
0.30%
0.02%
0.09%
0.02%
0.03%
0.30%
0.31%

82 629

0.09%

3 601 604
2 175 015
4 224 172

748 811
3 033 719
2 008 178
1 747 781
73 907 618

0.28%
0.16%
0.47%

0.08%
2.84%
1.02%
0.04%
0.15%

1
4

2
1
3

12
3

5

96

1

2
136

33 050
2 689 073

74 577
15 518
49 058

0.00%
0.27%

0.19%
0.00%
0.00%

12.50%
8.89%

18.18%
4.76%
1.95%

28.64%
72.90%

55.87%
3.38%
3.00%

148 126
171 284

0.01%
0.00%

14.12%
0.59%

8.30%
0.88%

1 106 910

0.01%

1.45%

12.01%

9 318 909

0.16%

32.88%

53.94%

12 750

0.01%

14.29%

15.43%

49 305
1 879 911

0.00%
0.14%

2.99%
85.53%

1.37%
86.43%

1
267

34 396
15 582 865

0.00%
0.03%

1.41%
11.76%

1.97%
21.08%

MS

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
total

IrR = irregularity rate

FrR = fraud rate

FFL = fraud frequency level
FAL = fraud amount level

(=amount affected by irregularities year n / expenditure year n)

(=amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / expenditure year n)

(=number of cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / total number of cases of irregularities year n)

(=amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / amount affected by irregularities year n)

EN 

107 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 21: FINANCIAL YEAR 2006 – detailed figures on cases, amounts, rates and levels 

MS

expenditure

cases of irregularities                                                

reported as fraudulent

cases

amounts in €

IrR

cases

amounts in €

FrR

FFL

FAL

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
FINANCIAL YEAR 2006

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
total

1 296 241 898
978 959 642

48 279 969
459 220 511
6 497 135 317
1 157 352 968
74 256 919
3 083 190 916
6 722 903 262
850 256 009
10 125 823 455
756 556 440
1 752 819 071
5 499 456 447
305 810 974
48 573 101
135 843 856
1 709 713
1 217 436 058
2 112 957 132
974 471 557

935 044 883
156 250 389
250 001 352
4 302 338 043
49 742 889 882

15
37

7
41
164
11
10
43
241
21
241
18
96
174
53

16

40
191
155

20
4
32
81
1 711

215 322
2 269 701

376 306
858 768
2 789 533
245 780
98 238
785 006
11 839 147
279 329
10 059 284
1 375 913
1 153 568
12 259 054
1 023 140

0.02%
0.23%

0.78%
0.19%
0.04%
0.02%
0.13%
0.03%
0.18%
0.03%
0.10%
0.18%
0.07%
0.22%
0.33%

207 516

0.15%

1 023 751
3 091 811
3 427 056

437 850
87 703
1 432 735
1 623 675
56 960 182

0.08%
0.15%
0.35%

0.05%
0.06%
0.57%
0.04%
0.11%

2
4

4

8
3

10
1

44
3

1

127
2

1
210

28 558
1 092 803

0.00%
0.11%

13.33%
10.81%

13.26%
48.15%

30 317

0.00%

2.44%

1.09%

171 606
71 123

3 054 519
24 483

4 041 990
296 718

0.01%
0.00%

0.03%
0.00%

0.07%
0.10%

18.60%
1.24%

21.86%
0.60%

4.15%
5.56%

30.37%
1.78%

25.29%
5.66%

32.97%
29.00%

16 309

0.01%

6.25%

7.86%

2 003 230
182 383

0.09%
0.02%

66.49%
1.29%

64.79%
5.32%

14 275
11 028 312

0.00%
0.02%

1.23%
12.27%

0.88%
19.36%

IrR = irregularity rate

FrR = fraud rate

(=amount affected by irregularities year n / expenditure year n)

(=amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / expenditure year n)

FFL = fraud frequency level

(=number of cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / total number of cases of irregularities year n)

FAL = fraud amount level

(=amount affected by cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / amount affected by irregularities year n)

EN 

108 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 22: FINANCIAL YEARS 2004–2006 – beneficiaries and cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent 

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
FINANCIAL YEARS 2004 - 2006

amounts in €

29 766 296 358
19 674 141 141
18 601 759 128
16 603 217 858
12 614 994 220
8 620 672 822
5 384 690 535
3 725 541 789
3 663 409 066
3 594 418 609
3 465 673 196
3 010 931 663
2 747 558 608
2 726 736 763
2 624 761 522
1 167 454 352
843 336 587
536 375 095
447 901 595
262 985 005
232 067 058
140 382 921
131 448 784
87 132 979
7 603 540

expenditure

number of payments
FY2005
10 075 528
5 518 782
4 301 748
4 588 296
5 973 541
3 457 122
2 067 623
4 601 761
1 560 997
2 774 609
3 589 160
558 741
549 893
1 383 803
779 142
734 138
37 253
1 230 228
31 253
843 803
280 522
52 835
42 611
64 435
15 166

FY2004
7 324 790
5 430 089
4 263 348
5 304 637
6 958 126
3 240 413
1 583 324
4 168 962
1 380 856
2 637 336
352
525 806
523 054
1 380 365
817 491
790
247
7
3
152
101
48
42 946
0
0

FY2006
6 512 348
8 520 054
3 137 215
6 947 982
2 862 584
4 408 407
633 366
5 983 513
1 241 555
1 891 436
4 346 431
517 797
467 455
1 558 134
832 538
311 846
45 081
1 136 861
36 201
858 137
412 033
59 245
34 213
108 017
5 726

cases of irregularities

of which reported as fraudule

 FY2004 

 FY2005 

number of beneficiaries
FY2005

FY2006

FY2004

 reported for 
FY2004-2006 

cases

638 664
950 116
414 988
1 703 609
413 633
959 169
194 362
81 658
160 009
86 285
21
48 612
71 206
271 150
87 613
754
11
2
2
8
3
5
2 311
0
0

583 800
964 642
411 485
1 494 041
445 782
890 616
151 022
103 058
152 639
82 445
1 410 136
48 582
73 391
268 115
83 322
207 942
18 870
239 172
12 425
65 646
70 141
19 937
2 319
35 987
6 299

547 548
964 191
433 764
1 622 352
270 942
926 345
150 102
108 517
155 148
89 963
1 037 919
49 718
143 205
274 608
79 572
210 810
20 993
233 672
13 992
61 715
81 611
20 893
2 247
39 976
4 076

-
-

-
-

-
-

984
1 186
578
669
329
160
229
233
76
83
312
114
138
592
43
26
63
104
55
14
26
46
2
17

1
7

145

1

1

2

3

4

1

FFL-B
0.0002%
0.0007%
0.0000%
0.0085%
0.0000%
0.0001%
0.0000%
0.0012%
0.0000%
0.0000%
9.5238%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0011%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
?
0.0000%
0.0000%
?
0.0000%

cases

5
3
3
96
1
12

2
1

136
4

1

1

2

FFL-B
0.0009%
0.0003%
0.0007%
0.0064%
0.0002%
0.0013%
0.0000%
0.0019%
0.0007%
0.0000%
0.0096%
0.0082%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0053%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0014%
0.0000%
0.0000%
0.0056%
0.0000%

MS

FR
ES
DE
IT
UK
EL
IE
NL
AT
DK
PL
BE
SE
PT
FI
HU
CZ
LT
SK
SI
LV
EE
LU
CY
MT
BG
RO
total

140 681 491 195

45 583 243

55 112 990

52 868 175

6 084 191

7 841 814

7 543 879

6 079

165

0.0027%

267

0.0034%

FFL-B = bumber of beneficiaries involved in cases of irregularities reported as fraudulent year n / number of beneficiaries year n

? = more cases of suspected fraud than beneficiaries which implies a reporting error

EN 

109 

EN 

 
  
ANNEX 23 – EUROPEAN FISHERY FUND  

Irregularities reported under Regulation (EC) No 498/2007 – Year 2011 

Reported irregularities

Of which, reported as fraudulent

Member 
States

N° of 
irregularities*
N

Related financial volume

EUR

N° of cases of 
suspected fraud**
N

Related financial 
volume
EUR

CZ
DE
ES
NL
PL
PT
TOTAL

1
1
23
1
20
2
48

7 299
3 397
1 297 413

279 004
55 033
1 642 146

1

1

2

3 397

22 580

25 977

* According to article 55§1 Member States shall report any irregularity which have been the subject of a primary administrative or judicial finding. 
The concept of irregularity includes also cases of suspected and established fraud. The qualification as fraud, meaning criminal behaviour, can 
only be made following a penal procedure. 

** According to article 55§1, e), In that report, Member States shall in all cases give details concerning, where appropriate, whether the practice 
gives rise to a suspicion of fraud 

EN 

110 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 24 – COHESION FOR GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT POLICY* - 

GENERAL TRENDS 

IRREGULARITIES** COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES 2001-2011 

YEAR

REPORTED 
IRREGULARITIES
N

RELATED 
AMOUNTS
EUR

TOTAL 
BUDGET
Million EUR

IMPACT ON 
BUDGET
%

2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001

3 880
7 062
4 737
3 961
3 619
3 047
3 417
3 123
2 323
4 607
1 337

1 219 636 631
1 550 157 698
1 183 127 610
512 871 553
652 092 147
647 773 952
581 214 090
617 099 163
444 278 642
579 010 650
210 329 680

50 100
49 144
48 400
46 889
45 327
38 430
37 192
35 665
30 764
30 556
29 823

8 000

7 000

6 000

5 000

4 000

3 000

2 000

1 000

0

2.43%
3.15%
2.44%
1.09%
1.44%
1.69%
1.56%
1.73%
1.44%
1.89%
0.71%

1 800

1 600
1 400

1 200
1 000

800
600

400
200

0

R
U
E
n
o

i
l
l
i

M

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

YEAR

Related amounts

Reported irregularities

* The table includes also irregularities affecting the Cohesion Fund 

**The concept of irregularity includes also cases of suspected and established fraud. The 
qualification  as  fraud,  meaning  criminal  behaviour,  can  only  be  made  following  a  penal 
procedure. 

EN 

111 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 25 - REGULATION No 1681/94: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011 

STRUCTURAL FUNDS 

A) NUMBER OF IRREGULARITIES BY MEMBER STATE AND BY FUND 

TOTAL REPORTED IRREGULARITIES

of which, IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT

MEMBER 
STATE

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF - 
Guidance

FIFG

TOTAL

Reported as 
suspected fraud

N

N

N

N

N

N

Reported as 
established 
fraud
N

Considered as 
suspected 
fraud
N

AT
BE
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IT
LT
LV
NL
PL
PT
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL

EN 

8
3
12
124
2
1
147

136
8
138
3
7
6
11
225

24
25
880

9
13

52
1
4
35
1
105

1
18

7
14
260

1
10

2
6
5

54
12
45

3

8
52
1
6
3
208

1

1
25

1

4

4

1

2
39

8
3
22
148
2
4
230
6
5
225
21
292
3
10
10
20
295
2
37
44
1 387

112 

2

1
13

3
1

34

1

3
18
1
2

79

5

1

3
9

1
1
3

3
3
11

Total reported 
as fraudulent

FFL

N

2
0
1
18
0
0
3
1
0
1
1
37
0
1
0
3
19
1
5
6
99

%

25.0%
0.0%
4.5%
12.2%
0.0%
0.0%
1.3%
16.7%
0.0%
0.4%
4.8%
12.7%
0.0%
10.0%
0.0%
15.0%
6.4%
50.0%
13.5%
13.6%
7.1%

EN 

 
  
 
B) AMOUNTS AFFECTED BY IRREGULARITIES BY MEMBER STATE AND BY FUND 

TOTAL REPORTED IRREGULARITIES

of which, IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT

MEMBER 
STATE

ERDF

ESF

EAGGF - 
Guidance

FIFG

TOTAL

Reported as 
suspected fraud

N

N

N

N

N

N

Reported as 
established 
fraud
N

Considered as 
suspected 
fraud
N

AT
BE
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IT
LT
LV
NL
PL
PT
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL

12 438 194
153 137
1 709 525
26 127 254
29 731
89 375
49 005 037

103 371 372
1 237 063
60 385 978
1 391 901
746 626
183 458
2 542 053
25 342 358

188 509
790 638

2 232 375
11 257
129 062
19 987 835
24 852
6 227 529

40 572
420 647

5 059 076
5 119 119

573 481
982 880
294 931 257 31 609 636

19 868

469 537

23 402
707 649

12 344
2 097 136

28 753
4 805 829
119 697

12 438 194
153 137
1 921 436
27 645 409
29 731
130 472
58 140 376
130 954
598 599
172 682 434
1 701 598
81 621 091
1 391 901
879 101
571 299
3 060 826
28 524 119
1 329 503
6 190 889
7 741 050
1 309 338
72 268 543 8 072 682 406 882 118

478 201
2 761 113
193 509
558 332
329 713

49 323 227
439 683
12 366 959

2 640 625

1 135 994

132 475

387 841

17 536

9 062
6 963 010

74 706
11 257

3 640 386

167 480

1 897 222
745 507
193 509
879 025

14 598 701

280 356

125 226
67 841
290 668

40 339

473 121
793 816

211 031
157 289
852 055

Total reported 
as fraudulent

FAL

N

17 536
0
9 062
7 243 366
0
0
74 706
11 257
0
125 226
67 841
3 931 055
0
167 480
0
1 897 222
785 846
193 509
1 090 056
630 410
16 244 573

%
0.1%
0.0%
0.5%
26.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.1%
8.6%
0.0%
0.1%
4.0%
4.8%
0.0%
19.1%
0.0%
62.0%
2.8%
14.6%
17.6%
8.1%
4.0%

EN 

113 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 26 - REGULATION No 1828/2006: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011 

COHESION FOR GROWTH AND EMPLOYMENT 

A) N° OF IRREGULARITIES BY FUND AND BY MEMBER STATE 

TOTAL REPORTED IRREGULARITIES

MEMBER 
STATE

ERDF

COHESION 
FUND

N

N

ESF

N

TOTAL

N

Reported as 
suspected 
fraud
N

of which, IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT
Considered 
as suspected 
fraud
N

Reported as 
established 
fraud
N

Total reported 
as fraudulent

N

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL

27
14
34
1
126
67
2
33
108
6
45
64
9

72
55

22
2
23
599
42
39
4
13
50
151
1 608

2

16

8
2

67

2

18
2
7

2
5

131

8
43
15

100
78
2
9
40
6

2
10
31
25
5
4
7
1
17
83
30
13
3
17
27
114
690

35
57
51
1
242
145
4
42
148
12
45
74
21
31
97
127
4
31
3
40
700
74
59
7
32
82
265
2 429

6

9

10
28

1
2

1
1
11
2

6

1
44
2
6
1
2
1
17
151

6
0
9
0
10
30
0
2
2
0
0
5
1
1
13
9
0
6
0
1
47
2
6
1
5
3
17
176

2

3

5

1

5

2
7

3

2

20

FFL

%

17.1%
0.0%
17.6%
0.0%
4.1%
20.7%
0.0%
4.8%
1.4%
0.0%
0.0%
6.8%
4.8%
3.2%
13.4%
7.1%
0.0%
19.4%
0.0%
2.5%
6.7%
2.7%
10.2%
14.3%
15.6%
3.7%
6.4%
7.2%

EN 

114 

EN 

 
  
 
B) FINANCIAL VOLUME OF IRREGULARITIES BY FUND AND BY MEMBER STATE 

of which, IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT
Considered 
as suspected 
fraud
EUR

Reported as 
established 
fraud
EUR

Total reported 
as fraudulent

Reported as 
suspected 
fraud
EUR
1 083 057

TOTAL REPORTED IRREGULARITIES

MEMBER 
STATE

ERDF

COHESION 
FUND

EUR

EUR

ESF

EUR

TOTAL

EUR

172 024
3 408 652
918 778

2 392 149
5 551 532
68 474
1 414 908
1 531 800
157 742

3 723 408
3 842 566
4 915 087
23 562
157 769 325
15 223 444
126 867
3 187 573
34 580 954
306 991
12 438 010
125 888 769
1 809 494
783 949
111 866 262
52 353 767
65 626
12 041 290
92 826
1 482 068
145 949 291
27 474 265
7 044 140
1 233 608
6 099 486
15 983 509
24 279 536
70 903 479 770 585 672

82 117
490 827
783 949
8 026 329
567 777
65 626
386 193
15 108
668 674
16 830 801
3 041 104
378 096
85 205
2 270 147
4 720 381
16 875 085

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
TOTAL

3 551 384
433 914
3 594 185
23 562
75 356 837
9 671 912
58 393
1 772 665
33 049 153
149 249
12 438 010
114 250 277
1 262 995

103 839 932
13 246 658

11 624 746
77 718
813 394
65 775 266
24 234 885
6 449 829
1 148 403
3 733 489
2 394 644
7 404 451

402 124

80 020 338

11 556 375
55 672

38 539 332

30 351

63 343 224
198 277
216 216

95 850
8 868 484

496 355 950 203 326 243

EN 

EUR
1 083 057
0
749 919
0
19 098 694
5 590 512
0
414 266
58 166
0
0
726 248
60 647
15 672
69 933 047
1 032 525
0
7 674 441
0
63 693
61 927 785
173 862
1 193 059
30 015
1 691 072
520 593
461 973
172 499 246

744 041

14 754

726 248

68 257 407
722 597

353 185

518 500

261 253

1 262 541

70 335 444

749 919

19 098 694
4 846 471

399 512
58 166

60 647
15 672
1 675 640
309 928

7 674 441

63 693
61 574 601
173 862
1 193 059
30 015
1 172 572
259 340
461 973
100 901 260

115 

FAL

%

29.1%
0.0%
15.3%
0.0%
12.1%
36.7%
0.0%
13.0%
0.2%
0.0%
0.0%
0.6%
3.4%
2.0%
62.5%
2.0%
0.0%
63.7%
0.0%
4.3%
42.4%
0.6%
16.9%
2.4%
27.7%
3.3%
1.9%
22.4%

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 27 - REGULATION No 1828/2006: RECOVERIES IN 2011 

MEMBER 
STATE

PUBLIC 
CONTRIBUTION 
RECOVERED

of which, EU 
SHARE 
RECOVERED

EUR

EUR

AMOUNT OF PUBLIC 
CONTRIBUTION 
RECOVERED RELATED TO 
IRREGULARITIES
EUR

TOTAL AMOUNT OF 
EXPENDITURE RELATED 
TO IRREGULARITIES

EUR

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
ES
FI
FR
GR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
Cross-Border 
Cooperation
TOTAL

14 493
2 569
2 101 012

2 855 550
42 231 281
34 821
0
0
827 209
0

26 256 772
0
23 427 523
1 491 786
0
6 002 377

18 882 259
0
2 577 361
1 398 045
1 634 862
1 248 162
1 606 678

685 237
133 277 996

1 522
1 284
1 784 559

2 427 217
15 258 870

0
368 409

22 318 257
0
9 657 098
172 586

58 193

12 659 949
0
2 212 732
683 404
1 389 633
1 058 737
185 168

200 394
70 438 012

116 

11 450
0
1 490 307

1 687 477
3 953 463
0
0
0
517 662
0

25 678 824
0
2 270 930
573 873
0
342 459

14 607 099
0
2 152 898
115 465
1 634 862
804 266
1 104 354

363 313
57 308 700

17 920
0
1 490 307

1 742 032
5 310 944
0
0
0
683 055
0

27 244 890
0
2 302 700
590 381
0
391 196

16 249 376
0
2 161 175
115 465
1 634 862
828 450
1 751 941

377 098
62 891 791

EN 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 28 - REGULATION N. 1831/94: IRREGULARITIES COMMUNICATED BY MEMBER STATES UNDER IN 2011 

COHESION FUND 

TOTAL REPORTED IRREGULARITIES

MEMBER 
STATE

Reported 
irregularities

Irregular amounts

CZ
ES
GR
IE
LT
PL
PT
SK
TOTAL

N

6
3
14
3
8
5
19
6
64

EUR

4 684 545
483 353
11 298 028
1 552 044
569 966
15 998 132
5 404 973
2 177 800
42 168 842

of which, IRREGULARITIES REPORTED AS 
FRAUDULENT

of which 
suspected 
fraud

amounts linked 
to suspected 
fraud

FFL

FAL

N

EUR

%

%

1

1

15 739 519

20.0% 98.4%

15 739 519

1.6% 37.3%

EN 

117 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 29 - PRE-ACCESSION ASSISTANCE: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011 

FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVES 2000-2006 

A) IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY PROGRAMME AND BENEFICIARY COUNTRY 

ALL PROGRAMMES 

BENEFICIARY 
COUNTRY

ISPA

PHARE

SAPARD

N

N

N

Transitional 
Facility
N

TPA

N

TOTAL

N

PROGRAMMES

reported as 
suspected fraud

N

FFL

%

REPORTED IRREGULARITIES 

of which, REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT

BG
EE
HR
HU
LT
PL
RO
SK
TR
TOTAL

16
1

23

40

11

2
2
1

23
1

40

13

1

34
99

147

40
1
2
3
2
34
145
0
15
243

1

1

15
15

4

26
15

2
47

10.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
76.5%
10.3%
0.0%
13.3%
19.3%

EN 

118 

EN 

 
  
 
 
B) IRREGULAR AMOUNTS REPORTED BY PROGRAMME AND BENEFICIARY COUNTRY 

TOTAL IRREGULAR AMOUNTS REPORTED

of which, REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT

BENEFICIARY 
COUNTRY

ISPA

PHARE

SAPARD

Transitional 
Facility

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

PROGRAMMES

TPA

EUR

TOTAL

reported as 
suspected fraud

EUR

EUR

FAL

%

BG
EE
HR
HU
LT
PL
RO
SK
TR
TOTAL

23 598 714
72 897

385 815

2 850 580

81 292
5 993
2 798 586

2 212 473
0

6 674 017
11 641 380

6 814 159

30 485 770 5 484 159 21 165 977

5 549

26 835 109
72 897
81 292
5 993
2 804 135
6 674 017
20 668 012
0
1 370 162
5 549 1 370 162 58 511 616

1 370 162

7 516 614

619 521
2 122 578

683 569
10 942 282

28.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
9.3%
10.3%
0.0%
49.9%
18.7%

EN 

119 

EN 

 
  
 
ANNEX 30 - INSTRUMENT FOR PRE-ACCESSION: IRREGULARITIES REPORTED IN 2011 

FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVES 2007-2013 

ALL PROGRAMMES 

A) IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY PROGRAMME AND BENEFICIARY COUNTRY 

TOTAL IRREGULARITIES REPORTED

of which, REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT

COMPONENTS

BENEFICIARY 
COUNTRY

Cross Border 
Cooperation

Human 
Resources 
Development

Rural 
Development

Regional 
Development

Technical 
Assistance

TOTAL

reported as 
suspected fraud

N

N

N

N

N

N

N

HR
IT
MK
TR
TOTAL

1
1

2

10
10

3

3

3
3

2
2

1
1
3
15
20

FFL

%

0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
33.3%
45.0%

1
3
5
9

B) IRREGULAR AMOUNTS REPORTED BY PROGRAMME AND BENEFICIARY COUNTRY 

TOTAL IRREGULAR AMOUNTS REPORTED

of which, REPORTED AS FRAUDULENT

COMPONENTS

BENEFICIARY 
COUNTRY

Cross Border 
Cooperation

Human 
Resources 
Development

Rural 
Development

Regional 
Development

Technical 
Assistance

TOTAL

reported as 
suspected fraud

EUR

EUR

EUR

EUR

EU R

EUR

EUR

HR
IT
MK
TR
TOTAL

17 700
856 800

874 500

213 684
213 684

87 332

87 332

0
0

100 927
100 927

17 700
856 800
87 332
314 611
1 276 443

856 800
87 332
38 951
983 083

FAL

%

0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
12.4%
77.0%

EN 

120 

EN 

 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX 31 - IRREGULARITIES REPORTED BY MEMBER STATES IN 2011  

OWN RESOURCES, AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES, AND COHESION POLICY,  

TRADITIONAL OWN 
RESOURCES

AGRICULTURE

FISHERIES

COHES

Member State

AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HU
IE
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK

EU-27 TOTAL

N

77
177
30
4
49
1 212
76
3
45
389
55
323
66
28
290
45

34
1
734
132
18
53
53
21
10
771
4 696

EUR

N

EUR

N

EUR

3 446 807
5 719 743
288 537
171 891
2 924 041
77 083 981
3 727 476
122 937
3 703 561
41 269 145
4 033 254
22 703 295
2 429 711
740 017
30 597 377
16 435 450

1 073 324
75 168
30 777 719
8 419 096
77 156
8 461 893
9 503 289
1 281 529
351 877
44 581 323
320 694 001

22
16
178
22
62
64
9
15
41
267
6
110
239
54
590
68

9
10
70
136
226
112
13
8
15
33
2 395

297 830
1 308 449
6 277 214
402 669
2 138 724
5 679 056
190 188
405 974
865 364
11 621 716
195 395
71 628 864
17 482 936
1 515 744
26 328 492
1 629 924

345 753
579 775
3 026 479
8 424 400
8 609 574
6 275 291
823 916
216 223
1 408 718
793 578
178 472 244

1
1

7 299
3 397

23

1 297 413

1
20
2

279 004
55 033

48

1 642 146

N

43
60
51
1
270
293
6
46
381
18
50
313
42
34
389
138
4
41
3
50
725
388
59
7
34
125
309
3 880

EN 

121 

   EN